Clause 14
Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Bill
9:30 am

John Hayes (Shadow Minister, Innovation, Universities and Skills; South Holland and The Deepings, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment 100, in clause 14, page 7, line 21, after ‘such’, insert ‘reasonable’.

Joan Humble (Blackpool North and Fleetwood, Labour)

With this we may discuss the following: amendment 101, in clause 14, page 7, line 22, after ‘appropriate’, insert

‘, provided such requirements are not burdensome’.

Amendment 102, in clause 14, page 7, line 24, after ‘decision’, insert

‘within two weeks of the making of the decision.’.

John Hayes (Shadow Minister, Innovation, Universities and Skills; South Holland and The Deepings, Conservative)

These amendments aim to reduce bureaucracy in the formation of frameworks by ensuring that the information an issuing authority requests from a person developing the draft apprenticeship framework is not too onerous, and that the issuing authority makes the person aware of their decision within two weeks. The hon. Gentleman will know that the priority for many employers—particularly small and medium enterprises, as I know from my experience as a businessman—is the day-to-day running of their business, never more so than in the current economic circumstances. Many SMEs already feel hamstrung by red tape and bureaucracy. I do not need to expand on that at length because Ministers and members of the Committee will be only too aware of the complaints that those businesses and their representative organisations make in that regard. It should therefore be our determined ambition to reduce regulation, except where it is absolutely necessary.

If we are to re-focus apprenticeships to the skills demands that I mentioned in the debate on the earlier amendments and if we are to put apprenticeships at the heart of our response to the skills crisis, it is imperative that employers find the development and deployment of apprenticeships as straightforward as possible. I do not wish to suggest that good apprenticeships are not available now nor that apprentices do not learn important things which add to their employability. There are excellent programmes and frameworks with employers engaged in a full and valuable way. But I am certain that the only way that we can rebuild and rejuvenate the apprenticeship programme more generally is from the bottom up. We must engage SMEs in the necessary spread of apprenticeships. In every village and small town, there are countless businesses that could take on an apprentice, but one barrier to that happening is what they perceive as excessive bureaucracy. It is vitally important that we take that into account and try to improve the Bill by reducing regulation and so add incentive to that bottom-up rejuvenation of the system by SMEs.

The House of Lords Select Committee on Economic Affairs noted that employers find administrative burdens associated with apprenticeships unacceptable and its report, “Apprenticeship: a key route to skills” found that

“Witnesses stressed that procedures for the administration of government funding of apprenticeship had the effect of marginalising employers (Unwin and Fuller Q 77; Ashton p 173).”

The draft Apprenticeships Bill took steps to remedy this. As the Minister will know, the Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills Committee found that

“Taking the draft Bill as a whole, we conclude that, for those employers represented by the CBI and the British Chambers of Commerce, the draft Bill has the potential to deliver two of their key requirements: a reduction in unnecessary bureaucracy through greater flexibility and streamlining of the central government agencies supporting apprenticeships.”

The truth is that the merging of the draft Apprenticeships Bill with this Bill means that it now falls a long way short of its potential. We make no bones about it—less administration, less bureaucracy is what employers want. We know that from what they have said themselves. The Federation of Small Businesses described cutting red tape and bureaucracy around apprenticeships as a “carrot” to their development—the incentive that I mentioned a few moments ago. The British Chambers of Commerce has said,

“For years businesses have made it abundantly clear that they find the paperwork associated with taking on apprentices a real barrier.”

The CBI response to world class apprenticeships said that

“the removal of unnecessary red tape and greater simplification must be a key focus”.

The amendments are small steps to remedy the over-regulation and administrative burden that this provision will place on employers. I repeat: it is desirable but not enough to add apprentices to large businesses that have well established and well respected programmes, such as BT, Honda, Rolls-Royce and others. It is not enough, because that is not the way that we will build enough extra apprenticeships to deliver the skills that our economy needs. I hope that the Minister will deal with that point in his response.

I want to see 100,000 more apprenticeships. That is why we have set out our policies on the subject in our skills Green Paper. It is built around incentivising small businesses, partly by providing them with funds, but also by removing the barriers. It is about supply-side reform and the amendments go some way towards improving the Bill in that regard.

Alison Seabeck (Plymouth, Devonport, Labour)

I know from talking to small businesses in my own constituency that they share some of his concerns. However, I am not clear what is intended by the term “reasonable”. I am sure that this issue will be raised later in the debate, when the Government defend what “reasonable” means, but I would be interested to know what it implies.

John Hayes (Shadow Minister, Innovation, Universities and Skills; South Holland and The Deepings, Conservative)

The test of reasonableness is not unusual in legislation or in law. However, in these terms, I would expect it to take into account what employer representatives felt was acceptable, and what the sector skills councils—which we mentioned earlier and which are centrally involved in apprenticeship frameworks—felt was tolerable. In discussion with Government, that mix could come to a definition of reasonableness that by all accounts is not what we have now. I have offered some examples of that to the Committee this morning.

Most employers—including those in the hon. Lady’s constituency, which I take careful note of—and those in mine, and their representative organisations, seem tofeel that at the moment we are not being reasonable about regulation, bureaucracy and red tape. To achieve the  reasonableness that she personifies—which I merely seek to emulate—we need to lighten the burden rather than add to it.

The risk of all legislation is that it adds to administrative burdens. Almost by definition, that is the case. As we scrutinise the Bill, we should be determined to strip out all that is not necessary to our shared ambition to make apprenticeships a bigger part of how we respond to the economic downturn and rebuild the nation’s skills. In that spirit, I ask the hon. Lady, the Minister and others to consider the amendments carefully and I wait to hear what the Minister says with bated breath.

Stephen Williams (Bristol West, Liberal Democrat)

I rise briefly to support the amendments. It is obvious that if a business or a training provider puts forward a draft proposal for an apprenticeship framework, there should be information to accompany it. That information should be clear in advance. It is not clear how the business or the training provider will know in advance exactly what they need to provide alongside their application. However, as long as it is clear in advance, that should mitigate any misunderstandings and areas that later need clarification.

If certain areas need to be questioned by the body that will approve the apprenticeship framework, such requests for further information should not be onerous. If the application amounts to a refusal, the refusal notice should be clear and given on a timely basis. I hope that the Minister will clarify the process for the applicant who comes back with a fresh or slightly amended proposal after a refusal. What time scales are envisaged in order to get that apprenticeship framework agreed as soon as possible?

Siôn Simon (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills; Birmingham, Erdington, Labour)

I can reassure Opposition Members that we agree entirely that the process of agreeing apprenticeship frameworks needs to be as unbureaucratic and unburdensome as possible. Where we differ in that respect is that we are convinced that the Bill contains such injunctions, which I will come on to explain. However, we equally share the hon. Gentleman’s determination that the process be streamlined and effective—particularly for small businesses.

Sector skills councils have streamlined the process; they are in the process of making it more streamlined, and will continue to do so. We have reduced the burden of data collection, we have already streamlined the framework developing and issuing process so that employers can develop in-house training programmes as frameworks, provided that they comply with the SASE. We have already asked sector skills councils to streamline processes further in the forthcoming months and years.

Clause 14 sets out the procedure for when individuals and organisations submit draft apprenticeship framework to an issuing authority and request that it be published as a framework. If the issuing authority chooses not to publish it as a framework, then they must give a reason for that decision. Amendments Nos. 100 and 101 both aim to ensure that the issuing authority does not require unreasonable or burdensome amounts of information to be submitted alongside the draft framework.

I am sympathetic to those outcomes, but we believe that the Bill will do that job. We included a commitment in “World-class Apprenticeships” to streamlining the  framework development process to make it more user-friendly to providers and organisations and also to make it easier for them to develop frameworks appropriate to their business. That is why the Bill ensures that issuing authorities will be able to require only “appropriate” information to be provided. If the information requested is unduly burdensome, or unnecessary, it would not be appropriate.

I hope that hon. Members will accept my assurance that this will be a light-touch process—only enough information to ensure that there is sufficient rigour in meeting the requirements set out in the SASE will be required. Rather than imposing a burden on providers and employers, I expect that issuing authorities will work closely with providers and employers to support them in getting their frameworks to that standard as quickly as possible and to focus their efforts on reducing significantly the current lengthy process, which can be involved, before frameworks are available for learners to undertake apprenticeships.

Similarly, we will ensure that the approval process after a draft framework is submitted is as streamlined as possible. However, I am not persuaded that it is sensible to require the framework issuing authority in England to notify those submitting draft apprenticeship frameworks when a draft has been rejected within a specified period of time, as amendment 102 suggests. By applying a time limit, the issuing authority will be held accountable for any breach of the proposed limit, even when circumstances might arise that would reasonably prevent the issuing authority from meeting any specified deadline.

Issuing authorities will be working hand in hand with those who are developing frameworks and there should be no delay in making them aware of areas where the draft framework does not comply with the specification of apprenticeship standards for England. I will expect the issuing authority to proceed quickly in its decision making during that iterative process. Our intention is that, as part of its role in performance managing the sector skills council, the UK Commission for Employment and Skills will ensure the prompt issuing of frameworks.

I now turn to the question from the hon. Member for Bristol, West, about what happens if the sector skills council refuses to issue a framework. If the framework complies properly with the specification of apprenticeships standards in England—if it fits—the sector skills council cannot refuse to issue the framework. Where the framework does not fit, the sector skills council’s job is to work as closely, quickly and co-operatively as possible with the proposer to help them to make it fit.

John Hayes (Shadow Minister, Innovation, Universities and Skills; South Holland and The Deepings, Conservative)

What representations has the Minister had from sector skills councils? Have they complained about the bureaucratic burden that deters SMEs and others from engaging with apprenticeships?

Siôn Simon (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills; Birmingham, Erdington, Labour)

I personally have not had any such representations. I suppose that I need to remind the hon. Gentleman that I am not the Minister with responsibility for apprenticeships. Therefore it is conceivable that, if such representations have been made, they have been made to the relevant Minister, Lord Young of Norwood Green, in the other place. However, I am pretty nearly 100 per cent. certain that no such representations have been made to him, as they have not been made to me or to the Department in any other way.

In that case, I hope that hon. Members will be persuaded that, given the use of the word “appropriate” in the Bill, the provisions that they sought to highlight with their amendments are included and that if we amended the Bill as they wanted, it would be tautologous. On that basis, therefore, I ask them to withdraw kindly and graciously their amendments.

John Hayes (Shadow Minister, Innovation, Universities and Skills; South Holland and The Deepings, Conservative)

It would be unreasonable to press the amendments, given that we are really debating the difference between “reasonable” and “appropriate”, which is not just dancing on the head of a pin but on a pin that has a very small head.

On that basis, and having received the Minister’s assurances that he is in dialogue with the representatives of businesses, that he shares our ambition and that he acknowledges the remarks that I have quoted from BOC, the Federation of Small Businesses and so on, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment that stands in my name and that of my hon. Friends.