Mr.
Simon: As I said, clause 15 is an enabling clause to
ensure that we have adequate transitional arrangements to protect those
apprentices currently training under existing frameworks. There is no
question of re-badging anything as an apprenticeship that is not an
apprenticeship. There are 180 frameworks, currently available for
apprenticeship training, which meet the requirements of the existing
blueprint. It is our intention, on introducing the new specification of
apprenticeship standards for England in August 2009, to allow
sufficient time for sector skills councils, and other organisations, to
develop frameworks that are compliant with the new standards.
We have
committed to, and just discussed, streamlining the process for issuing
frameworks. It is an important and serious business. Quality, as the
hon. Gentleman is fond of saying, is also important and so the
development and introduction of the new frameworks is not going to
happen overnight. We need a transitional period to allow for the new
frameworks to be developed. Sector skills councils will be designated
as issuing authorities; they will continue to issue frameworks in
England. It is right that the 180 existing frameworks continue to be
available throughout the transitional period, so that existing and
prospective apprentices are not disadvantaged while the new frameworks
are developed. To require consultation on individual frameworks, in the
way suggested by the hon. Gentleman, would clearly slow that process
down. In the terms of his amendment, we would have to consult on the
existing frameworks.
Mr.
Hayes: Perhaps I could be helpful to the Minister while he
seeks, or reads, inspiration. The nub of the argument is about whether
he expects, and the Bill facilitates, a growth in the number of
apprenticeship frameworks by the translation of some of what is being
taught and tested now. In other words, does he anticipate much of a
metamorphosis from existing vocational training specifications to
apprenticeship frameworks? If he does, is it not important, in line
with the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Bristol, West, that
that type of process is possible?
Mr.
Simon: I am not sure if that is the implication of the
hon. Member for Bristol, West’s amendment. Ultimately, the
number and content of the apprenticeship frameworks will be the
responsibility of the employer bodies, the sector skills council. I do
not anticipate an immediate expansion in the number of frameworks. It
is possible, subject to consultation, that there could even be a
slimming-down of the number of frameworks. Ultimately, that will be a
matter for employers, through the sector skills councils, to
decide.
The
point at issue in the hon. Gentleman’s amendment is whether we
retrospectively consult the stakeholders on whether the existing
frameworks, which are about to become obsolete, should be deemed as
frameworks for the purposes of the transitional period. We do not
believe that we need to do that. It is clear what an existing framework
is; it is anything that is a framework under the blueprint. Anything
that is a framework under the blueprint will remain a framework.
Effectively, what we are talking about is calling a framework a
framework.
Stephen
Williams: What is also required is some assurance that the
re-badging of existing provision—to provision that that meets
the requirements of the Bill—will not require any change in the
delivery of that apprenticeship, or in the training that is part of
that apprenticeship, by an existing provider; that is part of the
assurance that is being sought. If there will be a change, then that is
why there needs to be consultation on its nature. If there was no
change—if it is simply a semantic re-badging of something that
already exists to something else—the Minister will have a point
in saying that the amendment is unnecessary, but that is not clear at
the moment.
Mr.
Simon: In that case, that is my fault, because I failed to
explain the matter sufficiently clearly. Nothing is being re-badged.
Existing apprenticeships will continue to be deemed apprenticeships
until all the new frameworks have come in—they do not have to be
changed. The frameworks will change over time, as they move to the new
arrangements, but the point is that anybody who is currently doing an
apprenticeship, or who starts an apprenticeship before the new
frameworks have all come in—who is doing, or will start before
the end of the period, an old apprenticeship framework under the old
blueprint--will still count in exactly the same way as having and doing
the apprenticeship that they thought they were doing when they started.
That is all that is happening in the transitional arrangement, which
will lapse in 2013, as he
said.
Stephen
Williams: I think the Minister, after a couple of
interventions, has clarified the Government’s provision. It is a
shame that subsection (1)
states: “The
Secretary of State may by order provide for an existing vocational
specification to be treated”.
If it said, “to
an existing apprenticeship framework to be so treated”, then the
uncertainty would not have
arisen.
Mr.
Simon: I cannot remember who was speaking and who was
intervening, but I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I
understand the point that he has just made. It took me a little while
to get beyond that point, but as he will understand, there are all
kinds of arcane legal reasons for that. There is a definition of an
existing vocational framework in subsection (5), and I think that the
point that he is making—in an ancillary
fashion—is that currently, we lack legislation such as this one,
which enables us to call an apprenticeship, an apprenticeship. So the
purpose of this piece of legislation—during the course of which
will move to an apprenticeship, where everybody knows exactly what it
means—is that during the transitional period, we will have to
call a vocational specification “an apprenticeship”, even
though in reality, it always was an
apprenticeship.
Stephen
Williams: Thank you, Mrs. Humble; you indulged
my long intervention. The Minister is right that sometimes—he
has been here longer than I have; I have only been here just short of
four years—draft legislation is opaque. It was not clear to me,
but more appropriately, perhaps, it was not clear to many people in the
sector, who may have encouraged us to probe that particular
point—that what the Government envisaged was simply a
re-designation of an existing provision without any inherent change to
provision that qualifies or meets the requirements of the Bill. As the
Minister has assured us that all that is intended is that the change is
effectively neutral—it is just a badging exercise, which does
not change the inherent nature of what is being taught or
provided—I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment. Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn. Amendments
made: 160, in
clause 15, page 7, line 35, leave
out ‘, for the purposes of this
Chapter,’. This
amendment is consequent on amendment
159. 161,
in
clause 15, page 7, line 37, leave
out ‘, for the purposes of this
Chapter,’. This
amendment is consequent on amendment
159. 162,
in
clause 15, page 7, line 40, leave
out ‘, for the purposes of this
Chapter,’. This
amendment is consequent on amendment
159. 163,
in
clause 15, page 7, line 43, after
‘and’ insert
‘apprenticeship’. This
is a technical drafting amendment to clarify that the reference is to
an apprenticeship sector as defined in clause
38. 164,
in
clause 15, page 7, line 43, leave
out ‘, for the purposes of this
Chapter,’.—(Mr.
Simon.) This amendment is
consequent on amendment
159. Clause
15, as amended, ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
16Welsh
issuing
authority Amendment
made: 165, in
clause 16, page 8, line 25, at
end insert— ‘( ) A
designation under this section may be amended or revoked by the Welsh
Ministers.’.—(Mr.
Simon.) This
amendment enables the Welsh Ministers to amend or revoke the
designation of a person to issue apprenticeship
frameworks. Clause
16, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause
17 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
18Recognised
Welsh frameworks: notification and publication
requirements
Mr.
Simon: I beg to move amendment 166, in
clause 18, page 9, line 8, at
beginning insert
‘in the case of
withdrawal otherwise than by the Welsh
Ministers,’. This
amendment provides that notice of withdrawal of recognition of an
apprenticeship framework need only be given to the Welsh Ministers
where recognition is withdrawn by someone other than the Welsh
Ministers. The
clause makes a number of requirements relating to the publication of
apprenticeship frameworks in Wales, and to the notification of Welsh
Ministers of any frameworks that have been issued or withdrawn. The
requirements are necessary to ensure that the public is kept up to date
on the range of frameworks available, and that Welsh Ministers, as the
certifying authority in Wales, are kept informed of
developments. As
currently drafted, the clause requires that Welsh Ministers be notified
of the withdrawal of recognition of an apprenticeship framework, even
if, by using their power under clause 17(2)(b), they withdraw
recognition of a framework themselves. The amendment makes it clear
that Welsh Ministers do not have to notify themselves when they decide
to withdraw recognition and there is no Welsh issuing authority in
relation to the framework. However, they will still be bound by clause
18(3)(a) to publish a notice stating that recognition has been
withdrawn.
Mr.
Hayes: As the Minister said, the amendment seeks to
correct a muddled clause, but it may take us from a muddle to a mire; I
will explain the reasons for that, and I am sure that the Minister will
comment on the issue himself. The amendment does little to answer the
central question, namely, in what precise circumstances would Welsh
Ministers need to withdraw recognition? Clause 16(1)(a) states that,
for an apprenticeship framework to be issued, there must be an issuing
authority. If that is the case, why would Welsh Ministers ever need to
withdraw recognition of a framework, as they are allowed to do in
clause 17(2)(b)? That is inconsistent. In what circumstances would
Welsh Ministers become the issuing authority and withdraw recognition?
Is this not another example of a measure that disempowers issuing
authorities as much as it empowers them, and consequently disempowers
employers, educators and learners? Whether they be Welsh or otherwise,
why would Ministers ever want to act in that way? If the Minister can
give a persuasive explanation, we will listen and respond in the same
spirit. 10.15
am
Mr.
Simon: If a Welsh sector skills council ceases to exist or
a framework has to be changed, Welsh Ministers will need the authority
to which the hon. Gentleman has referred to make the changes. Under the
clause, Welsh Ministers would have to notify themselves formally of
having made such a change. That is clearly absurd, hence the need for
the
amendment.
Mr.
Hayes: Just to be clear, this is an emergency power then?
The Minister suggested that a framework having to be changed and a
sector skills council ceasing to exist were synonymous. If a sector
skills council ceases to exist, it might be necessary for a Minister to
intervene in the short term. Surely a Minister would not have to
intervene if a framework were changed because that is within the
competence of the sector skills
council.
Mr.
Simon: It is not just an emergency power. It is a
relatively routine power that will enable Welsh Ministers to make
changes that are made by a sector skills council statutory or, as the
hon. Gentleman said, to step into the breach if a sector skills council
ceases to exist.
Mr.
Hayes: So this measure is about giving Welsh Ministers the
same competence as Ministers outside Wales. I understand the point
about notification. It is clear that there was a muddle in the
drafting. However, are we giving Welsh Ministers powers that are
different from those of Ministers in
England?
Mr.
Simon: Yes, in a way. The Welsh situation is very similar,
but not identical. In England, the powers will be vested in the chief
executive of skills funding under clause 13. The Welsh Assembly
Government have chosen to vest the powers in Welsh Ministers, which is
why we need this provision. It is a fairly routine provision, which
enables the system to work as envisaged. The amendment will just
correct a
misdraft.
Mr.
Hayes: It is the nature of parliamentary scrutiny and of
the interface between Ministers and shadow Ministers that on occasion
things must be taken on trust. That is appropriate when Ministers offer
assurances in good faith, as the Minister has in this matter. I will
take what he said in good faith and accept that we are not moving from
a muddle to a mire, but simply clearing up a
muddle.
The
Chairman: Does the Minister have anything to
add?
Amendment
166 agreed
to. Clause
18, as amended, ordered to stand part of the
Bill. Clause
19 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
20Transitional
provision for apprenticeship frameworks:
Wales Amendments
made: 167, in
clause 20, page 9, line 22, leave
out ‘the purposes of this Chapter’ and insert
‘all purposes or for purposes
specified in the
order’. This amendment
enables an ‘existing vocational specification’ to be
treated as a recognised Welsh framework for purposes other than those
of Chapter 1 of Part 1 of the Bill.
168, in
clause 20, page 9, line 30, leave
out ‘, for the purposes of this
Chapter,’. This
amendment is consequent on amendment
167. 169,
in
clause 20, page 9, line 32, leave
out ‘, for the purposes of this
Chapter,’. This
amendment is consequent on amendment
167. 170,
in
clause 20, page 9, line 35, leave
out ‘, for the purposes of this
Chapter,’. This
amendment is consequent on amendment
167. 171,
in
clause 20, page 9, line 38, after
‘and’ insert
‘apprenticeship’. This
technical drafting amendment makes equivalent provision for Wales to
that made by amendment
163. 172,
in
clause 20, page 9, line 38, leave
out ‘, for the purposes of this
Chapter,’.—(Mr.
Simon.) This amendment is
consequenl on amendment
167. Clause
20, as amended, ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
| 
