Stephen
Williams: On that point about group training associations,
we heard several times that the Government intend to encourage the
facilitation of group training arrangements. I was looking for the
assurance that that encouragement will include college-led group
training arrangements?
Jim
Knight: I am mulling that particular question over. We
specify in clause 85 that an apprenticeship place must involve
arrangements for employment and training or study, highlighting the
central role of employers in the apprenticeships scheme. Accepting this
amendment would undermine employers’ central
role. 3.45
pm College-led
group training associations would be an appropriate vehicle. Having
reflected, I have now concluded that that is an appropriate
arrangement. We recognise that there is a valuable role for
programme-led apprenticeships and pre-apprenticeship provision but we
are clear that these are not apprenticeships. We announced in
“World-class Apprenticeships” that we would look to
revisit the programme-led apprenticeship brand with a view to creating
a new name clearly to designate the new reformed route. As such, while
understanding the motivation behind this amendment, we do not believe
that this is the most effective means of achieving what we all want
which is more apprenticeship places. I hope the hon. Gentleman will be
persuaded by those compelling
arguments.
Stephen
Williams: I often find the Minister compelling, though not
necessarily conclusively persuasive in all circumstances. None the
less, the assurance that I wanted from him was that college-led group
training arrangements would be part of the encouragement of GTAs which
his Department and DIUS are going to undertake once this legislation is
passed. I accept that there may be
entirely legitimate business reasons for an employer to terminate the
employment contract of an under-performing apprentice. That was not the
scenario envisaged by my amendments or what I had to say to them. I
accept that there would be legitimate reasons other than total business
failure for an apprentice place to be withdrawn. As the Minister has
given me the assurance that college-led GTAs are to be encouraged by
his Department and its sister Department, I beg to ask leave to
withdraw the
amendment. Amendment,
by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 83,
as amended, ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
84Election
for apprenticeship
scheme Amendments
made: 410, in clause 84, page 51, line 19,
leave out from ‘is’ to ‘and’ in line 20 and
insert ‘within subsection (1A) or
(1B),’. The effect of
this amendment (with amendment 411) is to permit a care leaver aged 19
or over who satisfies the apprenticeship scheme requirements, and to
whom a local authority in England owes certain duties under the
Children Act 1989, to elect for the apprenticeship scheme under clause
84. 411,
in
clause 84, page 51, line 23, at
end insert— ‘(1A) A person
within this subsection is one
who— (a) is over
compulsory school age, and (b)
is aged under 19. (1B) A person
within this subsection is one who is not within subsection (1A)
and— (a) is a person
aged under 21 towards whom a local authority in England has the duties
provided for in section 23C of the Children Act 1989 (c. 41)
(continuing functions in respect of certain formerly looked after
children), or (b) is a person
to whom section 23CA of that Act applies, in relation to whom a local
authority in England is the responsible local authority (within the
meaning of that section).’.—(Jim
Knight.) The
new subsection (1B) inserted by this amendment describes the care
leavers who will be eligible to elect for the apprenticeship scheme, by
reference to duties owed by local authorities in England under the
Children Act 1989.
Clause 84,
as amended, ordered to stand part of the
Bill. Clause
85 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
86Suitability
and availability of apprenticeship places: further
provision
Annette
Brooke: I beg to move amendment 116, in
clause 86, page 52, line 42, after
‘(5) (a)’, insert ‘which may
align with boundaries defined in sub-regional
groupings’. Yet
again, Mr. Chope, our changeover is not taking place at
quite the point in the Bill that we imagined, so I will be brief. This
particular amendment is obviously again looking at boundaries of
sub-regional groupings on which we have already had some discussion.
Local
authorities, in the Bill, will directly fund and commission education
which takes place in sixth-form colleges. There will be approximately
43 sub-regional groups of local authorities and they will be
commissioning 16 to 19 education and training which takes place in
further education colleges, although the funding as, we know, comes
directly from the local authority. There is a concern that further
education colleges will have to respond to at least two funding
bodies—a point that we made the other day—their local
authority and the Skills Funding Agency. An additional division of
areas for the purposes of determining suitability of apprenticeship
places is potentially going to add to confusion and bureaucracy, where
we have splits across the sub-regions and two layers, so we have a
horizontal and a vertical split in terms of these different agencies.
We believe that in the interests of simplicity divisions made for the
purposes of apprenticeships should align with the already determined
sub-regional
groupings. Jim
Knight: The apprenticeship scheme is a key element of our
plans to ensure that an apprenticeship place is made available for
every suitably qualified young person who wants one. How we define a
reasonable travel area is clearly an important part of the
apprenticeship scheme, and one that we are determined to get right.
That is why I understand the motivation behind the amendment, and share
the view that there needs to be a linkage between these reasonable
travel areas and the sub-regional groupings, which are an important
part of our 14-19 planning
processes. Our
starting point in defining reasonable travel areas has been to use
travel-to-work areas as defined by the Office for National Statistics.
As apprenticeships involve a relationship with employers it is only
right that we use travel-to-work areas as the basis in the first
instance. We are mindful, however, of the need to take a practical
common-sense approach. The definition of a reasonable travel area needs
to be flexible enough to cover a variety of situations. There may be
circumstances in which it is entirely appropriate for the reasonable
travel areas to align with boundaries defined in local authority
sub-regional groupings, which are based on travel-to-learn patterns,
but there may also be situations in which reasonable travel areas mean
that young people living near the boundaries of a sub-regional grouping
can easily travel across those boundaries to take up apprenticeship
opportunities. Previously in our debates the hon. Lady talked about
Brockenhurst college, which would be on the boundaries of such
groupings. Using legislation to link reasonable travel areas with
sub-regional groupings might therefore have the unintended consequence
of reducing learner choice. For that reason, and as this is an
operational matter, there is no need to further specify the detail of
how the process will work in legislation, and I encourage the hon. Lady
to withdraw the
amendment.
Annette
Brooke: I thank the Minister for his reply. I accept that
the issue is complex but that is a result of having a number of
complexities in the Bill. However, I am very mindful of unintended
consequences and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment. Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn. Clause
86 ordered to stand part of the
Bill. Clauses
87 and 88 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
89Suspension
of
scheme
Mr.
Hayes: I beg to move amendment 207, in clause 89,
page 54, line 20, at end
insert— ‘(c) and after
consultation with representatives of employers and providers from the
sector.’. I
was just reflecting on what Oscar Wilde said about truth. He said
that “truth
is seldom pure and never
simple”, and
so it is with the Bill—it is seldom
simple.
Jim
Knight: On a point of order, Mr. Chope. I
though that I heard you call amendment 207, which appears to be the one
listed here. Perhaps it is a printing error in the document I am
looking at, but I thought that amendment 207 was in the name
of— [Interruption.] No, it is not.
Fine. I am grateful for that
clarification.
The
Chairman: The right hon. Gentleman has answered his own
point of
order.
Mr.
Hayes: I said that things are never simple, and on cue the
Minister jumped up to show that that is the
case. Clause
89 gives the Secretary of State the power to suspend an apprenticeship
scheme in a specified geographical area in relation to particular
apprenticeship sectors or a particular level for up to two years. That
would allow the duty to secure suitable apprenticeship places to be
suspended when economic difficulties or other circumstances were so
severe that that duty could not be fulfilled. The amendment is designed
to ascertain exactly why apprenticeship schemes would have to be
suspended in certain areas or certain sectors during economic hardship.
It is now clear that the country is moving to a state of significant
economic hardship, by any measure. The clause enables the Secretary of
State to suspend apprenticeship schemes at such times, and as a result
it has many worrying aspects. It is particularly worrying that training
and skills education could be discontinued during hardship, when, as
many reports have argued, it should be used as an exit route. The
recent report by the Institute of Directors makes it clear that during
downturns it is important to continue to invest in skills and training.
The failure to do so in past recessions has both lengthened and
deepened them. It is a particular concern that the clause facilitates
that
approach.
The
Chairman: Order. I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman is
addressing the amendment that I called. He seems to be addressing
amendment 206, which has not been selected. If I have misinterpreted
his comments, I apologise, but I would be grateful if he addressed his
remarks to amendment
207.
Mr.
Hayes: Even if I thought you were wrong, Mr.
Chope, I would not say so, but on this occasion, I think you are
right.
Mr.
Simon: Will the hon. Gentleman give
way?
Mr.
Hayes: I will give way to the Under-Secretary in a
moment.
I will move
on to make the few remarks I intend to make on amendment 207. What a
pity amendment 203 was not called, or I would be able to continue my
peroration. I will happily give way to the Under-Secretary, who is like
a rare bird—he has been an infrequent visitor to the Committee
today.
Mr.
Simon: I invite the hon. Gentleman to agree with me that
things are even more complex than even he realised. I should also like
to note that I have been here the whole time in the Committee
today.
Mr.
Hayes: The Under-Secretary has indeed been here the whole
time, but he has been an infrequent contributor, as I should have said.
He is right that things are always more complex than they seem. So it
is with legislation, so it is with
amendments. Amendment
207 suggests that the elements of clause 89 that I have outlined should
only be effected after consultation with representatives of employers
and providers from the sector. This is another case of us seeking to
ensure that employers are fully involved in both the theory and the
practice of the Bill. I anticipate, and I will welcome, the
Minister’s agreement with that sentiment when he rises to say
that the Government intend to accept the
amendment.
Jim
Knight: The last thing I want to do is disappoint the hon.
Gentleman yet again by resisting yet another proposed amendment, but I
am afraid that I will have to do so. It would introduce a
statutory requirement to formally
consult “representatives
of employers and
providers” before
the regulations that would suspend an apprenticeship scheme can be
laid. I remind him and other members of the Committee that the guidance
in the code of practice on consultations is that the period for formal
consultation should normally last for at least 12 weeks. Also, any
failure to comply with formal consultation requirements could lead to a
judicial review challenge to any decision to suspend the apprenticeship
scheme, and to the invalidation an order to
suspend.
Mr.
Hayes: For the benefit of the Committee, will the Minister
describe the circumstances in which a scheme would be suspended,
specifically, not
generally?
Jim
Knight: The experience in last outbreak of foot and mouth
disease was that it entails considerable disruption to certain sectors
in rural areas, for example. It might be appropriate in specific
sectors in specific geographical areas to suspend a scheme because of
the difficulty of access to
it.
Mr.
Hayes: It occurred to me that the Minister is quick on his
feet and rarely puts them in his
mouth.
Jim
Knight: I have no comment to make about that. I reassure
the Committee that the decision to suspend the scheme will not be taken
lightly; we would need evidence that it is impossible to fulfil the
duty to secure the places. In determining whether the suspension of the
scheme is necessary, we will take account of the views of employer and
training provider representatives, among
others. However,
the amendment would restrict flexibility by imposing an additional and
potentially lengthy formal step in the process before a change can be
made to suspend a scheme. I therefore urge the hon. Gentleman to
withdraw it.
Mr.
Hayes: I am persuaded, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw
the
amendment. Clause
89 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered,
That the debate be now adjourned.— (Ms
Butler.) 4
pm Adjourned
till Tuesday 24 March at half-past Ten
o’clock.
| 
