Clause 83

3:30 pm

Jim Knight (Minister of State (Schools and Learners), Department for Children, Schools and Families; South Dorset, Labour)

I beg to move amendment 409, in clause 83, page 50, line 36, leave out ‘conferred by sections 80 to 82’ and insert ‘of the office’.

Christopher Chope (Christchurch, Conservative)

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments 410 to 412.

Jim Knight (Minister of State (Schools and Learners), Department for Children, Schools and Families; South Dorset, Labour)

The purpose of these Government amendments is to extend the apprenticeship scheme so that an apprenticeship place will be made available to all suitably qualified care leavers up to the age of 25. This is a commitment that was made in the “New Opportunities: Fair chances for the future” White Paper, which was published earlier this year. It is our intention that the apprenticeship scheme for care leavers will work in exactly the same way as it will for 16 to 18-year-olds. That means that care leavers will have to meet the same minimum entry criteria.

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

We are broadly supportive of the amendment, which seeks to ensure that care leavers to whom a local authority in England owes certain duties will be able to apply for apprenticeships. We have three questions. First, does the Minister have any idea what the “sufficient” number of apprenticeship places the SFA must secure is? What is defined as being suitable? How many care leavers over the age of 19 are in apprenticeships at present? Perhaps because those are too easy, I have a couple of supplementary questions. At what point or age are the local authorities to stop having those duties to a care leaver? Finally, does the amendment, more mischievously, not show some of the weaknesses in Government policy in terms of encouraging access dweller apprenticeships?

Stephen Williams (Bristol West, Liberal Democrat)

Having heard the Minister’s introduction to these amendments, it certainly sounds as if this is something that we would welcome as well. I look forward to hearing the replies to the questions from the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings. The educational outcome of people who have been in care needs an awful lot of attention by the Government, and any encouragement to get young people who have had a difficult emotional and educational experience into an apprenticeship, would be welcomed.

Jim Knight (Minister of State (Schools and Learners), Department for Children, Schools and Families; South Dorset, Labour)

We anticipate that the number of care leavers covered by the extension will be relatively small. About 6,000 young people are entitled to leaving care support from local authorities each year, so there are about 30,000 16 to 21-year-olds in touch with the local authority leaving care services per annum, of which no more than 30 per cent. are estimated to be aged 19 to 25. Not all are able or would want to follow an apprenticeship pathway. On the assumption that around 500 care leavers aged 19-plus opted to take an apprenticeship per annum, the annual cost would be in the region of £2 million. That is the basis upon which we made the change of policy, in order to offer the entitlement to this group of relatively vulnerable young adults. The suitability would be the same as for 16 to 18-year-olds. As far as I understand it, we do not collect the information about how many apprentices between the ages of 19 and 25 are care leavers. That is why I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the information requested, but I hope that that is sufficient.

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

I also asked at what point or age the local authority stops owing such duties to care leavers. I shall add a point that I have been cogitating upon as the  Minister has been speaking. There are parallels with our earlier discussions about young people in secure accommodation. Continuity of options, in terms of skilling and education, the need to transfer information and the issue about where such people might reside all seem to be relevant. Has the Minister any thoughts on those subjects?

Jim Knight (Minister of State (Schools and Learners), Department for Children, Schools and Families; South Dorset, Labour)

I have thoughts on all sorts of subjects that I could share with the Committee, but in the interests of efficiency, I will reserve my thoughts on whether we should extend this to young offenders until such time as we might add a suitable amendment.

In response to the hon. Gentleman’s question on when the local authority stops owing duties to care leavers, I understand that it is at age 21. When the amendment to the Education and Skills Act 2008 is commenced, it will be up to the age of 25.

Stephen Williams (Bristol West, Liberal Democrat)

I beg to move amendment 114, in clause 83, page 50, line 42, at end insert—

‘(c) whose employer has withdrawn from an apprenticeship agreement after it has been entered into.’.

Christopher Chope (Christchurch, Conservative)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 115, in clause 83, page 51, line 6, at end insert—

‘(2A) Where no suitable employer is available arrangements shall not be made for persons eligible under subsection (1) to begin training or study until such time when arrangements for employment can be made.’.

Stephen Williams (Bristol West, Liberal Democrat)

Clause 83 is a key clause because it places a duty on the chief executive of Skills Funding to provide for choice in apprenticeship places for 16 to 18-year-olds. First, the young person is able to nominate at least two choices of sectors into which they wish to enter an apprenticeship. Following our discussions on clause 35, I hope that, after provision of sufficient information, advice and guidance, people will be exercising radically different choices to those that exist at the moment. It is an important duty to make sure that there are enough vehicle maintenance places and apprenticeships for young women who wish to go into them, for instance. They also have the ability to nominate the level at which they seek to enter—level 2 or advanced—and the apprenticeship place should be within a suitable travel-to-work area.

All those matters are challenging in themselves for this new duty, but of course we are discussing the Bill against the background of a recession. One part of the triangular relationship that we have mentioned several times during the debate—the employer—may actually be missing. For a layman, that is essential to the characteristics of the definition of an apprentice. Amendment 114 seeks to put in some protection for a young person who has already entered into an apprenticeship agreement but whose employer then fails and goes out of business because of the difficult economic circumstances that we are in at the moment. Would there then be a duty on the chief executive of Skills Funding or the NAS to make sure that that young  person’s interests were protected so that they could continue with their apprenticeship, given that their employer has ceased to be in business?

Amendment 115 largely covers the same area. What if a suitable employer is not available? Suppose someone has chosen a particular sector for which they are well qualified—they have received the good advice and guidance that says that they are well qualified to enter into a particular apprenticeship—but a suitable match cannot be made with an employer within a reasonable travel-to-work distance of their home? How will the choice of that young person then be met? It comes back to previous discussions that we have had on the role of group training associations. Both the amendments seek yet another assurance from the Government Front Bench—as we have had in respect of previous clauses—that the Bill will be flexible enough to encourage the setting up of group training arrangements once it is enacted. Particularly when an employer is missing, will college-led group training arrangements be encouraged by the Government, so that at least somebody can commence their formal training requirements of the apprenticeship with the college while a search for a suitable employment match is carried out? That is the broad purpose behind amendment 115. If an employer failed completely and another could not be immediately identified to pick up the formal employment part of the apprenticeship, could the college fulfil that role, albeit temporarily?

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

The hon. Gentleman seems to make a lot of sense, as do the amendments. GTAs are particularly important in areas where there is a poor history of training for apprenticeships. They can galvanise the diet for training and the appetite for apprenticeships. I mentioned the different number of apprenticeships across the country and picked on Greenwich, but there is an embarrassment of riches there compared with Hackney or Hammersmith.

Stephen Williams (Bristol West, Liberal Democrat)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. As we discussed on previous clauses, group training arrangements have an important role to play to bring together small employers who may not be able to provide all the support necessary to take on an apprentice by themselves, but several small employers could work together to fulfil the employment aspect of an apprentice’s training. These amendments deal with the complete absence of a suitable employer, and I am hoping that the Government will confirm that a college-led group training arrangement would be a suitable vehicle for an apprenticeship place, so that the expectations of the apprentice can be met.

Jim Knight (Minister of State (Schools and Learners), Department for Children, Schools and Families; South Dorset, Labour)

I understand the sentiment behind the amendments. It is only right that an apprentice whose apprenticeship agreement is prematurely brought to an end by an employer for a legitimate business reason, such as redundancy, should be assisted to find an alternative place. We have systems in place through initiatives such as the construction clearing house, and the work of Connexions and training providers, to find redundant apprentices alternative places. That is particularly important given the current economic situation.

We will strengthen those systems—involving local authorities, Connexions, training providers, sector skills councils and the National Apprenticeship Service—to maximise the opportunities for redundant apprentices  to find alternative places. The online apprenticeships vacancy matching service has a potentially important role to play. However, an employer may have withdrawn the apprenticeship agreement because of an apprentice’s poor performance. The hon. Gentleman’s amendment is attractive if one assumes that the only reason for the apprentice’s employment contract to cease would be the employer’s economic problems. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the other side of the coin and appreciates that there might be a poor performance problem with an apprentice, he will understand why I am going to ask him to withdraw his amendment.

In such an instance we do not consider that the chief executive of Skills Funding should have a duty to find an alternative apprenticeship place. The most effective means of dealing practicably and meaningfully with that situation is through other systems, rather than amending the legislation in the way proposed. Equally, I understand the concern that there may be insufficient employer places to enable every young person who wants one to take up an apprenticeship. However, the way to address that is to implement a range of policies to encourage employers to take on more apprentices, such as reducing bureaucracy, expanding group training associations, and establishing, among a host of other measures, the National Apprenticeship Service, which will have end-to-end responsibility for the programme.

Stephen Williams (Bristol West, Liberal Democrat)

On that point about group training associations, we heard several times that the Government intend to encourage the facilitation of group training arrangements. I was looking for the assurance that that encouragement will include college-led group training arrangements?

Jim Knight (Minister of State (Schools and Learners), Department for Children, Schools and Families; South Dorset, Labour)

I am mulling that particular question over. We specify in clause 85 that an apprenticeship place must involve arrangements for employment and training or study, highlighting the central role of employers in the apprenticeships scheme. Accepting this amendment would undermine employers’ central role.

College-led group training associations would be an appropriate vehicle. Having reflected, I have now concluded that that is an appropriate arrangement. We recognise that there is a valuable role for programme-led apprenticeships and pre-apprenticeship provision but we are clear that these are not apprenticeships. We announced in “World-class Apprenticeships” that we would look to revisit the programme-led apprenticeship brand with a view to creating a new name clearly to designate the new reformed route. As such, while understanding the motivation behind this amendment, we do not believe that this is the most effective means of achieving what we all want which is more apprenticeship places. I hope the hon. Gentleman will be persuaded by those compelling arguments.

Stephen Williams (Bristol West, Liberal Democrat)

I often find the Minister compelling, though not necessarily conclusively persuasive in all circumstances. None the less, the assurance that I wanted from him was that college-led group training arrangements would be part of the encouragement of GTAs which his Department and DIUS are going to undertake once this legislation is passed. I accept that there may be  entirely legitimate business reasons for an employer to terminate the employment contract of an under-performing apprentice. That was not the scenario envisaged by my amendments or what I had to say to them. I accept that there would be legitimate reasons other than total business failure for an apprentice place to be withdrawn. As the Minister has given me the assurance that college-led GTAs are to be encouraged by his Department and its sister Department, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.