Clause 11
Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Bill
9:00 am
John Hayes (Shadow Minister, Innovation, Universities and Skills; South Holland and The Deepings, Conservative)
We return to our efforts to make this bad Bill better with enthusiasm and vigour—and if the second is rather less than the first this morning, it is because the lobster thermidor, which the Minister specifically recommended to me and on which I dined in the small hours, rested more heavily on me in the slightly larger hours than I would have wished; however, not as heavily as the Bill rests on his shoulders, and we have tabled the amendment in that spirit.
The explanatory notes make it clear that sector skills councils will issue apprenticeship frameworks for England. The Opposition support that. I have said before that we strongly support the role of sector skills councils for reasons that we have set out and for many of the reasons set out by the Minister. Their closeness to employers means that they can articulate their skills needs and ensure that frameworks match those needs.
Subsection (1)(a) allows a body to “issue apprenticeship frameworks generally”, rather than for a specific sector. The risk is that that could lead to generic apprenticeships. As I have argued, we are anxious that apprenticeships be tailored at every level and in all ways to particular needs. The prospect of a ubiquitous apprenticeship does not sit comfortably with our vision. The Government have started to advance amendments by which frameworks will relate specifically to one sector. Indeed, we have heard something of those and will no doubt hear more. I am at a loss to understand why they do not leave this contradiction alone all together and step beyond it.
When taking the evidence of expert witnesses, it was made clear to the Committee that generic apprenticeships—or ubiquitous apprenticeships, as I have described them—are not worth the paper they are written on because they are not respected by employers and so do not add to the employability of apprentices. In the evidence session, the CBI said that the most important thing is that
“the programme is more fit for purpose—delivering the sort of skills that are in demand by businesses.”—[Official Report, Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Public Bill Committee, 3 March 2009; c. 6, Q5.]
We must therefore ensure that frameworks are of the highest quality.
I do not know whether you, Mrs. Humble, or other Committee members shared my feelings last week, but I felt that I was beginning to deliver this point with persuasiveness sufficient to change the Minister’s mind. I felt once or twice that I touched his heart. I do not know whether it was due to the intellectual force of my argument or the silky persuasiveness with which it was delivered, but on occasion he looked as if he had the stomach to acknowledge the force of our argument and the weakness of his own. That proves beyond doubt that the way to a man’s stomach is through his heart. He did not, however, go as far as he might have done on the frameworks. The purpose of the amendment is to push him that extra mile.
I think that all Committee members, and certainly the Minister, will agree that quality will come from getting the frameworks right. In the evidence sessions, Keith Marshall of the Alliance of Sector Skills Councils made that clear when he said:
“The key to this is the framework. If we get the framework right, it will ensure that the quality is maintained.”——[Official Report, Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Public Bill Committee, 3 March 2009; c. 9, Q19.]
If a generic framework is issued, the quality of all apprenticeship frameworks will be undermined. It will also damage the apprenticeship brand, which I am determined we should avoid. As I said, I know that the Minister is gradually and grudgingly coming to the same conclusion.
A tangential issue is the status of sector skills councils. It was clear from the evidence session that Mr. Marshall, the representative of sector skills councils, was not entirely happy about the way their status is diminished in the Bill; they play little part in it. The Minister is right that they play a large part in the explanatory notes, but I am not sure that that satisfies sector skills councils or us. Sector skills councils are particularly important in the development, publication and implementation of frameworks, which is why they are so pertinent to the amendments and to these clauses.
In the evidence sessions, the Minister for Schools and Learners asked the representative of the sector skills councils:
“should we mention that in primary legislation?”,
to which Mr. Marshall replied:
“You specifically mentioned other organisations and agencies in other parts of the overall system, but not there.”
The Minister open-mindedly—I thought—went on:
“And you would like us to?”——[Official Report, Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Public Bill Committee, 3 March 2009; c. 21, Q60-61.]
Mr. Marshall unequivocally answered that he would.
So those representatives of business—the Minister spoke fondly of them when we met last—clearly want to be mentioned not just in the explanatory notes, but in detail in the Bill. The Minister surely agrees that the sector skills councils are the bodies to take forward apprenticeship frameworks. If that is the case, why not agree to the amendment?
More significantly, sector skills councils favour tailoring frameworks to one sector. Why, therefore, is there the need to “issue apprenticeship frameworks generally”? The clause should be specific on that, so that educators, employers, learners and potential learners receive the training that they need and so that they know that they will receive it. It is imperative that the amendment is agreed to.
Once again, I see that my case is beginning to resonate here and elsewhere. We debate the Bill in a context in which the representatives of employers have been sceptical, the champions of adult learning have been doubtful, and the colleges, in the Minister’s words, have been surprisingly critical. The Minister seems to stands alone, and I want to assure him by the means and in the detail of today’s amendments that he is not alone. We are on his side in trying to make this bad Bill better.