Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Bill

We agree that off-the-job or classroom learning is an important component of an apprenticeship. It helps to ensure that the apprentice obtains a firm grasp of the underpinning knowledge needed to develop the relevant technical skills, that they develop an understanding of the sector in which they work and that they have time to review progress and reflect on what they have learnt. There is no doubt that a combination of both on-the-job and off-the-job learning is desirable. As we have argued in our party’s Green Paper, there is a need both for job-specific skills to be taught via training in the workplace and for broad transferable skills that can be taught in the classroom. In that sense, we support the premise of the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Layard, particularly on the provision of training to improve functional literacy and numeracy, as he says. However, our position is that, because there is significant and necessary variation between industry sectors in the amount of underpinning knowledge, theory and understanding that apprentices need before they are fully competent and qualified to carry out their respective jobs, we believe that specifying a minimum number of hours for each apprenticeship framework is a step too far—hence our Amendment 58A, which specifies the opposite. The criteria laid out in Amendment 59 might prove too onerous for some employers who would otherwise desire to run an apprenticeship scheme. That view is shared by the CBI, which states unequivocally that the flexibility of the employer should not be lost in a maze of new rules and regulations. It may be the Government’s opinion that a rigid system of apprenticeship standards will increase quality, but the reality of such restrictive regulations is a minimum amount of guided learning hours at a location other than the workplace, which could hamper employer involvement. Such regulation does not take into account the varied nature of apprenticeships. One industry will evidently require different levels of off-the-job training from another and an apprentice’s age and individual needs must also be considered. For some sectors and businesses, notably the more traditional apprenticeship sectors such as engineering, a significant part of apprentices’ training will take place off the job. For others, most training will be more effectively taken on the job. A 2007 survey by the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills showed wide variation in the quantity of off-the-job training required. For example, 70 per cent of engineering apprentices’ time is spent in off-the-job learning in comparison with 46 per cent for the construction sector and 38 per cent for the retail sector. Most important, employer involvement itself is the key part of any successful apprenticeship programme. As your Lordships’ Economic Affairs Committee highlighted, completion rates improve when the apprenticeship programme is linked to strong employer involvement, rather than when an employer is, ""marginalised at the end of a long chain of administration"." If the Government seek to increase the number of apprenticeship bases offered by employers, more must be done to ensure that the programme meets business needs, particularly given the current economic climate when training budgets are under pressure. One can only imagine the frustration on the part of both the employer and the apprentice in a sector where a specified minimum time exceeds the time actually needed for off-the-job training. The introduction of a minimum period of off-the-job training would, we suggest, stifle flexibility for companies to adapt training programmes to meet their business and their employees’ needs and mean that fewer firms would see value in becoming involved. Such a change would mark a significant departure from the Government’s ambition to create a demand-led skills system. A statutory framework for apprenticeships could place burdens on firms that, during this time of financial uncertainty, might discourage their participation in apprenticeships. This would be an error and would compound the Government’s record in working with businesses and SMEs to provide quality apprenticeships. This time last year, a submission to the Conservative Party from a business that undertakes an apprenticeship scheme identified nine areas of administrative burden involved in running an apprenticeship programme. Surely it would be wrong to further encumber businesses that provide apprenticeship places in this manner. Regulating for the same minimum amount of off-the-job learning for each of the 180 apprenticeship frameworks now in existence could seriously damage the attractiveness of the programme to many employers. On a different note, there is a concern that these amendments could have a negative impact on the participation in apprenticeships of people with learning difficulties who may not be likely to attain a certain level in mathematics and might, therefore, be unable to gain an apprenticeship. The Alliance for Inclusive Education has argued that this sort of requirement could risk precluding young people with learning difficulties from entering apprenticeship schemes. We suggest that that prescriptive approach is not justified, given the existence now of apprenticeship schemes such as the Tesco level 2 retail scheme, which currently makes no such demands and is thus open to young people with learning disabilities. I look forward to the Minister’s reassurances on this matter.