Clause 39
Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Bill
2:30 pm
Nick Gibb (Shadow Minister, Children, Schools and Families; Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, Conservative)
I certainly will. In fact, I already have—I said that Conservative Members support the right to train. Measures could be introduced to relieve the administrative burden on businesses, while maintaining the right of employees to request time to train.
The IOD points out that many businesses hold regular appraisals with their employees, during which employees’ training needs are discussed. It therefore suggests in its brief to the Committee that
“where employers already offer documented annual appraisals which include discussion of training needs, such provision will constitute grounds for fulfilment of the right to request training obligations...Without such a change those employers that already provide opportunities to discuss training needs will become subject to repeat requests for training: a burden that penalises those organisations that already have existing provision for training discussions.”
Amendment 11, tabled by the Liberal Democrats, has the same source. That amendment states that an employer can refuse an application for time to study made under proposed new section 63D of the 1996 Act if
“a documented discussion of training needs resulting in a decision on whether to extend such provision to the applicant took place within the previous 12 months.”
We agree with that sensible amendment, which is designed to assist companies that have a good and exemplary approach to training and staff appraisal.
Amendment 103 would amend clause 39 in a similar fashion. The CBI has said that it “supports the new right” to request training
“in principle, but it must be implemented in a way that is flexible for business, with the focus on skills development and not time-off.”
It points out that data from the Learning and Skills Council show that business invests about £39 billion a year on training. The CBI’s survey found that 89 per cent. of firms have a training and development plan. It therefore wishes the legislation to be clear that
“where a firm already has good arrangements for discussing training in place (eg. annual performance reviews), training needs can be dealt with through these existing arrangements without recourse to legislation.”
Amendment 103 would therefore insert a preface to proposed new section 63D(1) to ensure that it will apply only if a suitable arrangement for discussing training is not in place. That is a sensible amendment.
We support the objectives of clause 39, which are to ensure that recalcitrant businesses do what they should to encourage their employees to improve their skills, but if we take the CBI figure of £39 billion spent on training and compare it with the calculated benefits of the clause of between £200 million and £400 million—set out in the impact assessment on pages 76 and 77—it is clear that current training expenditure is up to 100 times greater than the anticipated benefit of the new right. That shows that the clause is aimed at a minority of businesses, so it makes sense to try to ease the administrative and regulatory burden of the provision for those companies that already have exemplary training and appraisal processes in place.
Amendment 77 was inspired by the National Deaf Children’s Society. It says that
A significant number of parents regularly contact NDCS with concerns that their child is not receiving his or her entitlement to appropriate education. In many cases, when NDCS investigate, it is found that frontline classroom teachers are trying their best in very difficult circumstances, without the required support and advice to meet the pupil's needs.”
It goes on to say, for example, that
“there has been no guidance published for teachers on how to differentiate the teaching of phonics for deaf children”,
even though, a teaching method based on the listening of sounds is clearly inappropriate for many deaf children, particularly those with severe hearing loss.