Draft Apprenticeships (Alternative English Completion Conditions) Regulations 2012

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chair: Mrs Anne Main 

† Baldwin, Harriett (West Worcestershire) (Con) 

† Birtwistle, Gordon (Burnley) (LD) 

† Colvile, Oliver (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con) 

† Danczuk, Simon (Rochdale) (Lab) 

† Donohoe, Mr Brian H. (Central Ayrshire) (Lab) 

† Halfon, Robert (Harlow) (Con) 

† Hayes, Mr John (Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning)  

† Jones, Susan Elan (Clwyd South) (Lab) 

† Liddell-Grainger, Mr Ian (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con) 

† Marsden, Mr Gordon (Blackpool South) (Lab) 

† Offord, Mr Matthew (Hendon) (Con) 

† Roy, Mr Frank (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab) 

Sheerman, Mr Barry (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op) 

† Simpson, David (Upper Bann) (DUP) 

† Stride, Mel (Central Devon) (Con) 

† Swales, Ian (Redcar) (LD) 

Wood, Mike (Batley and Spen) (Lab) 

† Wright, Jeremy (Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury)  

Sarah Heath, Alison Groves, Committee Clerks

† attended the Committee

Eighth Delegated Legislation Committee 

Tuesday 17 April 2012  

[Mrs Anne Main in the Chair] 

Draft Apprenticeships (Alternative English Completion Conditions) Regulations 2012 

4.30 pm 

The Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning (Mr John Hayes):  I beg to move, 

That the Committee has considered the draft Apprenticeships (Alternative English Completion Conditions) Regulations 2012. 

The regulations introduce alternative completion conditions for apprenticeships. As you know, Mrs Main, and as other hon. Members know, employment is, under the current Government, usually a precondition of any apprenticeship. I was absolutely clear when I became the Minister—when we came into government—that apprenticeships should be jobs with training. They should be linked to real employment. To that end, we phased out programme-led apprenticeships, which at one point represented more than 50,000 apprenticeships for young people. The growth that we have achieved in apprentice numbers needs to be seen in that context, because we have replaced programme-led apprenticeships, apprenticeship by apprenticeship, with employed apprenticeships. 

The apprenticeship brand is well recognised throughout the House as providing a unique opportunity to learn from one or more mentors and to develop, practise and hone real occupational skills. I am talking about skills that have value in the workplace—that serve business needs—and that equip individuals with the ability to prosper. The apprentice will typically work alongside the mentor or master, watching, copying and refining their skills. For his part, the master will demonstrate, guide and correct the apprentice’s work. Both apprentice and employer have a real stake in the apprentice’s development and success. That reciprocity lies at the heart of the apprenticeship brand and the apprenticeship programme. 

There are those who feel that I have gone too far on quality. I know that, but I think it vital that we invest in quality as we grow quantity. It is essential that every apprenticeship becomes as good as the best. I can assure hon. Members that I am as aware as they are of the value of the approach that has been described—the employment-based apprenticeship—and of the part that employment plays more generally, not only in the quality of training, but in the employability skills gained by the individual. The business of being at work, communicating and meeting and mixing with work colleagues equips the individual with all kinds of what are often called soft skills—although that is slightly to understate them—that will last for the whole of their working lives. 

When I came into office, approximately 21% of 16 to 18-year-old apprentices were on a programme-led apprenticeship. Those young people did not have the same quality of experience as other apprentices and, having

put so much effort into completing their apprenticeship, were more likely to find themselves without a job than other apprentices, because of course a significant number of apprentices who are employed end up working for the employer with whom they have trained or a similar employer in that sector. The employment base of apprenticeships is therefore critical to the subsequent success of the apprentice in gaining, keeping and progressing in a job. 

Funding for new programme-led apprenticeships ceased formally in April 2011, and the introduction of the apprenticeship agreement regulations in April of this year will end the few remaining programme-led apprenticeships. As I said, they began to be phased out from the time I became the Minister. Members of the Committee will know that the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009 stated that all apprentices must be working under an apprenticeship agreement. We inherited that from the previous Government. They had taken steps to tighten up the quality of apprenticeships; I freely acknowledge that. The 2009 Act said that the agreement must be in the prescribed form. The new regulations prescribe that form, making it easier to check that apprentices meet that requirement. 

I believe, however, that in a limited number of cases, an exception to employed status is necessary, and that is what the regulations specify. The issue was thoroughly debated during the passage of the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Bill—I was a member of the Committee that considered it—and there was agreement on both sides that, in some specific cases, groups should not be denied access to apprenticeships because they could not meet these high standards and this important requirement for employment. 

I will, if I may, talk about the exceptions, which fall into three broad categories. First, there are a small number of jobs or occupational areas where employed status is not the norm. We have carefully considered all applications in this category, and those included in the regulations share common features. Apprentices will be engaged in a commercial activity and will be supported by experienced colleagues involved in the collective venture. You, Mrs Main, and the Committee will no doubt ask what these exceptional circumstances are and what sort of tasks or roles I am referring to. Share fishermen are one such example. They engage in commercial fishing and are paid at the end of the process. As a result, they are not salaried in the way that a normal employee would be, yet they are engaged in purposeful and meaningful work and gaining skills. It would be wrong to exclude these apprentices on the basis that they did not meet the regulations. We feel that what they are learning and doing is absolutely right and proper and that we need to make them an exception in the terms of these regulations. 

Another example would be a film crew. A group of technicians would be working together and there would be apprenticeships associated with those particular tasks. They would typically be paid at the end of the process, so again they would not be salaried or employed in the strict sense that applies most generally to apprenticeships. 

Secondly, there are those apprentices who begin their training while in employment but who are made redundant during the course of the apprenticeship owing to changes in the employer’s circumstance. In all conscience, it cannot be right to allow their hopes and aspirations to

be frustrated through no fault of their own. It is only fair that these young people be given the chance to complete their apprenticeship programmes. The regulations propose that if no alternative paid employment can be secured and if they would have completed their apprenticeship within six months, they may be able to do it by working other than for reward—for example, by working in a voluntary or unpaid capacity. In the end, it is a matter for them; it is not an obligation. It seems to me that where someone has gone through the vast bulk of the apprenticeship and then, through circumstances outside their control, they are not able to complete it, we should make special arrangements to allow them to do so. 

Finally, in this year of the London Olympics, we are reminded of how important it is to support young athletes to develop their skills. This group consists of apprentices undertaking the sports excellence apprenticeship with a view to competing in an Olympic, Paralympic or Commonwealth games sport. I have been determined to ensure that there is great clarity about which sports and games are included. They must be listed as an official sport for one of the games mentioned and must not be from a sport where we would expect an apprentice to be employed. Such “business” sports include cricket and football. Apprentices in business sports will still be able to access apprenticeships using the standard conditions. I felt that for these Olympic and Paralympic sports, there was a strong case for making an exception. We were approached on that basis. We looked at the matter carefully and we therefore put that as a proposal to this Committee today. 

I want to assure the Committee that this is not the thin end of the wedge. These are very much exceptional circumstances. The numbers are very small and the exceptions provided for under the regulations reflect both practical experience and the Government’s desire to ensure that otherwise able candidates are not excluded from the possibility of gaining an apprenticeship by force of circumstances. The regulations accordingly tread a careful line between recognising and providing for such circumstances and continuing to guarantee the quality of the qualification to which training will lead. That is consistent with my recent announcements of the introduction of a minimum duration of 12 months for apprenticeships undertaken by 16 to 18-year-olds, and now the minimum length in respect of adult apprenticeships too, and of the National Apprenticeship Service’s urgent investigation into how to ensure the quality of subcontracted apprenticeship programmes can be maintained. In addition, of course, on the basis of legislation passed under the previous Government, we have for the first time put in place statutory standards with respect to apprenticeships. I am entirely unapologetic about the relentless drive on quality. There are those who think that I am too demanding, but the apprenticeship brand is such that we need to reinforce quality at every turn. The matters I have outlined are very much the exception. 

Mr Brian H. Donohoe (Central Ayrshire) (Lab):  I declare an interest in that I was once an apprentice—in a real job, it must be said—and standards at that time were exceptionally high. Perhaps the Minister might want to look at the history of apprenticeships. He would see that there were training boards in the days when I was an apprentice that held high standards for

the qualifications required. Perhaps if the Minister were to look at that, we would not have the dearth of people in the trades that most people are crying out for in this country. 

Mr Hayes:  I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman’s practical experience in those matters. He will know that in the engineering and construction industries those training boards are maintained. Recently, if not in this Committee Room, in a very similar one, the matter of training levies in those two industries—which I strongly support, as I support the boards—was dealt with. 

Sector skills councils are responsible for occupational standards in other sectors. I made it clear to the councils early in my ministerial career—I was going to say my illustrious ministerial career, but I do not want to be too big headed about it—that those standards were to be maintained and grown. It is important to build those standards and ensure that what is being taught and tested matches employer need, just as the hon. Gentleman described. 

4.42 pm 

Mr Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab):  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Main. I thank the Minister for his usual cogent, forceful and enthusiastic presentation of the policies. He mentioned his illustrious ministerial career; he and I are quite fond of swapping quotations, so I will remind him of the words at the close of “Oedipus Rex”, that none can be counted successful until they go down to their grave in peace—not wishing anything on the Minister in that respect, but merely putting things into a temporal context. 

To be serious, we obviously welcome any measures that will further support people who are doing apprenticeships, or working towards their completion. I am grateful to the Minister for acknowledging that the regulations build on the work done on the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009, and the all-party consensus on that Act. However, although we broadly welcome what has been said, there are still several issues that I want to raise about the proposals and the explanatory memorandum provided by the Department. 

I shall refer principally to page 2 of the explanatory memorandum, which I think all hon. Members have. It discusses the response from sector skills councils, which were asked about their conditions for alternative English completion. I was slightly surprised to read that only nine of the 25 sector skills councils in existence at the time of consultation submitted a case for alternative completion conditions, so my first question is: what explanation can the Minister can give for the fact that 16 at the time—obviously there has been some consolidation since—did not respond? 

Further, we are told that of the nine submissions that were made, only four 

“were accepted at least in part”. 

Of the others, 

“one could not be considered because the framework had not been issued, and three were rejected because the case for inclusion was not sufficiently strong.” 

Is the Minister satisfied with that outcome? What action does he propose to improve sector skills councils’ compliance in order to make the proposals and this

alternative route a success? I know that he shares my desire that sector skills councils should not only fulfil their whole remit but be seen to be doing so. 

I pay tribute to the Minister for responding to the considerable concerns expressed about apprenticeship standards and quality and for his new initiatives in that respect. He has also referred in general terms to how the alternative completion regulations will be applied, but I ask him to assure us that those following the alternatives will be subject to the same rigorous assessment as those following conventional completion routes. I am primarily thinking of those in self-employment, as he has described, or those who have to find an alternative form of completion because of redundancy. 

The explanatory memorandum states that the legislation does not apply to small businesses. The Minister and I both know about, and have been in concord on several occasions over, the crucial importance of engagement with small and medium-sized enterprises in the process of delivering apprenticeships. Why do the regulations not apply to SMEs? What is the definition of “small business” in this case? The Minister and I both know—we have several years’ experience in this area—that the definition of “small business” can be rather elastic. 

What will the Minister do to ensure that the apprenticeships completed via the alternative completion regulations will offer the same progression opportunities that we expect from conventional apprenticeships? Again, I support what he has said about keeping up completion rates, but the second half of success in that process is progression. Will the proposals allow an individual to progress from level 2 to levels 3 and 4 and beyond? 

As the Minister has pointed out, the regulations raise a broader issue of what should be done to support those apprentices unfortunate enough to see their businesses go under while their apprenticeships are in progress. Given the current economic situation, sadly that issue will not go away any time soon. Therefore, will he expand a little further on what plans or measures the Government have to support apprentices made redundant prior to the completion of their course? It is crucial that we ensure that young people—and older people, as well, bearing in mind the many post-25 apprentices—are not left in that situation. 

What estimate have the Government made— 

4.48 pm 

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.  

5.2 pm 

On resuming—  

Mr Marsden:  I resume after the musical interlude. As I was saying to the Minister, it is obviously crucial that we ensure that people are not left high and dry by apprenticeships interrupted by redundancy before they complete their course. 

I would like to press the Minister a little further. How do the Government propose to take that strategy forward? It would be useful to know whether they have any estimate of how many people currently find themselves in that situation. I am not necessarily asking him to give us the figures orally today, but can he write to Committee

members giving us details of the number of apprentices in that category in recent years? What has the direction of travel been? Has the number increased, remained steady or decreased? That has implications for who picks up the slack. 

The Minister mentioned the potential to complete apprenticeships by volunteering or working in an unpaid capacity. I have also come across isolated examples—for instance, Blackpool and The Fylde college in my constituency picking up an apprentice who has been in that redundancy situation. Although I share his view that we want to return to progression-led apprenticeships and do not want to slide in that area, there is perhaps an opportunity for further education colleges to be involved. I would be grateful for his observations. 

The Minister also spoke about athletes. Again, I have read the list, which seems to be as comprehensive as I can make it. Referring back to my earlier points about applying the overall principle of progression, I ask him again what conversations he has had, for example with colleagues at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, about how progression in those categories, which I accept are exceptional, is to be measured or assured. That concludes my remarks on the subject and the questions that I would like the Minister to address. 

5.5 pm 

Mr Hayes:  I am grateful to the shadow Minister for the typical diligence that he has brought to his consideration of these matters. I will try to deal with all the points here, but I will be happy to write to him about those I cannot, as he suggested. I will not deal with his points in the order that he gave them to me, because that would be slightly predictable and a bit tedious; we will move around a bit and keep things lively. 

Let us deal with the issue about the numbers of people in what I described as the second category—the people whose apprenticeships were interrupted. In preparation for this Committee, I asked my officials exactly that question and could not get a satisfactory answer. I am not surprised by that, because the situation is changing rapidly. The hon. Gentleman mentioned that, to some extent, the effect of the economic circumstances is involved. 

Of course, the situation is also the product of the circumstances in a particular sector at a particular time, or a particular geographical area. Imagine a single company, a major apprenticeship supplier in a town or city, finding itself in difficulty; the effect on the number of apprentices could be disproportionate. It is not an easy thing to measure, therefore, as it has to be measured almost day by day. However, I think we can do more work on modelling. As a result of the inquiry I made earlier, which the hon. Gentleman has repeated today, I have asked my officials to consider how to get a better estimate. 

Similarly, in the same vein, I also share the shadow Minister’s view that we need to be more systematic. He is right that the current circumstances for many work quite well. Colleges do indeed get involved in supporting apprentices who find themselves in those circumstances. Very often another employer will step in to help the completion of apprenticeships, and the National Apprenticeship Service provides support in such circumstances, too. It makes information available

to individual apprentices, and monitors where there are such failures on the part of a provider or a company. None the less, I think we can be—I also said this when preparing for today—more systematic, and I have asked my officials to be so. 

We have to retain sufficient flexibility to take account of the dynamism I mentioned a moment ago. None the less, a good safety net needs to be put in place so that we do not leave large numbers of people disappointed. The point I made in those discussions, which I am quite happy to share with the Committee, is that as the number of apprenticeships grows, this marginal number will grow too. Even if it were a tiny fraction of the total number of apprenticeships, that might mean that at any point in time many hundreds of apprentices found themselves in more difficult circumstances. We owe it to those individuals to have a very clear view of how we handle the matter. 

Perhaps greater clarity about small businesses in the memorandum would have been helpful, but I hope I can provide it in my response to the hon. Gentleman’s question. The issue is with micro-businesses of 10 people or fewer. It is not really about small businesses who are employers using standard completion conditions; it is more about the risk of individuals establishing small businesses as a way of dealing with some of the exceptional circumstances that we have just been speaking about and, given that they would be gaining people with competency as part of employment, the undesirability of that. 

We do not want people, or a group of people, who find themselves unable to complete their apprenticeships to form a small business merely for the purpose of completing their apprenticeships, given that they would not be mentored and would not be gaining competencies through training. That is what we were trying to avoid. We are not looking per se to disadvantage small businesses that employ people in the normal way and work to the standard completion criteria. I have missioned the new National Careers Service to take a particular interest in apprentices who find themselves in the circumstances that we have discussed. With the National Careers Service, they will play a part in pulling together the kind of safety net I described a few moments ago. 

On SSCs, it is absolutely fair to point out that a minority have contributed. That is partly a reflection of the fact that the circumstances I described earlier apply to just a small number of sectors. Some sectors do not have those exceptional circumstances. Those SSCs that do were clearly particularly interested, but as a Committee we have to accept that this will be an iterative business. We will come back to consider the matter as and when necessary, reviewing circumstances as they change. The Olympics is a good example. Had we not been coming here to speak about the exceptional circumstances and the Olympics were upon us, we would have needed to do so anyway. The 2009 Act allows for that process of review. Indeed, we have invited SSCs to resubmit when they have looked at their cases again. 

Ian Swales (Redcar) (LD):  As MP for Redcar, where Dame Tanni Grey-Thompson has freedom of the borough, I am delighted to see mention of Paralympic sports in schedule 2 of the regulations. However, her own sport of wheelchair athletics does not seem to be included.

Can the Minister assure us that the needs of Paralympic associations have been properly reflected in the drawing-up of the schedule? 

Mr Hayes:  I anticipated that colleagues might raise the case of particular sports. As I am sure must have been true of previous Ministers who wrestled with such matters—this has certainly been a feature of my own ministerial career—many sports have come to me with compelling cases as to why they should be included in the list of exemptions. I have had to be fairly strict because, in the end, if there are going to be exceptions, they must be exceptions and not more than that. We cannot create a blanket exception around all sporting activity, so I used the Olympics, Paralympics and Commonwealth games as the means to create some boundaries. 

Again, I am happy to be frank with the Committee, but there are pretty compelling cases around things such as horse racing, which I have written to colleagues about. The British horse racing industry has been most enthusiastic in making its case about training people; people in it are not usually employed at the beginning of the process, but almost always end up employed at the end of it. It has a time-honoured apprenticeship programme, which certainly confers real competencies. I have looked at that case and have created a window of time in which to attempt a settlement, so that we can bring the industry into line with our general assumptions about employment, without in any sense inhibiting its good work in training people. 

A number of cases continue to be made, and that is precisely why we need to keep the matter under review and to bring back further information to the House as appropriate. Such cases will always be exceptional, but one cannot always predict where the exceptions will be. It is right that we should not be dogmatic, but we should regard the process as iterative, dependent on particular needs and circumstances. I thank my hon. Friend for allowing me to make that clear. 

The list will be reviewed and, on quality, all apprenticeship provision will be subject to Ofsted review and all the normal quality checks. 

Mr Marsden  rose—  

Mr Hayes:  Before the hon. Gentleman rises, I take his point that it is absolutely essential, if we have the exceptional circumstances in place, that we do not relax quality. He is as keen as I am on quality—he has a long history in his current role and in previous roles of making that point. We will ensure that all the usual checks on quality pertain to the exceptional circumstances. 

Mr Marsden:  I am grateful for the Minister’s assurances. Before he leaves the matter of the SSCs, I accept his point—he has given me the reply that I half-expected—about why only a minority of SSCs has contributed. However, on the separate point about why three of them were rejected because the case for inclusion was not sufficiently strong, what does he intend to do resolve that situation, assuming that he thinks that it is a matter that needs resolution? 

Mr Hayes:  Disraeli said that to be conscious that you are ignorant of the facts is a great step towards knowledge. I am entirely ignorant of those facts, but will not be after I have spoken to my officials, and I will write to the hon. Gentleman accordingly. I do not know the detail of those cases, but it is right that he asks for it and we will provide it to all Committee members. 

My feeling is that, inevitably, SSCs, rather as individual organisations or sectors, will be inclined to make cases that push our view of what is exceptional to the margin. An SSC representing its employers will argue a strong case, even if such a case pushes the boundaries. In the letter that I write to the hon. Gentleman, I am likely to say that we felt that those cases were too close to the boundary to be included in the exceptions. 

The hon. Gentleman did not ask for this information, but I offer it anyway, because it relates to something that he did ask for—some feel for the numbers of each of the three categories that I outlined at the outset. The first category, which relates to occupations in which the employed are in salaried status, requires a greater permissiveness. I mentioned share fishermen, film crews and so on. That category relates to approximately 600 cases; in the case of sports, we are talking about approximately 1,000, so the numbers are very small. I have said that I will carry out further work on the middle category,

which provides for people who are obliged to complete their apprenticeships in circumstances other than those that they originally envisaged. 

I thank all for their consideration and you for your chairmanship, Mrs Main. I did not formally welcome you to the Chair, because as part of my peroration I wanted to save my praise for your guidance, which has been both benevolent and sagacious, as I expected. With those comments and the assurance that I am happy to write to the Committee on any other matters, I should say that I think I have covered the points raised in the debate. I commend the regulations to the Committee. 

The Chair:  I thank the Minister for his kind words and the Committee for its forbearance in putting up with the disco or whatever it is that is going on outside. Apparently, numerous complaints have been made. We have made efforts to close the windows, but there is only one pole to operate all the windows on this floor, and we were last in the queue. 

Question put and agreed to.  

Resolved,  

That the Committee has considered the draft Apprenticeships (Alternative English Completion Conditions) Regulations 2012. 

5.17 pm 

Committee rose.