Stephen
Williams: I want to make different points to those raised
by the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings. Those of us who
at 10.25 am rushed off to Innovation, Universities and Skills questions
for a morning of deliberation on such matters, will have heard the hon.
Member for Buckingham (John Bercow) ask a question about clause 30.
Representations were also made to me yesterday by some non-governmental
organisations that had concerns about the clause, although it was too
late to table amendments for today. The main concerns were about
perceived barriers for people with learning difficulties in fulfilling
the requirements of an apprenticeship agreement. We touched briefly on
that issue in an earlier debate, but I am asking for reassurance from
the Minister that all consideration and support will be given to young
people or adults with learning difficulties who wish to access an
apprenticeship agreement. If necessary, an assessment should also be
made of their needs in order to fulfil the requirements of the
apprenticeship agreement.
As Minister
for further education, he may know that many colleges do their best to
ensure that they offer an inclusive education. If he has not done so
already, I recommend that he goes to the National Star college outside
Cheltenham, which I visited a couple of years ago. It specialises in
the provision of further education and skills training for adults with
special needs and learning difficulties. He will know that there is a
broad spectrum of special needs and difficulties, and the hon. Member
for Buckingham referred specifically to those who may be somewhere on
the autistic spectrum. I am simply asking the Minister for an assurance
that all consideration will be given to people with learning
difficulties or special needs and that a needs assessment will be
provided, to ensure that we offer the inclusive opportunities for
expanded apprenticeships provision that those on all three Front
Benches want. Mr.
Simon: Starting with the last point, yes, I can give the
hon. Gentleman those assurances. We have talked about it. I think that
my right hon. and hon. Friends will talk later about the specific
provisions for people between 16 and 18 with special needs. On Tuesday,
we talked about the provisions that I think are in clause
111 —I may have got the number wrong before—which
lays down a duty and commits funding to ensure that nobody is excluded
or disadvantaged because of a learning disability or difficulty from
the many benefits of an apprenticeship.
Mr.
Hayes: I know that the Minister is going to deal with the
substantive remarks that I made, but before he moves on I would like to
address the intervention by the hon. Member for Bristol, West. First, I
raised those matters on a previous occasion in Committee and the
Minister pledged to come back to us with some details, inasmuch as
information is collated and available, on the number of young people
and others with learning difficulties and disabilities who have
apprenticeships. I hope that he will reaffirm his intention to do
that. Secondly,
my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham’s remarks are highly
pertinent to this part of the Bill. Does the Minister expect to make
the provisions for people with learning difficulties and other
disabilities absolutely clear in guidance? Without that, I fear that
they may be disadvantaged.
Mr.
Simon: I said at the time that I did not think some of the
figures that the hon. Gentleman asked for were available. We are
looking at the others, but we have not got them yet. The latest data
are for 2007-08, when 28,900, some 12 per cent., of those starting an
apprenticeship had learning difficulties and/or disabilities and
10,900, some 10 per cent., of those completing an apprenticeship had
learning difficulties and/or
disabilities. The
Learning and Skills Council individual learner record identifies a
range of different learning disabilities and difficulties, from visual
impairment and mental health difficulties to temporary disabilities
after illness. For learners who consider themselves to have a learning
disability or difficulty, that field of the ILR records the
learner’s main disability. If a learner has more than one
disability, the main one will be recorded. It would be best to address
the hon. Gentleman’s comments when we discuss clause
82. To
make a little progress I shall move on to the hon. Gentleman’s
opening remarks. He wanted to know to what extent we will measure and
stipulate the components of the agreement. He said that we had debated
those briefly” on Tuesday; we have a slightly different time
sense. I thought that we had gone into those matters at some length and
in some detail, but I am more than happy to repeat the
position.
The number
that will be specified is 280 guided learning hours, which is in the
SASE document for consultation. We expect that consultation to conclude
that about 250 of those guided learning hours should be at off-work
stations. We do not intend it to specify
exactly what the configuration of those hours will be, or in what year
they should fall; that will be a matter for employers to agree with
apprentices. We do not intend to stipulate, either on the face of the
Bill or in the SASE—as we went into at some length on
Tuesday—the amount of time spent in the workplace. As I said
several times, we consider that to be a truism: an apprenticeship is a
job, an apprenticeship will always happen in the workplace. The quality
issue is partly addressed by having a minimum specification of the
amount of time that has to be spent in formal tutored guided learning
off the work station. The rest of the quality issues that the hon.
Gentleman talked about are in, as I am sure he knows, the document that
is becoming legendary in the Committee Room, “Specifications of
Apprenticeship Standards for England”, which is currently out
for consultation, just in case that little detail had escaped anybody.
They can be found on pages 21 and 22 of the document, which the hon.
Gentleman described with some wit—if I may paraphrase—as
a brief and slim, yet comprehensive and almost elegant document. That
is the substance of the answer to his question. Clause 30 allows us to
prescribe the form, but does not impose too much detail or too much
inflexibility.
Mr.
Hayes: First, is ministerial guidance planned on the
issues of learning difficulties and disability, as that seems to be
critical? Secondly, is mentoring going to be a necessary, essential
part of the
contract?
Mr.
Simon: The hon. Gentleman is to be commended on the
tenacity with which he insists on detailed answers to his pertinent
questions, the answer to both of which is
yes. Question
put and agreed
to. Clause
30, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the
Bill. Clauses
31 to 33 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
34Crown
servants and Parliamentary
staff
Mr.
Hayes: I beg to move amendment 203, in clause 34,
page 15, line 28, leave out subsection
(5).
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss
Government amendment
179.
Mr.
Hayes: Perhaps I could just beg your indulgence,
Mrs. Humble, and thank the Minister for the figures he gave
on disabilities and learning difficulties, which I asked for on Tuesday
and he was able to provide, briefly, a few minutes
ago. Clause
34 enables the Secretary of State to modify the application of clauses
30 to 33. It deals specifically with the apprenticeship
agreement—that is, that the apprentice enters into a contract
with the employer and sets out the on-the-work and off-the-work
learning conditions. As a point of interest, in the clauses that we
dealt with a few moments ago, the nature of that contract changes. The
previous contract was a contract
for an apprenticeship as defined in common law, which will now change as
a result of the Bill. That is a matter for those whom one might
describe as “the
geeks”. 1.45
pm As
I said, the apprentice enters into a contract and sets out his
on-the-work and off-the-work learning conditions in the way we have
described. However, that is not the case for Crown servants, members of
the armed forces and parliamentary staff. We have tabled this probing
amendment, the Minister will be delighted to hear, to determine what
specific circumstances would necessitate the use of the power set out
in subsection (5), which allows the Secretary of State to
modify the Bill in relation to those employees. That examination is
even more urgent, as Government amendment 179 proposes to roll that out
to include clauses 83 to 91 and the 16 to 18 apprenticeship
entitlement. The explanatory notes
state: “This
power is needed to make the Bill work properly in relation to these
classes of people, given their particular circumstances: for instance
the fact that they may not have contracts of
employment.” Has
he properly examined what those circumstances might be, and will he
specify them for the Committee to consider more
carefully? Perhaps
the Minister would also be so good as to shed further light on why
Crown employees may have no contracts of employment. That seems rather
curious, certainly with regard to parliamentary staff, whom we know to
have contracts of employment, so I do not fully understand why they are
included in the list, but perhaps he will know more than I do about
that.
Surely the
explanatory notes to clause 30, which indicate that apprentices enter
into a contract with their employers, would negate the situation I have
described. It would be good to clear up this matter on the following
grounds: the specific circumstances that would evoke the clause; and
whether employees of the Crown have contracts of employment under their
apprenticeship entitlement. Those are important matters, although
relatively technical. I hope that, following the suave and
comprehensive response that the Minister is about to give me, we will
not need to push the amendment, but we do need answers to those
questions.
Mr.
Simon: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on raising the
issue. He asked some pertinent questions on what is an arcane piece of
drafting. The simple answer is that the clause is intended to make the
Bill’s apprenticeship provisions apply to Crown servants and
parliamentary staff who do not have legal contracts of employment or,
as they are termed in the Bill, “contracts of
service”,—I will not go down that geeky road. The
provisions of the Bill as drafted would not apply to them because they
do not have contracts of service, and a contract of service is a
necessary part of the definition of an apprenticeship.
I, too, was a
little confused about that and never asked anyone about it, but the
conclusion I came to was that “parliamentary staff” in
this context does not refer to the staff and researchers of MPs,
although they are Crown servants, but to those we call officers of the
House, such as the Clerks and the Serjeant at Arms. The technical
reason for Crown servants such as parliamentary staff and members of
the armed forces not having contracts of service is that the Crown is,
in theory, able to terminate such contracts at will despite any
contrary
term within a contract. That is seen to be part of the wider rule that
the Crown cannot fetter its future executive action by
contract. Although I
declined the hon. Gentleman’s invitation to geekiness on the
matter of contracts of apprenticeship, contracts of service and
contracts of employment, I cannot resist noting
that: “In
one of the leading cases, Dunn v. R, (decided in 1896) the Court
stated that employees of the Crown held office during the
‘pleasure’ of the Crown unless statute provided
otherwise. A contract to employ a Crown employee for a fixed term was
deemed to be against the public interest and
unconstitutional.” On
that note—[Interruption.] My hon. Friend
the Member for Erewash said, from a seated position, “I rest my
case”. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is persuaded of the
integrity of our intentions and will withdraw his
amendment.
Mr.
Hayes: The Committee has moved from excitement to an
intoxicating survey of historical legal precedent. There will be people
in anoraks with an unhealthy interest in computer games salivating at
the Minister’s every word. On that basis alone, I am happy to
beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment,
by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment
made: 179, in
clause 34, page 15, line 28, leave
out from ‘or’ to ‘to’ in line 29 and insert
‘any of sections 83 to 91,’.—(Mr.
Simon.) The amendment
enables regulations under clause 34(5) to provide for any of clauses 83
to 91 to apply with modifications to Crown servants and Parliamentary
staff. Clause
34, as amended, ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
35Careers
education
Mr.
Hayes: I beg to move amendment 208, in
clause 35, page 16, line 7, leave
out from ‘concerned’ to ‘receive’ in line 9
and insert ‘must include
a presumption that all pupils aged 14-16
should’.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss
amendment 23, in
clause 35, page 16, line 10, leave
out ‘apprenticeships’ and insert
‘an apprenticeship as a programme
of training which leads to competence in a chosen trade, profession or
occupation.’.
Mr.
Hayes: Clause 35 specifies that careers advice in schools
must give consideration to apprenticeships as an option, but fails to
give any grounds on which such advice and guidance would be given.
Furthermore, it makes no account of the fact that an apprenticeship is
a specific programme of training, relevant to a specific occupation.
Our amendment relates advice on apprenticeships to consideration on
apprenticeships as a path to a particular option.
This is an
important aspect of the Bill. It is widely acknowledged that, if we are
going to grow the apprenticeship programme in the way that the Bill
intends and the Opposition advocate—the whole House
would acknowledge that we have been the champions of apprenticeships,
certainly since I have been in my current
job— The
Minister for Schools and Learners (Jim Knight): I am not
sure that we would acknowledge that, but I am grateful to the hon.
Gentleman for giving way.
Mr.
Hayes: Well, there are one or two people in the deep
recesses and far corners of the House who have not recognised that, but
we continue to make our case with force so that even they will
ultimately appreciate that the Opposition intend— when elevated
to government, should the people of Britain grant us that great
honour—to create 100,000 new apprenticeships. That would be a
massive boost to the apprenticeship programme.
However, I
must not test the Committee’s patience too much, and I will
return to my main theme. In order to achieve the objective of the
growth in the apprenticeship programme, it is critically important that
we provide the right kind of advice and guidance. That does not apply
just to young people, about whom I shall say a few more words in a
moment, but to all those who might consider an apprenticeship. It is
too easy to categorise apprenticeships around school leavers. However,
particularly in the current economic circumstances, adult
apprenticeships are a vital means by which people can reskill, upskill,
gain new employment, fulfil their potential and gain new opportunities.
We need good advice not only for young people, but for all who consider
an apprenticeship as a path to an
occupation. The
failings of careers advice have provoked a great deal of criticism,
particularly concerning the range of opportunities in vocational
training and qualifications. Schools too often overlook those pathways
in their effort, albeit well intentioned, to ensure that students
progress along more traditional academic
routes. Alison
Seabeck (Plymouth, Devonport) (Lab): The hon. Gentleman
speaks of students pursuing traditional routes. Does he share my
concern that careers advice in schools often points females down
traditional routes for young women and does not encourage them to
consider a broader range of careers and less familiar
routes?
| 
