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

I beg to move amendment 203, in clause 34, page 15, line 28, leave out subsection (5).

Joan Humble (Blackpool North & Fleetwood, Labour)

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment 179.

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

Perhaps I could just beg your indulgence, Mrs. Humble, and thank the Minister for the figures he gave on disabilities and learning difficulties, which I asked for on Tuesday and he was able to provide, briefly, a few minutes ago.

Clause 34 enables the Secretary of State to modify the application of clauses 30 to 33. It deals specifically with the apprenticeship agreement—that is, that the apprentice enters into a contract with the employer and sets out the on-the-work and off-the-work learning conditions. As a point of interest, in the clauses that we dealt with a few moments ago, the nature of that contract changes. The previous contract was a contract  for an apprenticeship as defined in common law, which will now change as a result of the Bill. That is a matter for those whom one might describe as “the geeks”.

As I said, the apprentice enters into a contract and sets out his on-the-work and off-the-work learning conditions in the way we have described. However, that is not the case for Crown servants, members of the armed forces and parliamentary staff. We have tabled this probing amendment, the Minister will be delighted to hear, to determine what specific circumstances would necessitate the use of the power set out in subsection (5), which allows the Secretary of State to modify the Bill in relation to those employees. That examination is even more urgent, as Government amendment 179 proposes to roll that out to include clauses 83 to 91 and the 16 to 18 apprenticeship entitlement. The explanatory notes state:

“This power is needed to make the Bill work properly in relation to these classes of people, given their particular circumstances: for instance the fact that they may not have contracts of employment.”

Has he properly examined what those circumstances might be, and will he specify them for the Committee to consider more carefully?

Perhaps the Minister would also be so good as to shed further light on why Crown employees may have no contracts of employment. That seems rather curious, certainly with regard to parliamentary staff, whom we know to have contracts of employment, so I do not fully understand why they are included in the list, but perhaps he will know more than I do about that.

Surely the explanatory notes to clause 30, which indicate that apprentices enter into a contract with their employers, would negate the situation I have described. It would be good to clear up this matter on the following grounds: the specific circumstances that would evoke the clause; and whether employees of the Crown have contracts of employment under their apprenticeship entitlement. Those are important matters, although relatively technical. I hope that, following the suave and comprehensive response that the Minister is about to give me, we will not need to push the amendment, but we do need answers to those questions.

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

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on raising the issue. He asked some pertinent questions on what is an arcane piece of drafting. The simple answer is that the clause is intended to make the Bill’s apprenticeship provisions apply to Crown servants and parliamentary staff who do not have legal contracts of employment or, as they are termed in the Bill, “contracts of service”,—I will not go down that geeky road. The provisions of the Bill as drafted would not apply to them because they do not have contracts of service, and a contract of service is a necessary part of the definition of an apprenticeship.

I, too, was a little confused about that and never asked anyone about it, but the conclusion I came to was that “parliamentary staff” in this context does not refer to the staff and researchers of MPs, although they are Crown servants, but to those we call officers of the House, such as the Clerks and the Serjeant at Arms. The technical reason for Crown servants such as parliamentary staff and members of the armed forces not having contracts of service is that the Crown is, in theory, able to terminate such contracts at will despite any contrary  term within a contract. That is seen to be part of the wider rule that the Crown cannot fetter its future executive action by contract.

Although I declined the hon. Gentleman’s invitation to geekiness on the matter of contracts of apprenticeship, contracts of service and contracts of employment, I cannot resist noting that:

“In one of the leading cases, Dunn v. R, (decided in 1896) the Court stated that employees of the Crown held office during the ‘pleasure’ of the Crown unless statute provided otherwise. A contract to employ a Crown employee for a fixed term was deemed to be against the public interest and unconstitutional.”

On that note—[Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Erewash said, from a seated position, “I rest my case”. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is persuaded of the integrity of our intentions and will withdraw his amendment.

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

The Committee has moved from excitement to an intoxicating survey of historical legal precedent. There will be people in anoraks with an unhealthy interest in computer games salivating at the Minister’s every word. On that basis alone, I am happy to beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.