Mr.
Hayes: The test of reasonableness is not unusual in
legislation or in law. However, in these terms, I would expect it to
take into account what employer representatives felt was acceptable,
and what the sector skills councils—which we mentioned earlier
and which are centrally involved in apprenticeship
frameworks—felt was tolerable. In discussion with Government,
that mix could come to a definition of reasonableness that by all
accounts is not what we have now. I have offered some examples of that
to the Committee this morning.
Most
employers—including those in the hon. Lady’s
constituency, which I take careful note of—and those in mine,
and their representative organisations, seem tofeel that at the moment
we are not being reasonable about regulation, bureaucracy and red tape.
To achieve the
reasonableness that she personifies—which I merely seek to
emulate—we need to lighten the burden rather than add to
it. The risk of
all legislation is that it adds to administrative burdens. Almost by
definition, that is the case. As we scrutinise the Bill, we should be
determined to strip out all that is not necessary to our shared
ambition to make apprenticeships a bigger part of how we respond to the
economic downturn and rebuild the nation’s skills. In that
spirit, I ask the hon. Lady, the Minister and others to consider the
amendments carefully and I wait to hear what the Minister says with
bated breath.
Stephen
Williams (Bristol, West) (LD): I rise briefly to support
the amendments. It is obvious that if a business or a training provider
puts forward a draft proposal for an apprenticeship framework, there
should be information to accompany it. That information should be clear
in advance. It is not clear how the business or the training provider
will know in advance exactly what they need to provide alongside their
application. However, as long as it is clear in advance, that should
mitigate any misunderstandings and areas that later need
clarification.
If certain
areas need to be questioned by the body that will approve the
apprenticeship framework, such requests for further information should
not be onerous. If the application amounts to a refusal, the refusal
notice should be clear and given on a timely basis. I hope that the
Minister will clarify the process for the applicant who comes back with
a fresh or slightly amended proposal after a refusal. What time scales
are envisaged in order to get that apprenticeship framework agreed as
soon as
possible?
9.45
am
Mr.
Simon: I can reassure Opposition Members that we agree
entirely that the process of agreeing apprenticeship frameworks needs
to be as unbureaucratic and unburdensome as possible. Where we differ
in that respect is that we are convinced that the Bill contains such
injunctions, which I will come on to explain. However, we equally share
the hon. Gentleman’s determination that the process be
streamlined and effective—particularly for small
businesses.
Sector skills
councils have streamlined the process; they are in the process of
making it more streamlined, and will continue to do so. We have reduced
the burden of data collection, we have already streamlined the
framework developing and issuing process so that employers can develop
in-house training programmes as frameworks, provided that they comply
with the SASE. We have already asked sector skills councils to
streamline processes further in the forthcoming months and
years.
Clause 14
sets out the procedure for when individuals and organisations submit
draft apprenticeship framework to an issuing authority and request that
it be published as a framework. If the issuing authority chooses not to
publish it as a framework, then they must give a reason for that
decision. Amendments Nos. 100 and 101 both aim to ensure that the
issuing authority does not require unreasonable or burdensome amounts
of information to be submitted alongside the draft framework.
I am
sympathetic to those outcomes, but we believe that the Bill will do
that job. We included a commitment in “World-class
Apprenticeships” to streamlining the
framework development process to make it more user-friendly to providers
and organisations and also to make it easier for them to develop
frameworks appropriate to their business. That is why the Bill ensures
that issuing authorities will be able to require only
“appropriate” information to be provided. If the
information requested is unduly burdensome, or unnecessary, it would
not be appropriate. I hope that
hon. Members will accept my assurance that this will be a light-touch
process—only enough information to ensure that there is
sufficient rigour in meeting the requirements set out in the SASE will
be required. Rather than imposing a burden on providers and employers,
I expect that issuing authorities will work closely with providers and
employers to support them in getting their frameworks to that standard
as quickly as possible and to focus their efforts on reducing
significantly the current lengthy process, which can be involved,
before frameworks are available for learners to undertake
apprenticeships.
Similarly, we
will ensure that the approval process after a draft framework is
submitted is as streamlined as possible. However, I am not persuaded
that it is sensible to require the framework issuing authority in
England to notify those submitting draft apprenticeship frameworks when
a draft has been rejected within a specified period of time, as
amendment 102 suggests. By applying a time limit, the issuing authority
will be held accountable for any breach of the proposed limit, even
when circumstances might arise that would reasonably prevent the
issuing authority from meeting any specified deadline.
Issuing
authorities will be working hand in hand with those who are developing
frameworks and there should be no delay in making them aware of areas
where the draft framework does not comply with the specification of
apprenticeship standards for England. I will expect the issuing
authority to proceed quickly in its decision making during that
iterative process. Our intention is that, as part of its role in
performance managing the sector skills council, the UK Commission for
Employment and Skills will ensure the prompt issuing of
frameworks.
I now turn to
the question from the hon. Member for Bristol, West, about what happens
if the sector skills council refuses to issue a framework. If the
framework complies properly with the specification of apprenticeships
standards in England—if it fits—the sector skills council
cannot refuse to issue the framework. Where the framework does not fit,
the sector skills council’s job is to work as closely, quickly
and co-operatively as possible with the proposer to help them to make
it
fit.
Mr.
Hayes: What representations has the Minister had from
sector skills councils? Have they complained about the bureaucratic
burden that deters SMEs and others from engaging with
apprenticeships?
Mr.
Simon: I personally have not had any such representations.
I suppose that I need to remind the hon. Gentleman that I am not the
Minister with responsibility for apprenticeships. Therefore it is
conceivable that, if such representations have been made, they have
been made to the relevant Minister, Lord Young of Norwood Green, in the
other place. However, I am pretty nearly 100 per cent. certain that no
such representations have been made to him, as they have not been made
to me or to the Department in any other way.
In that case,
I hope that hon. Members will be persuaded that, given the use of the
word “appropriate” in the Bill, the provisions that they
sought to highlight with their amendments are included and that if we
amended the Bill as they wanted, it would be tautologous. On that
basis, therefore, I ask them to withdraw kindly and graciously their
amendments.
Mr.
Hayes: It would be unreasonable to press the amendments,
given that we are really debating the difference between
“reasonable” and “appropriate”, which is
not just dancing on the head of a pin but on a pin that has a very
small head.
On that
basis, and having received the Minister’s assurances that he is
in dialogue with the representatives of businesses, that he shares our
ambition and that he acknowledges the remarks that I have quoted from
BCC, the Federation of Small Businesses and so on, I beg to ask leave
to withdraw the amendment that stands in my name and that of my hon.
Friends. Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn. Clause
14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause
15
Transitional
provision for apprenticeship frameworks:
England
Mr.
Simon: I beg to move amendment 159, in clause 15,
page 7, line 27, leave out ‘the
purposes of this Chapter’ and insert—
‘all purposes or for purposes
specified in the
order’.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to take
Government amendments 160 to 162, 164, 167 to 170 and
172.
Mr.
Simon: Clause 15 enables the Secretary of State to make an
order making certain transitional provisions in relation to
apprenticeship frameworks. This is intended to ensure that
apprenticeship frameworks that already exist when clause 12 comes into
force can be treated as if they are a framework issued under the terms
of the Bill. In turn, this is intended to allow a reasonable period for
new frameworks to be developed and issued, under the terms of the
specification of apprenticeship standards for England, and to ensure
that existing apprentices and those who are embarking on
apprenticeships over the next few years are not
disadvantaged.
Amendment 159
is a technical amendment that will ensure that apprentices who are
participating in the apprenticeship scheme in part 4, also known as the
16 to 18 apprenticeship entitlement, can benefit from the transitional
provisions included in clause 15. Amendments 160 to 162 and 164 are
consequential amendments to clause 15. Amendments 167 to 170
and 172 make the same changes to clause 20, which applies in
Wales.
Mr.
Nick Gibb (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con): As the
Minister says, clause 15, as originally drafted before these
amendments,
says: “The
Secretary of State may by order provide for an existing vocational
specification to be treated... as if it were an apprenticeship
framework”. Obviously,
there need to be transitional arrangements. Our concern is about what,
precisely, will be in the order. Which existing vocational
specifications will become
apprenticeships? Again, it is about quality, as my hon. Friend the
Member for South Holland and The Deepings mentioned. The concern is to
ensure that this is not just another method of creating vast numbers of
apprenticeships out of things that are not actually apprenticeships. If
the Minister listed all the vocational specifications that he intends
to put in the order, it would help the
Committee. The
Government amendments seem to broaden the scope of clause 15 further by
extending the transitional arrangements to include apprenticeships for
16 to 18-year-olds. An assurance from the Minister about quality will
help to ensure that the amendments have a swift passage on to the
statute book.
Mr.
Simon: Existing apprenticeships are all that we are
talking about. There is no question of reclassifying anything that is
not currently an apprenticeship as an apprenticeship. The regulations
will simply specify the various kinds of vocational training linked to
employment that can be apprenticeships and define the existing
apprenticeships as apprenticeships until transition. Those matters
require regulation because the legislation does not
exist.
Mr.
Hayes: Will programme-led apprenticeships be
included?
Mr.
Simon: No: as he knows, a programme-led apprenticeship is
not defined as an apprenticeship now; we do not count it in our
listings of apprenticeships or in our current targets. It is not an
apprenticeship under the Bill and it will not be an apprenticeship in
the future.
To restate my
answer to his hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and
Littlehampton, an apprenticeship that is currently defined as an
apprenticeship under the blueprint will, by these regulations, be
defined as an apprenticeship for a discrete period. The day after the
school leaving date in 2013 is the maximum final point. Until then,
current apprenticeships will still be apprenticeships and nothing that
is not currently an apprenticeship will be an apprenticeship under
these regulations.
Amendment
159 agreed to.
Stephen
Williams: I beg to move amendment 109, in
clause 15, page 7, line 29, after
‘certificates’, insert
‘following consultation with any
institutions involved in the provision of education and training
associated with the existing vocational
specification.’. In
fact, we have just had some of the discussion about what courses may be
rebadged as apprenticeships that would probably have occurred in the
debate on this amendment. The amendment’s purpose is for
providers of the existing provision to be consulted, whatevercourse is
rebadged on a transitional basis as qualifying under the framework. The
Minister said, in response to the hon. Members for Bognor Regis and
Littlehampton and for South Holland and The Deepings, that this is a
transitional arrangement while the Bill, should it be passed, takes
effect. That arrangement will lapse, as I understand it, on the summer
2013 school leaving date.
Of course, in
the summer of 2013, all sorts of other things are meant to be in place
as well: the national entitlement to the new diploma lines and the
raising of
the education, training and participation age to 17. An important period
in education awaits us. In the mean time, there are many other
Government targets to be met. There must be a temptation, but not an
intention, for a future Minister—not the current
Under-Secretary—to acquiesce in the rebadging of the existing
provision to meet the requirements of the
Bill. 10
am We
have tabled the amendment on consultation because there are students or
learners-in-work who embarked on a programme of training not envisaging
that it would have to meet the requirements of the legislation. There
are training providers, which have designed and are teaching vocational
courses, that did not envisage that they would have to comply with the
provisions of the legislation. The hon. Member for Bognor Regis and
Littlehampton has already asked for examples of such courses. The
Minister said that something currently considered as an apprenticeship
is the only course envisaged as being rebadged to qualify under the
legislation; I hope that he will confirm that. It is essential that if
a change is made in order to meet the requirements of the legislation,
existing providers are consulted on whether that will have any
ramifications for them, or if it is something that they would want to
agree
to.
| 
