Clause 89
3:45 pm
John Hayes (Shadow Minister, Innovation, Universities and Skills; South Holland and The Deepings, Conservative)
I beg to move amendment 207, in clause 89, page 54, line 20, at end insert—
‘(c) and after consultation with representatives of employers and providers from the sector.’.
I was just reflecting on what Oscar Wilde said about truth. He said that
“truth is seldom pure and never simple”,
and so it is with the Bill—it is seldom simple.
Jim Knight (Minister of State (Schools and Learners), Department for Children, Schools and Families; South Dorset, Labour)
On a point of order, Mr. Chope. I though that I heard you call amendment 207, which appears to be the one listed here. Perhaps it is a printing error in the document I am looking at, but I thought that amendment 207 was in the name of—[Interruption.] No, it is not. Fine. I am grateful for that clarification.
Christopher Chope (Christchurch, Conservative)
The right hon. Gentleman has answered his own point of order.
John Hayes (Shadow Minister, Innovation, Universities and Skills; South Holland and The Deepings, Conservative)
I said that things are never simple, and on cue the Minister jumped up to show that that is the case.
Clause 89 gives the Secretary of State the power to suspend an apprenticeship scheme in a specified geographical area in relation to particular apprenticeship sectors or a particular level for up to two years. That would allow the duty to secure suitable apprenticeship places to be suspended when economic difficulties or other circumstances were so severe that that duty could not be fulfilled. The amendment is designed to ascertain exactly why apprenticeship schemes would have to be suspended in certain areas or certain sectors during economic hardship. It is now clear that the country is moving to a state of significant economic hardship, by any measure. The clause enables the Secretary of State to suspend apprenticeship schemes at such times, and as a result it has many worrying aspects. It is particularly worrying that training and skills education could be discontinued during hardship, when, as many reports have argued, it should be used as an exit route. The recent report by the Institute of Directors makes it clear that during downturns it is important to continue to invest in skills and training. The failure to do so in past recessions has both lengthened and deepened them. It is a particular concern that the clause facilitates that approach.
Christopher Chope (Christchurch, Conservative)
Order. I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman is addressing the amendment that I called. He seems to be addressing amendment 206, which has not been selected. If I have misinterpreted his comments, I apologise, but I would be grateful if he addressed his remarks to amendment 207.
John Hayes (Shadow Minister, Innovation, Universities and Skills; South Holland and The Deepings, Conservative)
Even if I thought you were wrong, Mr. Chope, I would not say so, but on this occasion, I think you are right.
Siôn Simon (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills; Birmingham, Erdington, Labour)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
John Hayes (Shadow Minister, Innovation, Universities and Skills; South Holland and The Deepings, Conservative)
I will give way to the Under-Secretary in a moment.
I will move on to make the few remarks I intend to make on amendment 207. What a pity amendment 203 was not called, or I would be able to continue my peroration. I will happily give way to the Under-Secretary, who is like a rare bird—he has been an infrequent visitor to the Committee today.
Siôn Simon (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills; Birmingham, Erdington, Labour)
I invite the hon. Gentleman to agree with me that things are even more complex than even he realised. I should also like to note that I have been here the whole time in the Committee today.
John Hayes (Shadow Minister, Innovation, Universities and Skills; South Holland and The Deepings, Conservative)
The Under-Secretary has indeed been here the whole time, but he has been an infrequent contributor, as I should have said. He is right that things are always more complex than they seem. So it is with legislation, so it is with amendments.
Amendment 207 suggests that the elements of clause 89 that I have outlined should only be effected after consultation with representatives of employers and providers from the sector. This is another case of us seeking to ensure that employers are fully involved in both the theory and the practice of the Bill. I anticipate, and I will welcome, the Minister’s agreement with that sentiment when he rises to say that the Government intend to accept the amendment.
Jim Knight (Minister of State (Schools and Learners), Department for Children, Schools and Families; South Dorset, Labour)
The last thing I want to do is disappoint the hon. Gentleman yet again by resisting yet another proposed amendment, but I am afraid that I will have to do so. It would introduce a statutory requirement to formally consult
“representatives of employers and providers”
before the regulations that would suspend an apprenticeship scheme can be laid. I remind him and other members of the Committee that the guidance in the code of practice on consultations is that the period for formal consultation should normally last for at least 12 weeks. Also, any failure to comply with formal consultation requirements could lead to a judicial review challenge to any decision to suspend the apprenticeship scheme, and to the invalidation an order to suspend.
John Hayes (Shadow Minister, Innovation, Universities and Skills; South Holland and The Deepings, Conservative)
For the benefit of the Committee, will the Minister describe the circumstances in which a scheme would be suspended, specifically, not generally?
Jim Knight (Minister of State (Schools and Learners), Department for Children, Schools and Families; South Dorset, Labour)
The experience in last outbreak of foot and mouth disease was that it entails considerable disruption to certain sectors in rural areas, for example. It might be appropriate in specific sectors in specific geographical areas to suspend a scheme because of the difficulty of access to it.
John Hayes (Shadow Minister, Innovation, Universities and Skills; South Holland and The Deepings, Conservative)
It occurred to me that the Minister is quick on his feet and rarely puts them in his mouth.
Jim Knight (Minister of State (Schools and Learners), Department for Children, Schools and Families; South Dorset, Labour)
I have no comment to make about that. I reassure the Committee that the decision to suspend the scheme will not be taken lightly; we would need evidence that it is impossible to fulfil the duty to secure the places. In determining whether the suspension of the scheme is necessary, we will take account of the views of employer and training provider representatives, among others.
However, the amendment would restrict flexibility by imposing an additional and potentially lengthy formal step in the process before a change can be made to suspend a scheme. I therefore urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw it.
John Hayes (Shadow Minister, Innovation, Universities and Skills; South Holland and The Deepings, Conservative)
I am persuaded, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.