Clause 34
Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Bill
1:30 pm
John Hayes (Shadow Minister, Innovation, Universities and Skills; South Holland and 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.