|
Division
No.
9]
Question
accordingly negatived.
Mr.
Hayes: I beg to move amendment 213, in
clause 40, page 24, line 16, leave
out from ‘(1)’ to end of line 19 and insert
‘defer to the Chief Executive of
Skills
Funding.’.
The
Chairman: With this we may discuss the following:
amendment 112, in
clause 40, page 24, line 44, leave
out subsection
(b). Amendment
215, in
clause 41, page 25, line 30, leave
out subsections (a) and (b) and insert
‘a contract of employment other
than an apprenticeship agreement with which training is
provided.’.
Mr.
Hayes: The amendment would move responsibility for
apprenticeships for under-19s from local authorities to the Skills
Funding Agency. The arrangements set up by clause 40(6) are, in our
judgment, entirely inconsistent with the overall purpose of the Bill.
The subsection leaves provision for under-19s in the control of LEAs,
yet later clauses in part 4 say that LEAs must work with the Skills
Funding Agency and its discrete body, the National Apprenticeship
Service. Surely the Minister and members of the Committee can see that
it is an entirely confusing system. Such aspects of the Bill led to it
being described by the British Chambers of Commerce as a
“bureaucratic muddle”, by the CBI as a “mixed
bag” and by the National Institute of Adult Continuing Education
as a “missed
opportunity”. The
Bill did not receive a happy response from the expert witnesses when we
discussed these matters at the first stage of our
considerations, and this is part of the reason why. We are establishing
a convoluted, complex, confusing and opaque system, yet the
Government’s stated intention is to make the system more
responsive, easier to understand, clearer and more cost effective. The
Bill will do none of those things. Indeed, witnesses to the Lords
Economic Affairs
Committee “stressed
that procedures for the administration of government funding of
apprenticeship had the effect of marginalising
employers”. That
was partly due to the very confusion that I describe this Bill as
worsening. The Committee concluded:
“In the
case of apprenticeship funding, the administrative chain separating
policy from practice on the ground is...long and, we would argue,
dysfunctional”. Does
this Bill, in its current state, improve that situation? I contest that
it does not. Introducing LEAs, the Skills Funding Agency and the NAS
into the equation risks making it even more dysfunctional. I would be
surprised if the Minister could argue the contrary
convincingly. 11.45
am There
are issues about employer engagement throughout the Bill. Employers get
scant mention. Sector skills councils, although mentioned at length in
the explanatory notes, are not detailed in any meaningful way in the
Bill, as they complained—once again—in a critical
analysis in an evidence session.
If we are
deconstructing the current arrangements—namely, the Learning and
Skills Council—we have a responsibility to put in place
something that is more effective in engaging employers and inspiring
learners to train and gain skills for their own benefit and the benefit
of our economy. I am simply not sure that the Bill, in its current
unamended form, does that, which is the reason for the
amendments.
When I asked
about local authorities, the witnesses—in particular John Lucas
of the British Chambers of Commerce—were highly sceptical about
the capacity of local authorities to respond to the challenges with
which they would be confronted as a result of this legislation. I asked
Mr. Lucas whether he was confident that local authorities
could perform better than the LSC in the short term, because worries
have already been raised that local authorities are doing little on the
ground at present. He
replied: “In
terms of funding and its distribution, I do not think that local
authorities have a track record of employer engagement and of ensuring
that the system post-16 is focused towards equipping young people
coming out of the system with skills and vocational qualifications that
enable them to work. They certainly do not have a track record of
successfully engaging with
business”.——[Official Report,
Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Public Bill Committee,
3 March 2009; c. 6,
Q3.] There
are real doubts about the inconsistency at the heart of this part of
the Bill and the amendment tries to deal with that. It attempts to cut
through the over-regulation and bureaucracy of the system, and instead
looks to ensure that employers and educators have a more streamlined
and light-touch regulatory system. It seems to me that the
Government’s one desire, in reinvigorating the apprenticeship
system, is that the system is more responsive to need. We must remove
at least some of the confusion that results from both local authorities
and the Skills Funding Agency being responsible for the provision of
apprenticeships for different age groups.
Furthermore,
if the Minister is unwilling to accept the amendment, as I rather
suspect he might be, will he at the very least tell the Committee how
the lines of accountability and the details of communication will work
in practice? It seems to me that this new system will be a leap in the
dark unless we can be absolutely clear how it might function. Frankly,
I suppose that there are as many versions of how it might function as
there are local authorities, and without greater clarity, the fears of
the CBI, the BCC and a range of other organisations will be
realised.
The LSC, for
all its faults—it was immensely bureaucratic, extraordinarily
costly and, in many people’s eyes, extremely
insensitive—was at least, rather like the red army, predictable.
The system that we are putting in its place is just as bureaucratic and
costly, but it is probably even more convoluted. Also, unlike the red
army, it is not likely to be predictable. The amendment seeks to add
just a degree of predictability and consistency to an extremely
convoluted set of
arrangements.
Jim
Knight: As ever, the hon. Gentleman started with selective
quotes. I just want to remind him that there were many happy responses
from other witnesses to the proposed changes and local authority
transfers, apart from the ones that he chose to mention. The
Association of Colleges publicly acknowledged that the current systems
for managing publicly funded education and
training for those over 16 are “confusing and expensive”.
The ADCS, the LGA, the National Union of Teachers, the Association of
School and College Leaders and a raft of witnesses from other
organisations welcomed the transfers of local authority functions and
with them the transfers that are necessary in local authority capacity
and the transfer of LSC staff. We already have the capacity in place
for 14-19 partnerships. We have the support of the Young
People’s Learning Agency, and the local authorities, through the
LGA and the Association of Directors of Children’s Services,
have established the React programme to build those partnerships and to
make those arrangements work. They are working with the CBI and others
to make that happen.
Mr.
Hayes: Before the Minister gets going, I do not think he
would want to mislead the Committee about the view of the AOC or the
157Group. The Association of Colleges also
said: “We
suggested in our response to the White Paper that there should be one
rather than two national agencies. We also suggested that the
Government were not ambitious enough in the savings they were making
through the process. There are 3,300 staff in the Learning and Skills
Council and we understand they will all be transferred somewhere else.
It might have made more sense to look at a streamlined
structure.”
—[Official Report, Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Public Bill Committee, 3 March 2009; c.27, Q76.]
The
Chairman: Order. That is a long enough intervention,
otherwise it will be a
speech.
Jim
Knight: Thank you, Mr. Chope. The AOC is clear
that in the context of raising the participation age it is right to
transfer these functions to local
authorities. Amendment
213 seeks to amend section 15ZA and place the responsibility for
determining the number of apprenticeship places needed by each local
authority with the chief executive of Skills Funding, rather than their
working together toward this aim. Let me restate our policy intent
about this transfer: we want local authorities to be the single point
of accountability for the strategic leadership and thus the
commissioning for their young people. To answer the hon.
Gentleman’s question about accountability, we have made it
absolutely clear that it is the local authority that is accountable.
That should include all avenues of learning, and in this context it
includes
apprenticeships. While
I understand what might lie behind the amendments—the
need to make the National Apprenticeship Service solely accountable for
apprenticeships—there surely has to be joint responsibility.
Local authorities will not be expected to have expertise in securing
apprenticeship places, but they will have overall responsibility for
commissioning provision for 16 to 19-year-olds in their area, and they
will anticipate how many young people want apprenticeships. The
National Apprenticeship Service will have the expertise in securing
apprenticeship places, but will not know the level of demand. They have
to work together to match supply with
demand. It
may help the Committee if I try to set out how the system will work. In
the autumn term preceding the September in which learners would start
learning, local authorities will use their understanding of both
historic patterns of learning and their intelligence through the 14-19
partnerships to understand their local supply of provision. They will
then match that up and, on the basis of historic demand, the
information that they get
through the Connexions service for which they will now be responsible,
the softer intelligence that they will get through Pupil Voice and
others, they will assess the likely demand from their area. The Young
People’s Learning Agency will then collate that supply and
demand information so that at the turn of the year it can be supplied
to local authorities so that they can then have a negotiation or single
conversation with post-16 providers. That in essence is how the system
will work. As for matching supply and demand, co-operation will then be
necessary for the apprenticeship form of
learning. Mr.
Hayes: The National Apprenticeship Service will report
both to the Department for Children, Schools and Families and the
Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills, and it will be
obliged to work with LEAs in the way that the Minister has described in
defining the type and nature of apprenticeships, but what role will
there be for employers? What statutory duty will there be on LEAs to
involve employers in that process? Surely the sector skills council can
provide the same function in predicting demand and ensuring that the
product is tailored to
need.
Jim
Knight: That latter comment displays a certain
misunderstanding about how the prediction of demand will work. I do not
believe that the sector skills councils are best placed to predict
demand locally. Local authorities will make the provision from 0 to 16
in respect of learners, as they are ideally placed to ascertain what
demand there will be from those learners. That is all part of trying to
make this a more learner-focused system.
With regard to
the relationship with employers, that is something local authorities
are starting to improve. There is some way to go, but the National
Apprenticeship Service and local business partnerships will certainly
perform a critical role in ensuring that local authorities are aware of
the skills needs of employers in their locality and are able to offer
good information, advice and guidance to learners on what the demands
are from employers. We are currently working on a policy paper on
information, advice and guidance that will set out some of that
relationship with employers more
clearly.
Mr.
Hayes: Why cannot the National Apprenticeship Service
specify standards, as it deals with everything else in apprenticeships?
I understand that the skills funding agency specifies standards. The
Minister has said that LEAs will be well placed to predict learner
demand, but I am not certain about predictions of employer demand,
despite his assurances. Why cannot the National Apprenticeship Service
define
standards?
Jim
Knight: We had a good debate last week on how that will
work, and I have nothing to add to the wise words of my hon. Friend the
Under-Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills, who
responded to the hon. Gentleman in that long debate. It is worth
reminding the hon. Gentleman in this context that, under clause 41,
local authorities will have a duty to encourage employers to
participate in training. The chief executive of Skills Funding has a
duty to encourage employers to participate in training. There are
various
measures that will encourage the relationship between employers and
local authorities, and between employers and the Skills Funding
Agency. Clause
80 gives the chief executive of Skills Funding the power to secure
apprenticeship places for young people, which in practice means
contracting with employers and training providers. In exercising that
power, the chief executive will have to have regard to the overarching
duty on local authorities, as set out in clause 40. In fulfilling his
duty to secure the apprenticeship entitlement to all suitably qualified
young people, as set out in clause 83, one of the tools he will have at
his disposal is the development of that collaborative working
relationship with local
authorities. Amendments
112 and 215, which seek to limit the types of training that local
authorities can secure and encourage employers to participate in
providing for young people. Amendment 112 would amend the definition of
apprenticeship training to remove training connected with any other
contract of employment, meaning that local authorities could only
secure training connected with employment for young people if it is was
connected with an apprenticeship agreement or the kind of working
described in subsection (10)(c). As the Committee has already discussed
on the debate on part 1, subsection (10)(b) is in part
intended for transitional purposes to ensure that those apprentices who
are working under an existing contract of employment when the
provisions are commenced are not disadvantaged. As my hon. Friend
indicated, the provision might be required for other groups in
future.
| 
