Mr.
Hayes: I apologise for interrupting, as I should let the
Minister finish his sentence. The difference between us is less
profound than some might assume, as I think he shares my view about the
work-based element of apprenticeships. However, the critical point is
whether he thinks that that is involved in the very definition of an
apprenticeship. If so, there is a strong argument for including it in
the Bill. He is right, of course, that the detail of any particular
apprenticeship is not something that could be identified in the Bill,
as there are so many different kinds of apprenticeship, but the
principle that an apprenticeship must have a work-based
element—that it must be strongly driven by the
workplace-mentored element—seems to be a matter of definition
that could indeed be included in the Bill.
Mr.
Simon: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about
definition, but what is missing from his analysis is the fact that an
apprenticeship is, by definition, a work-based experience. An
apprenticeship is a job. I do not know whether one can be sold an Aunt
Sally—
Mr.
Hayes: It is a marvellous mixed
metaphor.
Mr.
Simon: At least I paused halfway through. What is
happening is that we are somewhere between being sold a pup and offered
an Aunt Sally. We have debated programme-led apprenticeships, on which
I think we also agree substantively. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman
would agree that programme-led apprenticeships can be a very useful
pathway to get young people into apprenticeships. However, as he knows,
and as we all need to make clear, as long as a programme-led
apprenticeship remains college-based, rather than being a job, it is
not an apprenticeship under the terms of the Bill. We do not currently
count it as an apprenticeship, and it will not be counted as
one.
Mr.
Hayes: In that case, will the Minister give us an
assurance—he can give it now; he does not need further
notice—that from now on, programme-led apprenticeships will not
be called apprenticeships but will be called something different?
Clearly it was a mistake to call them that in the first
place.
Mr.
Simon: It is certainly the case that programme-led
apprenticeships and what I believe is termed the brand of programme-led
apprenticeships are being consulted on now. I cannot remember off the
top of my head which consultation that is part of, but it is definitely
part of a consultation.
Mr.
Hayes: Perhaps I can be helpful. The Minister is
consulting me. This is the consultation, and I am telling him to get
rid of programme-led apprenticeships, not in substance but in name. Of
course we believe that a lot of good work is done leading up to a full
apprenticeship. Of course we know that people need to be prepared
before they can take that step, but we should not call them
apprenticeships. He has more or less said it. Will he have the guts to
stand up now and say that he will get rid of
them?
Mr.
Simon: The hon. Gentleman says that I have more or less
said it. I have certainly told him that the matters he is discussing,
such as how programme-led apprenticeships are to be presented and what
they are to be called, are under review and out for consultation. It
would be wrong of me to pre-empt the outcome of the review and
consultation, particularly given that Lord Young of Norwood Green is
the Minister with responsibility for
apprenticeships. To
return to the reason why I started talking about programme-led
apprenticeships, much of the hon. Gentleman’s discourse has
suggested that programme-led apprenticeships are somehow integrated in
the mainstream of apprenticeships or in other arrangements. They are
not. An apprenticeship is a job and can be conducted only at work.
Where else are jobs done, but at work? Under the Bill, an
apprenticeship must be a job. The apprentice must be employed under a
contract of service. The Bill also makes it clear that an
apprenticeship is not just a job, but must include a formal training
component. To specify that a job must occur in the workplace would be a
truism.
Mr.
Hayes: The Minister is a courageous man so I am
disappointed that he has not gone the extra mile and followed through
the logic of his argument to say that programme-led apprenticeships
should not be called apprenticeships. He has said that apprenticeships
should be employer-based. How many employers of current apprentices are
providers, whose sole or principal business is the provision of
training?
Mr.
Simon: I cannot give that number off the top of my head,
but I will look into it. If the information is available, I will be
happy to write to the hon. Gentleman. My point remains that Opposition
and Government Members want exactly the same thing and are more in
agreement than it might appear. We are all committed to apprenticeships
being jobs that occur at work and which contain a high-quality formal
learning
portion.
Mr.
Gibb: I am following this debate with great interest.
Should not the employer be engaged in the same business that the
apprenticeship will give rise to? If the employer is a training
provider, the apprenticeship certificate should relate to the business
of training and not to engineering, for example. Engineering may be the
subject of the apprenticeship, but it is not the business of the
employer if he is a training provider. Is that not the
issue?
Mr.
Simon: No, I do not think so. In only a small minority of
cases will the employer be a training provider. The more conventional
model is for apprenticeship employers to be businesses. Off the top of
my head, they make up about 55 or 60 per cent. The rest break down into
a dozen or so categories, of which training providers are a relatively
small proportion. It is more conventional for there to be an employer,
a learner and a training provider to provide the training
portion. There
are arrangements through which training providers and coalitions of
companies can club together in group training associations, which are
now called apprenticeship training associations. They effectively hire
out apprentices—that might be the wrong term—to smaller
businesses that would struggle to bear the burden of a full-time
apprentice. A group organisation can share the burden. That model has
been very successful in Australia, where about 20 per cent. of
apprentices are retained in that way. It is not something that we would
like to lose. It is something that we intend to encourage and extend
but it does remain a relatively small part of the total
package.
Mr.
Hayes: I share the hon. Gentleman’s enthusiasm for
group training associations. Are the Government planning to give extra
resources to group training associations to make that vision a
reality?
Mr.
Simon: We are looking into, again formally, how we can
develop and extend the work of group training
associations.
Mr.
Stuart: The concern on both sides of the Committee is that
we should not have fake jobs as part of an apprenticeship scheme. As
the Minister rightly says, group training, where small employers share
employees who genuinely go into the workplace, would be fine.
The fear is that, in order to meet statutory and mandatory targets,
people might be employed by no more than a training company which does
not bring people properly into workplaces where they can learn about
the operation of the industry for which they are
training.
Mr.
Simon: I have not seen any evidence that group training
associations or apprenticeship training associations are culpable in
that respect. As the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings
said, the general sense in the sector is that they are a good thing,
whose particular role will be to make it easier for smaller businesses
to take on apprentices, perhaps in more rural areas that might not
otherwise be able to bear the burden. The issue of fake jobs is the
Aunt Sally I talked of earlier. I do not think that there are lots of
fake apprenticeships. I understand the point made by the hon. Member
for Beverley and Holderness, which I think relates to the programme-led
apprenticeship example, but we have moved beyond that. It is clear that
an apprenticeship is a job. I do not see fake apprentices doing fake
jobs. The apprenticeships in place now are of high quality across the
board and these measures will develop and extend
that.
Stephen
Williams: I want to close off this point about group
training associations. I tabled new clause 13—which at this
glacial rate of progress I doubt there will be time to
discuss—which asks that the new national apprenticeship service
should include promoting group training associations in its remit. The
Minister mentioned that that is being looked at. Is it his intention
that these will be promoted by the NAS because I understand that that
would be welcomed by small businesses represented by the Federation of
Small Businesses, and not just in rural areas? The one place they exist
at the moment is London—there are many small employers in cities
as well. They find the bureaucracy of accessing funding and meeting all
the requirements of apprenticeships quite difficult and a group
training association might help
them.
Mr.
Simon: The hon. Gentleman makes a welcome and constructive
intervention. I can tell him and the hon. Member for South Holland and
The Deepings that I have just remembered that we have announced a
prospectus for a £7 million funding stream to be published in
April to help fund the expansion costs of ATAs and GTAs, which I know
will warm the cockles of his English heart.
The
apprenticeship agreement—the key contract between the apprentice
and the employer—will set out the core responsibilities and what
each can expect as part of the apprenticeship experience. As I said
earlier, I have written to hon. Members setting out the prescribed
terms that we consider an apprenticeship agreement should cover. Our
intention is that the agreement should state that the employer should
provide opportunities to learn and practise the skills demanded in the
apprenticeship framework and will provide supervision and mentoring
support to the apprentice.
Clause 2 is
intended to ensure that the apprentices who, for example, might have
completed the course of training for the principal qualification before
entering into an apprenticeship and who would not therefore satisfy all
the requirements in clause 1, can still receive their apprenticeship
certificate.
5.15
pm I
stress, as we have stressed in the explanatory notes, that we would
only expect certificates to be issued under clause 2 in the most
exceptional of circumstances. Apprenticeships in this position would
need to satisfy all of the requirements of the framework and we would
expect the certifying authority to ensure that appropriate work-based
learning has been undertaken during the course of the apprenticeship,
so that a certificate can be
issued. I
hope that Opposition Members will accept that we share their concerns
about this issue and that supervised work-based training will form part
of all apprenticeships, including those offered as part of the
apprenticeship scheme part 4, and that there is already adequate
provision for that, both in the Bill and in the core documents that
flow from it. Having given these reassurances, I hope that they might
be prepared to withdraw their
amendments. Amendment
113 is slightly different. Clause 80(5) defines apprenticeship training
very broadly as that connected
with: “
(a) an apprenticeship
agreement, (b)
any other contract of employment,
or (c)
any other kind of working in relation to which alternative
English
completion
conditions apply under section
1(5).” Removing
paragraph (b) would mean that apprentices would either have to have an
apprenticeship agreement to fall under the chief executive’s
responsibility or would need to be in other kinds of work outlined in
paragraph (c). The Government have made very clear their
commitment to apprenticeship agreements, and the inclusion of paragraph
(b) is not intended to undermine that commitment. When the chief
executive takes on responsibility for apprenticeships’ training
provision, he will inherit apprentices who will not have apprenticeship
agreements but who may have acceptable contracts with employers all the
same. The inclusion of paragraph (b) allows current apprentices and
employers to continue their arrangements as they stand, without needing
to sign retrospective
agreements.
Stephen
Williams: For the sake of clarification, the Minister says
that the justification for clause 80(5)(b), which would be affected by
this group of amendments, is that the chief executive of the SFA will
“inherit” apprentices who do not currently fall within
the parameters of this legislation. Does that mean that this provision
will only apply in the short term, so there should be a sunset clause
in the Bill relating to it?
Mr.
Simon: I take the hon. Gentleman’s point. Yes, in
the first instance the intention is as I have described and he has just
summarised. However, it is conceivable that there may be other groups
in the future, for reasons that are not covered by the explanation that
I have just given, who might profit from the same transitional
arrangements. For that reason, there is no sunset clause. Nevertheless,
the clear intention is to move to a position where all new apprentices
have apprenticeship agreements as soon as possible, which will render
the whole issue historical. I hope that, having given that explanation,
the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings will be persuaded to
withdraw his amendment.
Mr.
Hayes: This has been a useful debate at the beginning of
our consideration on what we see as the core elements in an
apprenticeship. We have heard from the Minister that he shares our
determination to ensure that apprenticeships are indeed worthy of the
name, which means that they should have a significant work-based
element. As he was speaking about programme-led apprenticeships, I
thought that he began in a kind of ursine fashion and ended in a
soricine fashion. He began like a bear and ended like a shrew, as he
claimed, or certainly flagged up, that he was about to acknowledge that
apprenticeships that did not have a work-based element should not be
called apprenticeships, but ended by saying that he wished to consult
further on that contention, as though there was some doubt about it.
One may think, as I do, that they should be called something different.
It is not that they lack value; it is absolutely right that there
should be all kinds of pre-apprenticeship
training.
Mr.
Simon: I think that the hon. Gentleman might
inadvertently have said that I said that they should be called
something else. I did not say that; I said that his point was
reasonable and that the question of whether the training should be
differently branded was worthy of discussion. That is being considered,
and if he awaits the outcome of the review and the consultation he
might be happily
surprised.
Mr.
Hayes: The Minister has moved from being a shrew to being
a tame shrew. Not only is he not prepared to follow through his
original bold assertions, but he is not even confident of the outcome
of the consultations. Indeed, he might change his mind halfway through
if there is a sufficiently strong case that those programmes should be
considered apprenticeships, yet he acknowledged in earlier that the
very definition of an apprenticeship was that it was related to
employment—based in a job as he put it—which means in the
workplace. Surely then he simply cannot have an apprenticeship without
a significant work-based
element. You
will remember, Mrs. Humble, that when in 1994 Lord Hunt of
Wirral, then a Member of Parliament and Secretary of State for
Employment, created the idea of the modern apprenticeship its calibre
and status were signified by the fact that it would be the equivalent
of A-levels—a level 3 qualification. As the excellent report
soon to be published by the Skills Commission points out, in 2000, the
Government renamed a level 2 national traineeship scheme an
apprenticeship, so at a stroke adding many existing training places to
the number of apprenticeships. We know that there is pedigree, or
perhaps I should say history, in this regard: apprenticeships can be
what one chooses them to
be.
| 
