|
Division
No.
7] Question
accordingly negatived.
Amendments
made: 180, in
clause 35, page 16, line 16, after
‘under’ insert ‘Chapter 1 of Part 1
of’. This is a
technical drafting amendment to clarify the reference to the provisions
of he Bill under which apprenticeship certificates will be
issued. 181,
in
clause 35, page 16, line 18, leave
out from beginning to end of line 19 and insert
‘English certifying authority
(within the meaning of that Chapter);”.’.—(Jim
Knight.) This
amendment is consequent on amendment
152. Clause
35, as amended, ordered to stand part of the
Bill. Clause
36 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
37Apprenticeship
sectors 2.45
pm Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Mr.
Hayes: Clause 37 requires the Secretary of State to
specify apprenticeship sectors. The Government intend them to be based
on the current sectoral coverage of sector skills councils which, as we
have heard, are employer-led, independent organisations, whose goals
are to fill skills gaps and shortages, improve productivity and the
skills of everyone in the sector’s work force. The Minister
spoke earlier about the scope of the sector skills councils and how
that might change, as skills needs change and as skills themselves
alter. How is that flexibility consistent with the
clause?
Mr.
Simon: Clause 37 provides that the Secretary of State must
specify the sectors, trades or occupations covered by the
apprenticeship scheme and that he do so by order. The clause is
necessary to the effective function of the apprenticeship scheme.
Apprenticeship frameworks
need to relate to a particular skill, trade or occupation included in an
apprenticeship sector. Places on the apprenticeship scheme for young
people need to be in a specified apprenticeship sector and young
persons have to choose two sectors. For them to be able to choose two
sectors, it needs to be clear what the sectors are and what the choice
is, which is why they need to be
specified. Specifying
the sectors across which apprenticeship places are to be available will
also ensure that opportunities for tackling particular skills gaps or
shortages are identified. It will also mean that the National
Apprenticeship Service can operate its national
vacancy-matching service properly, supported by sectoral
knowledge and understanding of the sector skills councils. The clause
is therefore critical.
Mr.
Hayes: I was wondering whether the Minister would say
something about flexibility for sector skills councils. The
specification of sectors would presumably need to change if sector
skills councils were to broaden their scope to encompass different
skills. We spoke earlier about whether that would be affected by the
Bill, and if so, in what
way.
Mr.
Simon: I assume that, because the clause gives the
Secretary of State the power to issue an order, if it were necessary in
the future to vary the designations of the sector skills councils, my
right hon. Friend would issue a fresh regulation to that
effect. Question
put and agreed
to. Clause
37 accordingly ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
38Interpretation
of
Chapter Amendment
made: 182, in
clause 38, page 17, line 8, leave
out from ‘authority”’ to end of line 9 and
insert ‘has the meaning
given by section 4;’.—(Mr.
Simon.) This amendment is
consequent on amendment
152. Clause
38, as amended, ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
39Employer
support for employee study and
training
Mr.
Gibb: I beg to move amendment 103, in clause 39,
page 18, line 5, leave out
‘A’ and insert
‘Where an employer does not have acceptable
annual arrangements for discussing employees’ training needs in
place through annual performance reviews or other arrangements,
a’.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following: amendment 77, in
clause 39, page 18, line 23, at
end insert— ‘(6A) An
employee is also a qualifying employee for the purposes of this section
if the employee is a qualified school teacher with responsibility for
educating children with special educational needs and who requests
training to ensure the needs of these children will be
met.’.
Amendment 11,
in
clause 39, page 20, line 30, at
end insert— ‘(k) a
documented discussion of training needs resulting in a decision on
whether to extend such provision to the applicant took place within the
previous 12
months.’.
Mr.
Gibb: It is a pleasure to take over the shadow ministerial
baton from my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The
Deepings. Henceforth, there will be no more juicy or ursine prose from
Opposition Members. Our contributions will become more prosaic and, if
I may so, a little dull—with the Liberal exception, of course. I
am sure that we shall be hearing plenty of ursine and porcine phrases
from Liberal Democrat Members.
Clause 39 is
an important provision giving employees the right to request time off
to train or study. Proposed new section 63D(3) of the Employment Rights
Act 1996, which the clause would insert,
states: “The
application must be made for the purpose of enabling the employee to
undertake study or training (or both)”.
It is refreshing to see
a reference to study and training in an education Bill from the present
Government, rather than the catch-all words “learning” or
“learner”, which have become the latest jargon designed
to obfuscate rather than to clarify. “Time to Train”, the
consultation document published last year by the Department for
Innovation, Universities and Skills, talks about giving
employees “a
right to a serious conversation with their employer about their skills
development”. The
Conservatives agree with that right. The proper training is essential
in any business—for example, restaurant staff should know the
details of a menu. I am sure that the staff at the restaurant that my
hon. Friend was at last night knew the menu backwards and were able to
describe it to him extremely well. Other examples showing how the right
training is essential include doctors in a GP surgery, accountants
providing tax advice and employees fitting components on an assembly
line. A business that fails to train and develop its staff will not be
successful. Sometimes, however, an employee’s personal ambition
might be overlooked by an employer. An employer might be happy, for
example, to let a good kitchen assistant continue in that role rather
than let them train to be a chef. Another example could be a staff and
associate specialist doctor who wants to train to become a
consultant. The
impact assessment
states: “Over
a third of people with poor literacy and numeracy receive
benefits...compared with less than one in ten of those with better
skills.” That
is why the Conservative party makes no apology for its focus on reading
in primary schools, or for its insistence that, instead of the
whole-language approaches that have dominated over the past 40 years,
schools employ tried and tested methods such as synthetic
phonics—[Interruption.] I thought that I
would get that into my first major contribution to the line-by-line
scrutiny. The
impact assessment considered three options: doing nothing, employing a
voluntary approach and legislating for a right to time to study. The
Institute of Directors
says: “the
merits of pursuing a voluntary approach were not adequately explored.
No evidence was presented to support the implication that employers are
not open to training requests, deny employees
the opportunity to discuss training needs or do not treat requests
seriously. Employees already have the ‘right’ to request
training — there is no bar to these conversations
whatsoever”. The
IOD adds
that “Skills
are crucial to the UK's future competitiveness, but so is the
maintenance of a low regulatory environment in which business and
enterprise can flourish. The introduction of a right to request
training is not simply the wrong solution, it adds to the pipeline of
impending regulations that will add to the administrative burden on
employers. This is undesirable in any case. In the middle of a
recession, it is spectacularly
unhelpful.” The
Minister’s response to those genuine concerns expressed by the
IOD would be helpful.
Mr.
Simon: I hope that before the hon. Gentleman sits down he
will share some of his own views on the IOD’s views, as that
will help me to formulate my
response.
Mr.
Gibb: I certainly will. In fact, I already have—I
said that Conservative Members support the right to train. Measures
could be introduced to relieve the administrative burden on businesses,
while maintaining the right of employees to request time to
train.
The IOD
points out that many businesses hold regular appraisals with their
employees, during which employees’ training needs are discussed.
It therefore suggests in its brief to the Committee
that “where
employers already offer documented annual appraisals which include
discussion of training needs, such provision will constitute grounds
for fulfilment of the right to request training
obligations...Without such a change those employers that already
provide opportunities to discuss training needs will become subject to
repeat requests for training: a burden that penalises those
organisations that already have existing provision for training
discussions.” Amendment
11, tabled by the Liberal Democrats, has the same source. That
amendment states that an employer can refuse an application for time to
study made under proposed new section 63D of the 1996 Act
if “a
documented discussion of training needs resulting in a decision on
whether to extend such provision to the applicant took place within the
previous 12
months.” We
agree with that sensible amendment, which is designed to assist
companies that have a good and exemplary approach to training and staff
appraisal.
Amendment 103
would amend clause 39 in a similar fashion. The CBI has said that it
“supports the new right” to request training
“in principle,
but it must be implemented in a way that is flexible for business, with
the focus on skills development and not
time-off.” It
points out that data from the Learning and Skills Council show that
business invests about £39 billion a year on training. The
CBI’s survey found that 89 per cent. of firms have a training
and development plan. It therefore wishes the legislation to be clear
that “where
a firm already has good arrangements for discussing training in place
(eg. annual performance reviews), training needs can be dealt with
through these existing arrangements without recourse to
legislation.” Amendment
103 would therefore insert a preface to proposed new section 63D(1) to
ensure that it will apply only if a suitable arrangement for discussing
training is not in place. That is a sensible
amendment.
We support the
objectives of clause 39, which are to ensure that recalcitrant
businesses do what they should to encourage their employees to improve
their skills, but if we take the CBI figure of £39 billion spent
on training and compare it with the calculated benefits of the clause
of between £200 million and £400 million—set out
in the impact assessment on pages 76 and 77—it is clear that
current training expenditure is up to 100 times greater than
the anticipated benefit of the new right. That shows that the clause is
aimed at a minority of businesses, so it makes sense to try to ease the
administrative and regulatory burden of the provision for those
companies that already have exemplary training and appraisal processes
in place.
Amendment 77
was inspired by the National Deaf Children’s Society. It says
that
A significant
number of parents regularly contact NDCS with concerns that their child
is not receiving his or her entitlement to appropriate education. In
many cases, when NDCS investigate, it is found that frontline classroom
teachers are trying their best in very difficult circumstances, without
the required support and advice to meet the pupil's
needs.” It
goes on to say, for example,
that “there
has been no guidance published for teachers on how to differentiate the
teaching of phonics for deaf children”,
even though, a teaching
method based on the listening of sounds is clearly inappropriate for
many deaf children, particularly those with severe hearing
loss.
| 
