Mr.
Hayes: The problem with the response of the hon. Member
for Bristol, West is that it is dependent on an assumption that local
authorities should be involved in these matters in the way that he
articulates and is embodied in the Bill. We acknowledge that local
authorities have a critical role in economic development—indeed,
they have a statutory role. As he will know, unitary and county
authorities and districts have a statutory economic development
function. So of course it is appropriate that they are a
stakeholder—a player—and that they are involved in all
kinds of discussions, consultations and negotiations with the other
agencies responsible for economic development, either directly or
indirectly. However,
giving local authorities a funding and management role—a direct
role in the creation and delivery of the training regime that the
Government have set out in the Bill—seems to be yet another
example of making something that should be straightforward complex. If
the Government faced up to the prospect of a deregulated system, with
all its virtues—a system of free-standing, self-managed further
education colleges, funded and managed by a slim funding agency, which
would obviously, in the end, be directly under Ministers, with, of
course, appropriate checks and balances to ensure the quality of
education and probity—we would not need such a complicated piece
of legislation, with all the features that the Bill contains. Local
authority involvement is another part in that immensely complex
machine.
Jim
Knight: In a vain attempt to persuade the hon. Gentleman
of my case, I remind him of what the much-quoted CBI representative,
Richard Wainer, said in a reply to him in evidence:
“Our
members are primarily concerned about ensuring that they get a
good-quality apprenticeship programme, so as long as local authorities
adequately consult and work with local employers in ensuring that they
are putting on the sort of apprenticeship programmes that are in
demand, I think that our members will be generally
happy.”——[Official Report,
Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Public Bill Committee,
3 March 2009; c. 6,
Q4.] That is a
positive endorsement.
Mr.
Hayes: The comments that the Minister quoted were made by
someone who will be obliged to work with the system and who will make
the best of what the Government provide. Employers, by their nature,
will work with the prevailing system. Mr. Wainer, the CBI
spokesman, made that clear. Whether employers would choose such a
system is an entirely different matter. The employers, FE college
principals and others in the sector to whom I speak seek a simpler
system, in which we have none of the opacity of the funding regime that
the Minister is proposing, none of the obtuse organisational structure
and none of the obscure systems for reporting and
accountability. I
said earlier that if the proposals were represented pictorially, we
would have a mixture of Pollock and Heath Robinson. I am inclined to
think that there would be a bit of Warhol in there as well. At least
Heath Robinson’s drawings have a certain symmetry; I suspect
that the Bill lacks that. Although I understand that local authorities
have an important role to play because of the statutory
responsibilities that I described—of course, if the system was
working properly, we would want to draw on their expertise—I do
not think that Connexions should be based in them, that they should
have a funding and management role in FE colleges, or that they should
play a key statutory or management role in apprenticeships. It is as
simple as that. If that directly contradicts the Minister’s
view, so be it.
On that
basis, I intend to press amendment 204 to a Division. This is an
important matter that shows a sharp difference among what is otherwise
an immensely agreeable Committee.
The
Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes
9.
Division
No.
15] Question
accordingly negatived.
Clause 81
ordered to stand part of the
Bill. Clause
82 ordered to stand part of the
Bill. 3.30
pm
Clause
83Duty
to secure availability of apprenticeship places for persons aged 16 to
18
Jim
Knight: I beg to move amendment 409, in
clause 83, page 50, line 36, leave
out ‘conferred by sections 80 to 82’ and insert
‘of the
office’. This
technical amendment is consequent on amendments 410 and 411. Its effect
is to require the Chief Executive to exercise functions relating to
persons aged 19 or over so as to secure sufficient suitable
apprenticeship places for persons having elected for the apprenticeship
scheme under clause 84.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss
Government amendments 410 to
412.
Jim
Knight: The purpose of these Government amendments is to
extend the apprenticeship scheme so that an apprenticeship place will
be made available to all suitably qualified care leavers up to the age
of 25. This is a commitment that was made in the “New
Opportunities: Fair chances for the future” White Paper, which
was published earlier this year. It is our intention that the
apprenticeship scheme for care leavers will work in exactly the same
way as it will for 16 to 18-year-olds. That means that care leavers
will have to meet the same minimum entry
criteria.
Mr.
Hayes: We are broadly supportive of the amendment, which
seeks to ensure that care leavers to whom a local authority in England
owes certain duties will be able to apply for apprenticeships. We have
three questions. First, does the Minister have any idea what the
“sufficient” number of apprenticeship places the SFA must
secure is? What is defined as being suitable? How many care leavers
over the age of 19 are in apprenticeships at present? Perhaps because
those are too easy, I have a couple of supplementary questions. At what
point or age are the local authorities to stop having those duties to a
care leaver? Finally, does the amendment, more mischievously, not show
some of the weaknesses in Government policy in terms of encouraging
access to adult
apprenticeships?
Stephen
Williams: Having heard the Minister’s introduction
to these amendments, it certainly sounds as if this is something that
we would welcome as well. I look forward to hearing the replies to the
questions from the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings. The
educational outcome of people who have been in care needs an awful lot
of attention by the Government, and any encouragement to get young
people who have had a difficult emotional and educational experience
into an apprenticeship, would be welcomed.
Jim
Knight: We anticipate that the number of care leavers
covered by the extension will be relatively small. About 6,000 young
people are entitled to leaving care support from local authorities each
year, so there are about 30,000 16 to 21-year-olds in touch with the
local authority leaving care services per annum, of which no more than
30 per cent. are estimated to be aged 19 to 25. Not all are able or
would want to follow an apprenticeship pathway. On the assumption that
around 500 care leavers aged 19-plus opted to take an apprenticeship
per annum, the annual cost would be in the region of £2 million.
That is the basis upon which we made the change of policy, in order to
offer the entitlement to this group of relatively vulnerable young
adults. The suitability would be the same as for 16 to 18-year-olds. As
far as I understand it, we do not collect the information about how
many apprentices between the ages of 19 and 25 are care leavers. That
is why I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the information requested, but
I hope that that is
sufficient.
Mr.
Hayes: I also asked at what point or age the local
authority stops owing such duties to care leavers. I shall add a point
that I have been cogitating upon as the
Minister has been speaking. There are parallels with our earlier
discussions about young people in secure accommodation. Continuity of
options, in terms of skilling and education, the need to transfer
information and the issue about where such people might reside all seem
to be relevant. Has the Minister any thoughts on those
subjects?
Mr.
Knight: I have thoughts on all sorts of subjects that I
could share with the Committee, but in the interests of efficiency, I
will reserve my thoughts on whether we should extend this to young
offenders until such time as we might add a suitable
amendment.
In response
to the hon. Gentleman’s question on when the local authority
stops owing duties to care leavers, I understand that it is at age 21.
When the amendment to the Education and Skills Act 2008 is commenced,
it will be up to the age of
25. Amendment
409 agreed to.
Stephen
Williams: I beg to move amendment 114, in
clause 83, page 50, line 42, at
end insert— ‘(c) whose
employer has withdrawn from an apprenticeship agreement after it has
been entered
into.’.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss
amendment 115, in
clause 83, page 51, line 6, at
end insert— ‘(2A) Where no
suitable employer is available arrangements shall not be made for
persons eligible under subsection (1) to begin training or study until
such time when arrangements for employment can be
made.’.
Stephen
Williams: Clause 83 is a key clause because it places a
duty on the chief executive of Skills Funding to provide for choice in
apprenticeship places for 16 to 18-year-olds. First, the young person
is able to nominate at least two choices of sectors into which they
wish to enter an apprenticeship. Following our discussions on clause
35, I hope that, after provision of sufficient information, advice and
guidance, people will be exercising radically different choices to
those that exist at the moment. It is an important duty to make sure
that there are enough vehicle maintenance places and apprenticeships
for young women who wish to go into them, for instance. They also have
the ability to nominate the level at which they seek to
enter—level 2 or advanced—and the apprenticeship place
should be within a suitable travel-to-work
area. All
those matters are challenging in themselves for this new duty, but of
course we are discussing the Bill against the background of a
recession. One part of the triangular relationship that we have
mentioned several times during the debate—the
employer—may actually be missing. For a layman, that is
essential to the characteristics of the definition of an apprentice.
Amendment 114 seeks to put in some protection for a young person who
has already entered into an apprenticeship agreement but whose employer
then fails and goes out of business because of the difficult economic
circumstances that we are in at the moment. Would there then be a duty
on the chief executive of Skills Funding or the NAS to make sure that
that young
person’s interests were protected so that they could continue
with their apprenticeship, given that their employer has ceased to be
in
business? Amendment
115 largely covers the same area. What if a suitable employer is not
available? Suppose someone has chosen a particular sector for which
they are well qualified—they have received the good advice and
guidance that says that they are well qualified to enter into a
particular apprenticeship—but a suitable match cannot be made
with an employer within a reasonable travel-to-work distance of their
home? How will the choice of that young person then be met? It comes
back to previous discussions that we have had on the role of group
training associations. Both the amendments seek yet another assurance
from the Government Front Bench—as we have had in respect of
previous clauses—that the Bill will be flexible enough to
encourage the setting up of group training arrangements once it is
enacted. Particularly when an employer is missing, will college-led
group training arrangements be encouraged by the Government, so that at
least somebody can commence their formal training requirements of the
apprenticeship with the college while a search for a suitable
employment match is carried out? That is the broad purpose behind
amendment 115. If an employer failed completely and another could not
be immediately identified to pick up the formal employment part of the
apprenticeship, could the college fulfil that role, albeit
temporarily?
Mr.
Hayes: The hon. Gentleman seems to make a lot of sense, as
do the amendments. GTAs are particularly important in areas where there
is a poor history of training for apprenticeships. They can galvanise
the diet for training and the appetite for apprenticeships. I mentioned
the different number of apprenticeships across the country and picked
on Greenwich, but there is an embarrassment of riches there compared
with Hackney or Hammersmith.
Stephen
Williams: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. As
we discussed on previous clauses, group training arrangements have an
important role to play to bring together small employers who may not be
able to provide all the support necessary to take on an apprentice by
themselves, but several small employers could work together to fulfil
the employment aspect of an apprentice’s training. These
amendments deal with the complete absence of a suitable employer, and I
am hoping that the Government will confirm that a college-led group
training arrangement would be a suitable vehicle for an apprenticeship
place, so that the expectations of the apprentice can be
met.
Jim
Knight: I understand the sentiment behind the amendments.
It is only right that an apprentice whose apprenticeship agreement is
prematurely brought to an end by an employer for a legitimate business
reason, such as redundancy, should be assisted to find an alternative
place. We have systems in place through initiatives such as the
construction clearing house, and the work of Connexions and training
providers, to find redundant apprentices alternative places. That is
particularly important given the current economic situation.
We will
strengthen those systems—involving local authorities,
Connexions, training providers, sector skills councils and the National
Apprenticeship Service—to maximise the opportunities for
redundant apprentices
to find alternative places. The online apprenticeships vacancy matching
service has a potentially important role to play. However, an employer
may have withdrawn the apprenticeship agreement because of an
apprentice’s poor performance. The hon. Gentleman’s
amendment is attractive if one assumes that the only reason for the
apprentice’s employment contract to cease would be the
employer’s economic problems. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the
other side of the coin and appreciates that there might be a poor
performance problem with an apprentice, he will understand why I am
going to ask him to withdraw his amendment. In such an
instance we do not consider that the chief executive of Skills Funding
should have a duty to find an alternative apprenticeship place. The
most effective means of dealing practicably and meaningfully with that
situation is through other systems, rather than amending the
legislation in the way proposed. Equally, I understand the concern that
there may be insufficient employer places to enable every young person
who wants one to take up an apprenticeship. However, the way to address
that is to implement a range of policies to encourage employers to take
on more apprentices, such as reducing bureaucracy, expanding group
training associations, and establishing, among a host of other
measures, the National Apprenticeship Service, which will have
end-to-end responsibility for the
programme.
| 
