Annette
Brooke: I am sure that the Minister will clarify that
point further, but that is the terminology used in the Bill. It is
picked up in this new clause to make sure that there is equal treatment
of the younger age
group.
Mr.
Hayes: I understand now where those words come from. I am
grateful to the hon. Lady for making that clear. Perhaps the Minister
will say a little more about the balance that he intends to strike
between ensuring that the entitlements that we all believe in are
widely available to people with the kind of challenges that the hon.
Lady has identified and the practical issues around
delivery.
Jim
Knight: I understand and support the sentiment behind the
amendment. We believe firmly in maximising opportunities for people
with learning difficulties to take up apprenticeship training, but we
consider the amendment to be unnecessary as the Bill already builds on
existing legislation to ensure that the needs of people with learning
difficulties are met. We have made a number of provisions in the Bill.
Clause 80 confers on the chief executive of Skills Funding the power to
secure the provision of suitable apprenticeship training for people
aged 19 to 24 who are subject to a learning difficulty assessment.
These are the same people for whom a local education authority must
ensure that enough suitable education and training facilities are
provided under the duty contained in proposed new section 15ZA of the
Education Act 1996, inserted by clause 40. There is also a general duty
in clause 111 on the chief executive of Skills Funding
“to have regard
to the needs of persons with learning difficulties”
when
exercising his or her functions. That would cover adults over the age
of 18.
On amendment
230, I can assure the hon. Lady that the vacancy matching service will
be accessible to people with disabilities and has been set up according
to approved guidelines for accessibility for disabled people. That
covers those who are partially sighted and have reading difficulties
because of visual impairment whom she mentioned and whose cause she
champions in the House. The vacancy matching service will provide the
opportunity for learners with difficulties and disabilities to raise
anything they will require for an interview so that they have the
opportunity to be fully supported. There will be additional support
where, for example, disabled people are not being successful in their
applications. I can also confirm that the Disability Discrimination Act
2005 amends the 1995 Act to introduce a statutory duty on public
authorities, which would include Skills Funding and the National
Apprenticeship Service, to promote equality of opportunity for disabled
people.
Mr.
Hayes: The NAS will be focused on all types of learners.
What specific expertise is it likely to have in respect of disabled
learners? Where will disabled learners get advice if they are not in
touch with Connexions? I am thinking of younger people here.
What specific facility will there be to provide them with the necessary
support, advice and guidance that they might need to embark on the
courses of training that are an implicit part of the
Bill?
Jim
Knight: The sort of expertise that the NAS would have
would be that which migrates from the current LSC. The numbers of
learners in the FE system, for example, declaring learning difficulties
and/or disabilities is 618,000. Some expertise will transfer to local
authorities, and there are the duties of co-operation between the chief
executive of Skills Funding—and through him the delegated
person, who would be the chief executive of the NAS—and local
authorities. Through local authorities, young people would get advice
from Connexions, and, when they reach the relevant age, they would get
advice from the Adult Advancement and Careers
Service.
Mr.
Hayes: Given that Skill, the institute for disabled
students, has highlighted its concerns about the quality of information
advice, it is not incredibly convincing to
say that we will simply pull across the existing skills of the Learning
and Skills Council. If the organisation that represents the interests
of disabled students is worried about what services are provided,
surely we should think about how we can enhance and improve those
services. For example, would it be possible to mission the NAS to take
on additional skills to deal with that? Perhaps there could be a
section within the organisation aimed at such learners. This is a
specialist area that requires the right kind of people and the right
quality of advice.
Jim
Knight: It is certainly our intention to work with
organisations such as Skill, which provide a powerful voice for the
interests of those individuals and ensure that we have the right
capacity and skills to deal with that important group of vulnerable
learners within the NAS. We have also introduced the information,
advice and guidance standard for local authorities, which we discussed
when we debated the Education and Skills Bill last year. The
implementation of that is an important aspect of improving the overall
quality of the IAG available through local authorities and Connexions.
The fact that we introduced that standard and have more to say on
information, advice and guidance this year, is an implicit recognition
that we can do more to raise the quality of information, advice and
guidance. One aspect of that will be to ensure that the advice and
guidance that we have for this group of people is as good as
possible.
New clause 10
would replicate provisions in clause 111 that relate to 16
to 18-year-olds, by placing a duty on the chief executive
to “have
regard to the needs of persons with learning
difficulties” when
exercising functions. It is essentially a replication, and I urge the
hon. Lady not to press the clause.
Finally, on
new clause 11, I assure the Committee that access to work is being
expanded. When creating further apprenticeship places, employers are
made aware of their obligations to make reasonable adjustments to
accommodate those with a learning difficulty, and they are advised of
support on which they may draw. The Disability Discrimination Act 2005
also places duties on employers. Most aspiring apprentices with a
learning difficulty will have their support needs identified and met
during the recruitment process, prior to commencing an apprenticeship.
We do not believe that the amendment would strengthen that
provision.
Annette
Brooke: Let me return to new clause 10—I apologise,
but the Minister was in full swing. I am aware that clause 111 covers
many of the points, including that about picking up on the definition.
However, the concern was that there is a gap in relation to 16 to
18-year-olds who do not have a statement at that point. I do not
believe that the Minister has addressed
that.
Jim
Knight: I think we addressed that point when we discussed
part 2 regarding assessments for LLDD. The debate and discussions that
we had on clause 40 were relevant to that, as are sections 13 and 13A
of the Education Act 1996. The combination of those things addresses
the point raised by the hon. Lady on new clause 10. I urge that the
amendment be withdrawn.
Annette
Brooke: I thank the Minister for his replies. I feel
reassured about the accessibility of information on amendment 229. The
amendment was perhaps the icing on the cake, but it was useful for
clarification and the Minister had a lot to say about people with
learning difficulties being protected and supported within the
workplace. I am not convinced about new clause 10, and the gap
regarding 16 to 18-year-olds. If necessary, I shall return to that
matter at a later date. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 80
ordered to stand part of the
Bill. 3.15
pm
Clause
81Arrangements
and co-operation with local education
authorities
Mr.
Hayes: I beg to move amendment 204, in clause 81,
page 50, line 11, leave out ‘local
education authorities’ and insert ‘employers and
providers of
training’.
The
Chairman: With this we may discuss amendment
205, in
clause 81, page 50, line 14, leave
out subsection
(2).
Mr.
Hayes: We are making such rapid progress and moving ahead
with such alacrity that we come to clause 81 and amendments
204 and 205, which stand in my name and those of my hon.
Friends. The
explanatory notes set out that the responsibility for a range of
apprenticeships is delegated to the chief executive officer of the NAS,
who then organises matters with local education authorities. We want to
make it absolutely clear that we are stout defenders of local
government. I served for many years on Nottinghamshire county council;
for most of that time, I was the shadow chairman of education. Once
again, I pay tribute to the councillors across the country of all
political parties who give such sterling service to their localities,
through their work in local government.
However, we
are simply not convinced that local authorities have a significant role
to play in the way that is envisaged by the Bill. I have previously
argued that incorporation of FE colleges gave them a new lease of life.
They look ahead to the days when they come under the
influence—indeed, one might say within the power—of local
government with some scepticism, and that is an understatement, given
what some college principals have said to
me. Amendment
204 is a simple one. It would replace “local education
authorities” with “employers” and education
providers. There is a real gap in the Bill on the role of employers,
which has been established through our consideration of it. Employers
are not given the weight that we need to give them to make the
ambitions that lie at the heart of this Bill a reality. The amendment
is straightforward.
Amendments
204 and 205 reflect the remarks of Richard Wainer of the CBI, who said
in his evidence to the Innovation, Universities and Skills
Committee on the draft Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and
Learning
Bill: “The
priority for a government apprenticeship policy has to be ensuring that
more employers are getting
involved.” John
Lucas of the British Chambers of Commerce said:
“In
terms of funding and its distribution, I do not think that local
authorities have a track record of employer
engagement”. ——
[ Official Report, Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning
Public Bill Committee, 3 March 2009; c. 6,
Q3.] Indeed,
the BCC brief on the draft Bill said
that “apprenticeships
should be employer led, offer real progression routes for apprentices,
whether that be onto development in the workplace, or further and
higher
education”. Amendment
204 attempts to alleviate those concerns by ensuring that the NAS works
with employers, whereas amendment 205 would remove any reference to
LEAs, cutting away the dead hand of local authority control and the
excessive bureaucracy and red tape that would become synonymous with
the proposed
system. These
moves are clearly supported by the Innovation, Universities and Skills
Committee recommendations and by the Lords Economic Affairs Committee,
which argued that
apprenticeships: “should
be...a unique public-private partnership. Three actors
contribute—employer, apprentice and government—and all
stand to benefit from a successful
partnership.” To
say more would be superfluous. The case is made. I fully expect the
Minister to embrace these amendments if, as I do, he truly believes
that the success of his ambitions will depend on effective employer
engagement.
Stephen
Williams: I will be incredibly brief, as even the hon.
Gentleman spoke briefly to his own
amendment. I
am heavily sceptical about the amendments, which seem to delete
entirely the role of local authorities when it comes to people who are
under the age of 19. I think the hon. Gentleman referred to the dead
hand of local authority control. As a former county councillor, albeit
in the post-college incorporation period—I was elected in
1993—I do not think that local authorities are a dead-hand part
of our government structure. Good local authorities can be enabling
authorities, which will work in concert with employers. I think that
that is the better way forward, rather than deleting their role
entirely.
Jim
Knight: While the hon. Member for South Holland and The
Deepings described himself as a stout defender, and was working on his
stoutness over lunch, I was at the Local Government Association at a
meeting with councillors, to whose work I pay
tribute. I
understand the sentiment behind the amendments. It is, of course,
essential that the chief executive of the SFA, through the NAS,
consults employers and training providers, both about the volume of
apprenticeship places that they are able to offer and about how to
stimulate demand for apprenticeships among young people—indeed,
in clause 82, there is some mention of the work that the SFA will carry
out with employers.
The NAS will
also work closely with employers and providers to increase the number
of apprenticeships on offer. I can provide a categorical assurance to
the Committee that that will happen. Relationships with employers and
training providers are critical if we are to ensure that the
apprenticeship scheme is implemented effectively. However, the
amendment would undermine the relationship between the NAS, which will
be acting on behalf of the chief executive of the SFA, and local
authorities. That relationship is central to the successful operation
of the apprenticeship scheme. Removing that duty to co-operate would
mean that there is no link between local authorities’ role in
the provision of 16-to-19 learning places and the NAS’s role in
securing a sufficient supply of apprenticeship
places to meet demand. Without that linkage, the apprenticeship scheme
cannot be implemented effectively. I think that the hon. Gentleman
believes that we cannot have a good relationship between the NAS and
local authorities, between the NAS and employers, and between local
authorities and employers, but I believe that that circle can be
squared. The key
principle underpinning the 16-to-19 planning process is that local
authorities will plan and commission provision across the full range of
post-16 options available to young people, and that funding should
follow learner choices. Planning by local authorities must therefore
reflect, as closely as possible, the choices that young people are
likely to make, and the trends in their choices about what, where and
when they want to learn. We are committed to ensuring that
apprenticeships are rooted as a high-quality, mainstream education and
training route for young people, fully integrated in the common
application process and the 14-to-19 prospectus. The relationship
between local authorities and the NAS is critical to ensuring that that
situation comes about. It is for that reason that I hope that the
amendment will be
withdrawn.
| 
