![]() 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(Afternoon)[Mrs. Joan Humble in the Chair]Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning BillClause 21Duty
to prepare and submit draft specification of appprenticeship standards:
England Amendment
moved (this day): 44, in
clause 21, page 10, line 16, leave
out such persons as the Chief Executive thinks
appropriate and insert
representatives of industry,
employers, sectoral bodies, the further education sector and other
persons the Chief Executive thinks
appropriate..(Mr.
Hayes.) 1
pm
The
Chairman: I remind the Committee that with this
we are discussing the following: amendment 46, in
clause 23, page 10, line 40, at end
insert (aa) consult
representatives of industry, employers and the further education sector
on the proposed new draft
modifications.. Mr.
John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con): It is
good to be back to our consideration of the Bill, Mrs.
Humble. Our amendments would ensure that apprenticeship standards are
what employers actually desire, and would result in less bureaucracy,
because those standards would not have to be revisited in response to
the concerns of employers. The employment body expressed support for
amendments in that spirit during the evidence sessions, which I confess
is partly why we are debating it now. The CBI representative
said: priority
for our members is to ensure that the apprenticeship programme
encourages strong employer involvement and that the programme is more
fit for purposedelivering the sort of skills that are in demand
by
business. The
spokesman went on to
say: The
introduction of apprenticeship standards and minimum periods of time
off, for example, are making our members
nervous. No
doubt we shall discuss that later, when we come to the relevant parts
of the Bill. The spokesman for CBI then
said: Standards
are fine. It is just specific standards for minimum periods of time off
that are not needed. Each framework has to ensure that it accords to
the blueprint at the moment.
[Official Report, Apprenticeships,
Skills, Children and Learning Public Bill Committee, 3 March 2009;
c. 6-8, Q5, 12 and
19.] I
spoke earlier of the dynamic nature of skills needs and therefore the
necessity of apprenticeship frameworks to respond to those changing
needs. The best way for that to happen is for employers to be in the
driving seat. The Minister has emphasised that he thinks so, too. For
that reason, we share the view that sector skills councils are of
pivotal importance. John Lucas of the British
Chambers of Commerce added that he was positive about the planned
increase in apprenticeships and that it was a
long-term,
positive thing for business and for the
economy. He
supported the comments of Richard Wainer of the CBI, but
emphasised: We
think that apprenticeships need to be employer led and employed
focused. Obviously there has to be a high-quality programme element to
them too.[Official Report,
Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Public Bill Committee,
3 March 2009; c. 9,
Q19.] As I
have said, we do not dispute that: it seems to be the orthodox view.
What are apprenticeships if they are not things that appeal to
employers as much as they appeal to learners? That is implicit.
However, it is important that the consultation process on
apprenticeship standards is right, and I am not sure that describing
that process as being built on persons that the chief executive of
Skills Funding thinks appropriate is as clear as saying that
representatives of industry and education should be consulted. Why does
the Minister consider that it is less important to consult those people
than I
do? Stephen
Williams (Bristol, West) (LD): We are back to the question
of consultation. We discussed before lunch in connection with my
amendment, but we are now dealing with a different clause, which makes
it clear that the Government envisage consultation taking place, but
only with consultees determined at the discretion of the chief
executive of Skills Funding or, presumably, the National Apprenticeship
Service.
An
apprenticeship is a triangular relationship between the employer, the
employee and the training provider. The needs of employers and the
ability of training providers to deliver the training that is to form
part of the apprenticeship framework should be considered during the
framing of standards. It would therefore be appropriate to consult
employers and providers specifically. Having that in the Bill would be
appropriate, as the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings
says. As
the relationship is triangular, perhaps in future the Government ought
to give some consideration to the learner voice, although that is
slightly outside the scope of the amendment. As apprenticeships evolve
and become more popular, not only is it necessary for the employer and
the training provider to have a view on what is included in the
apprenticeship qualification, but I hope that the views of the
learnerthe young person or adulton the quality of
provision will be considered as
well.
The
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and
Skills (Mr. Siôn Simon): Hello again,
Mrs. Humblethat could be a song, could it
not?
I have
listened to the hon. Gentlemens arguments and sympathise with
that they are trying to say. The hon. Member for South Holland and The
Deepings quoted Richard Wainer of the CBI as though his remarks during
the oral evidence session somehow contradicted Government policy or
what is in the Bill. They do not. Every word the hon. Gentleman quoted
is
correct. On
the issue of responsiveness, we are slightly in danger of
misunderstanding how the mechanisms might work. Amendment 46 would
affect even the slightest change in The Specification of
Apprenticeship Standards
for England, which is a big documentnot big physically,
but in the sense that it is very importantwhich is being widely
consulted upon as we speak. The consultation is due to be reported back
in mid-May. Under the amendment, even the slightest change would
require a full-scale consultation with every stakeholder in the
sector.
Mr.
Hayes: The document is big enough to be comprehensive, but
not so big that it is bureaucratic or adds to red
tape.
Mr.
Simon: The hon. Gentleman put that beautifully. The
document is admirable in that respect. I shall take that as a
congratulatory plaudit for The Specification of Apprenticeship
Standards for England from the Opposition Front-Bench
spokesman. However, my point remainsin order to vary the SASE
document by even the slightest comma, under the provisions of
amendment 46 the chief executive would have to undertake a
full consultation. To me, that does not constitute
responsiveness. I
shall respond to the question about learner voice from the hon. Member
for Bristol, West before I press on with some more details. It is
anticipatedOpposition Members on both sides of the gangway
should be reassuredthat consultation will be wide. The emerging
National Apprenticeship Service has already established a key
stakeholder group, comprising for example the CBI, FSB, TUC, AOC, ALP,
TASSC and LSIS, to provide views and feedback on the
SASE.
Stephen
Williams: I congratulate the Minister on his acronyms but,
if I interpret them all correctly, they are all learning providers and
not
learners.
Mr.
Simon: In which case, I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on
his extraordinary command of acronyms. The national learner panel chair
is a member of the NAS stakeholder group as well, representing the
views of
learners. I
fully understand and support the sentiment behind the Opposition
amendments and hon. Members aims in tabling them. WeI
am sure that I speak for all members of the Committeemust
strive to ensure that everyone with a legitimate interest has the
opportunity to influence the standards set for apprenticeships in
England. That includes industry bodies, employers, colleges and other
providers, sector skills councils, learners and others.
The
amendments relate to consultation on the drafting and modification of
the specification of apprenticeship standards for England. I am sure
that the Committee knows by now that we have already published the
draft specification, which is out to public consultation until mid-May,
as I just said. The consultation has been drawn to the attention of key
stakeholders, a number of whom have been involved in its initial
development. The specification and the consultation questions are
widely available on the internet. I assure the Committee that it is
intended that any subsequent significant modification to the published
specification would be subject to a similar level of consultation
before being laid before the House for parliamentary
approval.
I believe
that we have sufficient measures in place in the Bill to ensure that
the views of all parties are taken into account, without the need for
these amendments.
Indeed, I would not want inadvertently to reduce the breadth of future
consultations by specifying particular groups that must be consulted. I
hope that that gives hon. Members the reassurance that they wanted and
that they will feel able not to press their
amendments.
Mr.
Hayes: I take the point that the Minister has made, that
all members of the Committee want to see consultation that is
meaningful. I also take the point that he believes, as I do, that
employer engagement is particularly important in developing standards.
Nevertheless, for the record it would be useful to press this amendment
to a Division, just to emphasise the significance of consultation with
employers. Question
put, That the amendment be
made. The
Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes
9.
Division
No.
5] AYESNOESQuestion
accordingly negatived.
Clause 21
ordered to stand part of the
Bill. Clause
22 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | |
©Parliamentary copyright 2009 | Prepared 13 March 2009 |