Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Bill

My Lords, we are glad to welcome the government amendments which demonstrate that they have taken several, indeed quite a number, of the Committee’s concerns on board. We remain dissatisfied with much of the Bill, as those who have been present throughout will be aware, but we are grateful for the efforts of the Minister and his Bill team for bringing forward a great many changes in response to concerns. I want to address the subject of extending the apprenticeship entitlement to prescribed groups where the upper age limit is 25. I understand that the Minister and his Bill team put a great deal of work into discussions with SKILL and other SEN groups so that those with learning difficulties and disabilities are not totally excluded from the apprenticeship entitlement. Amendment 106 allows the provision to be extended and Amendment 120 allows regulations to be made, which will make provision regarding circumstances where alternative criteria might be accepted in respect of specific groups who appear to the chief executive of the SFA to have a learning difficulty under the definition in the Education Act 1996. We welcome the Government’s intentions in this regard. Perhaps, however, the Minister might be able to satisfy me on the following points. First, can he inform your Lordships what extra costs he expects these provisions to entail? Extending the apprenticeship entitlement in this way must mean that calculations have been done, and estimates made of the increased cost. I would be grateful to hear from him on this count. Secondly, could he perhaps go into some detail about what he expects alternative provisions might be? Like other noble Lords, we welcome the potential expansion of criteria by regulations which would widen access to those with learning difficulties or disabilities which could mean that they could not achieve five GCSEs, including maths and English. Nevertheless, widening access should not mean lowering standards. Can he assure us that the alternative criteria will be just that—alternative, not lower? I now turn my attention briefly to Amendment 129, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Layard. Noble Lords will be aware that we agree with the principle of this amendment. Indeed, we moved a similar amendment in Committee in another place, which proposed that all employers who took on an apprentice within a recognised apprenticeships framework should be paid directly by the chief executive of skills funding. The reasons behind this are easy to understand. We believe that it is simpler to channel funding into a single stream which then goes directly to employers. In contrast, the Government have chosen to introduce another body—the National Apprenticeship Service—through which funding will be directed. This service may indeed have a useful role to play in securing an effective apprenticeship scheme, but throughout the Committee stage, we emphasised the importance of a direct connection between government and employers when looking at apprenticeships. We have also constantly said that we want a reduction in the convoluted and spaghetti-like structure of the various bodies, agencies, quangos and organisations that are required to interact and somehow produce the Government’s desired results. The amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Layard, has the advantage of achieving these objectives in a simple and direct fashion. I look forward to the Minister’s response.