Mr.
Hayes: When the time comes, we will certainly press
for a Division on new clause 8. On the Minister’s response, make
no mistake that paying employers up front, with the final payment being
made on completion of the full framework so that completion rates are
secured, would make a massive difference to employer engagement in
apprenticeships. I am absolutely certain that, had the opportunity to
obtain an apprenticeship bonus and take on apprentices arisen when I
was a small business man in a growing company and industry that was
recruiting staff, it would have influenced the company’s
recruitment and training policies. I believe that that is true of
companies the length and breadth of Britain, so I completely disagree
with the Minister about how money should be
directed. I
share the view of most representatives of businesses and industry, the
Innovation, Universities and Skills Committee and the Economic Affairs
Committee, which is that paying employers directly would create a more
straightforward system that would be more attractive to employers, more
transparent and much easier to market, which matters as much as
anything in engaging new companies. It is extraordinary for the
Minister to speak of dead-weight cost, given that the dead-weight cost
of Train to Gain is so profound. Even the Government had to acknowledge
during the pilot stage that it was a significant difficulty, not to
mention the brokerage service associated with that appalling
policy.
Jim
Knight: The hon. Gentleman is assiduous in quoting the CBI
in support of his arguments. Employer satisfaction with Train to Gain
is high: 92 per cent. are happy with the training course content and
the provider that delivered it; 30 per cent. of people who completed a
Train to Gain course got promoted the following year; and 43 per cent.
got a pay rise. Furthermore, the CBI recently
stated: “Train
to Gain is exactly the product we need at this time.”
Given that evidence,
why does he not support the
policy?
Mr.
Hayes: In the same survey, most employers reported that
the benefit that they gained from Train to Gain was much less
impressive than the Minister would have us believe; they said that it
had little value. In addition, although I accept what he says about the
CBI, there have been profound criticisms of Train to Gain from other
employer organisations. Indeed, in his evidence to the Committee, John
Lucas
said: “It
is fair to say that if funding, financial incentives and financial
support for employers were equalised across the whole apprenticeship
programme, both pre-19 apprenticeships and post-19 adult
apprenticeships, employers would be
happier.”——[Official Report,
Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Public Bill Committee,
3 March 2009; c. 12,
Q25.] That is
the precise position of the Opposition; we should equalise funding
between so-called adult and other
apprenticeships. Just
as most employers want the money paid direct, most people know that
Train to Gain suffers from three things: a dead-weight cost; the
confusion between
assessment and real training; and immense cost-ineffectiveness. We could
use that money much more wisely if it were redirected to the
apprenticeship programme, as advocated in the paper that I mentioned.
That would allow us to create 100,000 new apprenticeships. The
Government do not support that objective, but it would engender the
support of employers and potential
learners. I
shall not say more, because the document speaks for itself. I have
briefly outlined it, and the whole House knows of our commitment to
skills and, in particular, to apprenticeships. However, even if the
analysis and recommendations in the document did not exist, frankly we
could not support a Bill that puts into place such a structure, even
with the best will in the world—and good will seems to be the
basis on which Ministers were recommending the Bill to the House. Just
last week a Minister said that good will was a fundamental element in
the Bill’s genesis and likely delivery. Frankly, good will is
something that we try to practise and preach at Christmas, but it is
crackers to base legislation on it. Legislation should be based on a
proper analysis of what is happening, and on a set of plans that can
deliver an improvement in the status
quo. We
shall not build an apprenticeship programme around a convoluted,
confused structure that is unlikely to be understood by learners, is
likely to bemuse employers and will certainly not incentivise small and
medium-sized enterprises to get more involved in the apprenticeship
programme. For that reason, we shall press new clause 8 to a vote when
the time comes, but I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment. Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn. Amendments
made: 185, in
clause 79, page 49, line 1, leave
out ‘issued by the English certifying
authority’. This
amendment is consequent on amendment
152. 186,
in
clause 79, page 49, line 22, leave
out ‘(3)’ and insert ‘(4)’.—(Jim
Knight.) This
is a technical drafting amendment correcting a
cross-reference. Clause
79 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
80Apprenticeship
training for persons aged 16 to 18 and certain young
adults Annette
Brooke (Mid-Dorset and North Poole) (LD): I beg to move
amendment 229, in clause 80, page 49, line 41, at
end insert— ‘(ba) increasing
opportunities for people with learning difficulties to gain skills and
training to increase transition from education into
employment;’.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to take the
following: amendment 230, in clause 101, page 60,
line 39, at end
insert— ‘(2A) It shall be
the duty of the Chief Executive to ensure that all services and
facilities mentioned in this section are provided in such a way as to
meet the needs of persons with learning
difficulties.’. New
clause 10—Persons aged 16 to 18 with a learning
difficulty ‘(1) The Chief
Executive must, in performing the functions of the office, have regard
to the needs of persons with learning difficulties to whom this section
applies.
(2) This section applies to persons who are aged 16
to 18, other than persons who are aged under 25 and are subject to
learning difficulty
assessment. (3) For the
purposes of this section, a person has a learning difficulty
if— (a) the person has a
significantly greater difficulty in learning than the majority of
persons the same age, or (b)
the person has a disability which prevents or hinders the person from
making use of facilities of a kind generally provided by
institutions providing education falling within section 92(1)(a) or
(b).’. New
clause 11—Provision of support in the apprenticeship
workplace ‘(1) The Chief
Executive of Skills Funding has a duty to ensure that apprentices with
learning difficulties receive appropriate support in the workplace
through— (a) special
educational needs provision for apprentices in the workplace over the
age of 16; and (b) The Access
to Work Scheme. (2) The Chief
Executive of Skills Funding has a duty to ensure that employers and
apprentices are informed of their entitlement to support in the
apprenticeship workplace. (3)
In this section “support in the apprenticeship workplace”
includes special educational needs provision (regardless of whether the
apprentice is subject to learning difficulty assessment) and the Access
to Work
Scheme.’.
Annette
Brooke: I shall endeavour to be brief, concise and to the
point, because I am looking forward to precise clarification from the
Minister. The amendments and two new clauses are interconnected and
attempt to get clarification on the situation with regard to people
with learning difficulties. There are many opportunities in the
proposed apprenticeship programme, and we need to get things right for
people with
disabilities. Amendment
229 is intended to give recognition to the importance of
apprenticeships in supporting disabled people to bridge the gap between
education and the labour market. Apprenticeships are important in
supporting disabled people to gain qualifications, workplace experience
and skills. Both employers and employees gain valuable experience and
skills in understanding disability and breaking down
barriers. Royal
National Institute of Blind People research indicates that 92 per cent.
of employers would find it difficult or impossible to employ a blind or
partially sighted person, which just shows that, given the
Bill’s high objectives, it will not be easy to tackle the issue,
although it will be necessary to do so. The proposed extra duty in
amendment 229 would enable the chief executive of Skills Funding to
tackle the problem. I should be grateful for the Minister’s
response to the simple proposal of adding the requirement that the
chief executive takes on board the need to support fully people with
learning
difficulties. Amendment
230 is fairly straightforward and should involve the straightforward
matter of the Minister telling me that the proposal will be introduced.
It would ensure that people with disabilities have access to the
information that they need. He will be aware that I have been involved
in trying to improve access to textbooks for people with sight
impairment, and it is very difficult to ensure full accessibility. The
amendment, therefore, focuses on learners with some form of
print-related disability—blind and partially sighted people, and
all who find it difficult to access material in written or electronic
forms. We ask
for a properly designed website that conforms with web content
accessibility guidelines, an accessible print format, such as large
print, giant print or Braille, an audio format or an easy-to-read
format. The amendment would mean that the chief executive has to ensure
that all information on apprenticeships, whether from the NAS, the
national portal, or from an employer’s advertisement, was
accessible to disabled would-be apprentices. On new clause
10, we established last week that the chief executive will have a duty
to those with learning difficulties, and that learning difficulties was
an all-encompassing term. A learning difficulty or a physical
disability might create issues with accessing the training under
discussion. As I understand the situation, the chief executive has a
duty to those with learning difficulties in respect of disabled
learners aged 19 to 25. The chief executive must also have due regard
for those over 16 with a statement of special educational needs.
However, those aged 16 to 18 years old who do not have a statement may
not have one for all sorts of reasons: they may not have been assessed
at school; they may have failed to get a statement; or they might have
developed a learning disability, such as sight loss, aged 17.
I am therefore concerned that the Bill might not cover those people, so
I am looking for a clear answer, because that could represent a
significant oversight, and disabled apprentices in that age group must
be given the same support that we welcome the Bill giving to their
statemented or post-19 peers.
There are a
few further points to clarify, and they are relevant to all the
amendments. The Learning and Skills Council was a statutory body and
had a disability equality duty, but there is general concern about
whether the Skills Funding Agency will have that specific duty. It is
quite difficult to work through that issue, given the body’s
formation and its location within the new structure, but we need an
assurance that the new and complicated structure that is proposed will
deal with that
duty.
3
pm Finally,
employer-led programmes and special educational needs provision
obviously have to be of concern to agencies representing those with
learning disabilities. We drafted new clause 11 to find out how the
duties towards those with learning difficulties will be met while the
apprentice is in the workplace. It can be difficult to perform such
duties in the classroom, but it is even more important to do so in the
workplace and support will be critical and valuable. We should also be
interested to know how the Government intend to join up SEN provision
access to work provision. There are several probing aspects within the
string of amendments and new clauses, and I hope that we can receive
clarification because they are important for many people within the age
groups under
discussion.
Mr.
Hayes: As the hon. Lady said, the amendments and new
clauses are important. They highlight the value of involving those with
learning difficulties between the ages of 16 and 18 in opportunities
that we want for other citizens. In principle, we are extremely
supportive of legislation to improve the chances of disabled learners
and those with learning difficulties. All learners must be
given the chance to make the best of their aptitudes, interests and
skills and, only by their doing that, can we build the just and
cohesive society that we
seek. However,
a couple of issues need to be dealt with. There is a debate about which
apprenticeship schemes would in practical terms be available to
different learners. It would certainly not be true that all apprentice
schemes would be suitable for all sorts of learners. Those with
particular learning difficulties or disabilities might find some
apprenticeships either impossible or undesirable. I want to test the
hon. Lady and the Minister on such
matters. New
clause 10 would move disabled students aged 16 to 18 to the aegis of
the SFA. Is that necessarily the best thing? Perhaps the new clause
would not do that.
Annette
Brooke: I am sorry, but I did not hear the first part of
the hon. Gentleman’s sentence. Will he repeat
it?
Mr.
Gibb: The hon. Lady said that she did not hear what you
said.
The
Chairman: Order. To prevent the debate being a dialogue of
the deaf, can everyone speak
up?
Mr.
Hayes: I shall broadcast my sentiments rather more
powerfully. New
clause 10 explicitly moves disabled students between the ages of 16 and
18 to the aegis of the SFA. Would that always be in their best
interests or might it, perversely, occasionally limit opportunities for
them? That could be an unintended consequence of the change.
There is some
concern about what is entailed in having regard to the needs of a
person with a
disability “which
prevents or hinders the person from making use of facilities of a kind
generally provided by institutions providing
education”. Will
the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole or the Minister make it
clear how that would work in practice? A balance needs to be struck
between opening opportunities and creating the impression that we
provide all kinds of services and openings, which could not practically
be delivered. Notwithstanding all that, I understand why the amendments
have been tabled and I am extremely sympathetic to them in
principle.
| 
