Perhaps I may suggest that Amendment 89 probably relates to new subsection (2), at the bottom of page 20, which talks about failing, ""to complete the agreed study or training"."
Amendment 89 seeks to describe what that means whereas Amendment 90 refers to paragraph (c). I think that the Bill is strong enough. If a trainee—it does not matter whether he or she is in an apprenticeship—fails to attend a course, the college will automatically advise the employer that they have not attended. They do this regularly, on a weekly basis. If I am supposed to go every week but do not turn up, my employer will get a phone call saying, "Do you realise that Margaret Wall hasn’t turned up?". So I think that that is taken care of.
On the other amendment, in reality new Section 63H(2)(c) certainly says that if an individual, ""undertakes, or proposes to undertake, study or training that differs from the agreed study","
the agreement would be broken. The employee would lose the opportunity to have that training leave continued. They would not be doing what the agreement asked them to.
Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Baroness Wall of New Barnet
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 29 June 2009.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
712 c69 
Session
2008-09
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 12:26:29 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_571394
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_571394
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_571394