Clause 81
3:15 pm
John Hayes (Shadow Minister, Innovation, Universities and Skills; South Holland and The Deepings, Conservative)
We are making such rapid progress and moving ahead with such alacrity that we come to clause 81 and amendments 204 and 205, which stand in my name and those of my hon. Friends.
The explanatory notes set out that the responsibility for a range of apprenticeships is delegated to the chief executive officer of the NAS, who then organises matters with local education authorities. We want to make it absolutely clear that we are stout defenders of local government. I served for many years on Nottinghamshire county council; for most of that time, I was the shadow chairman of education. Once again, I pay tribute to the councillors across the country of all political parties who give such sterling service to their localities, through their work in local government.
However, we are simply not convinced that local authorities have a significant role to play in the way that is envisaged by the Bill. I have previously argued that incorporation of FE colleges gave them a new lease of life. They look ahead to the days when they come under the influence—indeed, one might say within the power—of local government with some scepticism, and that is an understatement, given what some college principals have said to me.
Amendment 204 is a simple one. It would replace “local education authorities” with “employers” and education providers. There is a real gap in the Bill on the role of employers, which has been established through our consideration of it. Employers are not given the weight that we need to give them to make the ambitions that lie at the heart of this Bill a reality. The amendment is straightforward.
Amendments 204 and 205 reflect the remarks of Richard Wainer of the CBI, who said in his evidence to the Innovation, Universities and Skills Committee on the draft Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Bill:
“The priority for a government apprenticeship policy has to be ensuring that more employers are getting involved.”
John Lucas of the British Chambers of Commerce said:
“In terms of funding and its distribution, I do not think that local authorities have a track record of employer engagement”.—— [Official Report, Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Public Bill Committee, 3 March 2009; c. 6, Q3.]
Indeed, the BCC brief on the draft Bill said that
“apprenticeships should be employer led, offer real progression routes for apprentices, whether that be onto development in the workplace, or further and higher education”.
Amendment 204 attempts to alleviate those concerns by ensuring that the NAS works with employers, whereas amendment 205 would remove any reference to LEAs, cutting away the dead hand of local authority control and the excessive bureaucracy and red tape that would become synonymous with the proposed system.
These moves are clearly supported by the Innovation, Universities and Skills Committee recommendations and by the Lords Economic Affairs Committee, which argued that apprenticeships:
“should be...a unique public-private partnership. Three actors contribute—employer, apprentice and government—and all stand to benefit from a successful partnership.”
To say more would be superfluous. The case is made. I fully expect the Minister to embrace these amendments if, as I do, he truly believes that the success of his ambitions will depend on effective employer engagement.