Clause 79
2:15 pm
John Hayes (Shadow Minister, Innovation, Universities and Skills; South Holland and The Deepings, Conservative)
We have seen off the Under-Secretary of State and the Minister is back to discuss clause 79 and amendment 107.
Clause 79 allows the Secretary of State to direct the chief executive of Skills Funding to designate a person to carry out apprenticeship functions on behalf of the chief executive. As we heard a few moments ago, the Government expect that the person designated will be the chief executive of the National Apprenticeship Service. We also heard that the NAS will be a discrete service within the Skills Funding Agency, which we now learn is not an agency at all. The chief executive of the National Apprenticeship Service will undertake apprenticeship functions, including the duty to give places to young people on apprenticeship schemes. Subsection (5) sets out the apprenticeship functions that will be carried out under this clause. The clause allows the Secretary of State to define and regulate the relationship between the two postholders and to set out the functions on which the chief executive of the NAS or any other designated person will be required to report to the Secretary of State. As we heard a few moments ago, Secretary of State refers here to the Secretaries of State of both Departments.
Amendment 107 is relatively straightforward and I will therefore speak briefly to it. However, I am afraid that I will speak at some length about new clause 8, which is a pivotal clause in our estimation because it sets out an entirely different set of views on how the matters should be managed. The Minister will note that our amendment is devised to ensure that the design of the National Apprenticeship Service enables the Government to fulfil its pledge of world-class apprenticeships that provide high quality employer places and build support for more employer ownership of apprenticeships. His objection to earlier amendments, the purpose of which was to ensure greater employer involvement in building their frameworks and so better deliver apprenticeships, was that they were too bureaucratic. No such claim could be made about amendment 107. It merely seeks to ensure that the NAS does what it is supposed to do, building an effective apprenticeship service and having an apprenticeship brand that is alert to and responds to employer need.
I spoke previously about the Lords Economic Affairs Committee, and its “Apprenticeships: a key route to skills” paper. The noble Members of that eminent body concluded:
“The Government has given individual employers too little involvement in how apprenticeships are run, rendering them little more than passive partners. Employers need to be at the centre of apprenticeship provision. Within five years, all Government funding for apprenticeships should go directly to employers, rather than through training providers as happens today.”
The Innovation, Universities and Skills Committee on the draft Apprenticeships Bill, which preceded this Bill, reaffirmed concerns about employer engagement in the apprenticeship system. My hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) questioned the CBI witness who gave evidence to that Committee. When he asked about employer engagement, particularly about the prescriptive model that he perceived as the likely product of the Government policy and the NAS, the CBI witness replied:
“I think that is a concern”.
The Minister’s hon. Friend, the Member for Brigg and Goole (Mr. Cawsey), asked whether the system was likely to be a success and the CBI witness replied:
“In terms of whether it will be a success, it really has to focus on helping employers reduce the time they spend on bureaucracy, encouraging more young people of all abilities to take an apprenticeship.”
We understand that the Bill will prevent funding flowing directly to employers, advancing it instead through the intermediary of the NAS. At the very least we should ensure that the service itself is responsive to employer need. That is the minimum that employers require and apprentices deserve, hence our amendment.
I shall speak more freely about new clause 8, which sets out an alternative vision for rejuvenating apprenticeships, and that lies at the heart of Conservative thinking. We know that the current system is imperfect—I use the word with moderation, because others have been more critical. The chairman of BT, Sir Michael Rake, who is also chairman of the Commission for Employment and Skills, said that he has met no one who does not believe that the system is incredibly over-complex, and that it is ridiculous in cost of delivery, effectiveness and so on. That is a damning criticism from the man who has been appointed to chair the commission, so my comments, by comparison, are extraordinarily understated and moderate.
We know that the average public funding for an apprenticeship is around £3,750 per annum. We believe that it would be best if the payment were simplified into a single stream of money going direct to employers.