 House of Commons |
Session 2007 - 08 Publications on the internet General Committee Debates Education and Skills Bill |
Education and Skills Bill |
The Committee consisted of the following Members:Nick
Walker, Tom Goldsmith, Committee
Clerks
† attended the
Committee
Public Bill CommitteeTuesday 5 February 2008(Afternoon)[Hugh Bayley in the Chair]Education and Skills BillClause 2Duty
to participate in education or
training
Amendment
proposed [this day]: No. 71, in
clause 2, page 1, line 17, leave
out from beginning to end of line 8 on page 2 and
insert—
‘(c)
be in full-time occupation (see section 5).’.
—[Mr.
Laws.]
4
pm
Question
again proposed, That the amendment be
made.
The
Minister for Schools and Learners (Jim Knight):
It is a
pleasure, as always, to see you in the chair, Mr. Bayley.
When we concluded the morning session, I had just cited support from
the British Chambers of Commerce. I shall now discuss the notion,
expressed by the hon. Member for Yeovil, that employers will have to
take workers who are unwilling or unable. I do not think that we would
have the support of an employers’ organisation if that were the
case. Judging by his facial expression, perhaps that is not what the
hon. Gentleman meant: he is looking at me very quizzically.
To
clarify, employers will not be required to take on any 16 and
17-year-olds. The majority of 16 and 17-year-olds in work also
participate in education or training, and they and their employers will
be unaffected. We certainly have no intention of compelling anybody to
take on a learner—that should, perfectly reasonably, be a choice
for employers.
There will be
a range of engaging options available to young people who are in
full-time work. Some will receive accredited training from their
employer, and we are making it easier for employers to get
good quality training accredited. Indeed, the hon. Member for
Broxbourne reminded the Committee of the announcements last week from
McDonald’s, Flybe and National Rail, which are introducing their
own accredited qualifications. I was grateful to the hon. Member for
Bognor Regis and Littlehampton for saying that those qualifications may
well be better than a whole raft of qualifications accredited in the
past, because they relate to the real world of work. I completely
agree, and they are an important step forward for us.
For those who
attend training elsewhere alongside full-time employment, the new
diplomas, the foundation learning tier and elements of apprenticeship
frameworks will all be available part-time, and young people can take
their time to build up the full qualification. We
are
confident that there will be a suitable option for all young people,
whatever level they are working at; the requirement does not
necessarily mean that employers have to allow young people time off
from their normal working hours for training. Over half of 16 and
17-year-olds in jobs without training are in the retail sector, for
example. Shops are open many more hours than 16 and 17-year-olds are
legally allowed to work in a week, and it may well be that their normal
weekly working hours are simply arranged for times when they are not in
training. That is reinforced by the flexible availability of education
and training courses from a range of providers. In the extensive speech
by the hon. Member for
Yeovil—
Jim
Knight:
In the abridged version—he wanted to speak
more about this important amendment—the hon. Member for Yeovil
discussed the effect on the youth labour market and the works of Alison
Wolf. He referred to her pamphlet, “Diminished Returns”,
published by Policy Exchange, which I have had a chance to read at my
leisure.
I have
reminded the Committee of the impact assessment, and the reality of the
number of young people in small and medium-sized enterprises who will
be displaced. I clarified the fact that, as the impact assessment says,
it is not half of all young people in those employment settings who
will be replaced. The labour force survey shows that 27 per cent. of
the full-time 16 to 17-year-old cohort are in jobs without training,
earning below the national minimum wage, and working in SMEs. We
estimate that half of that group, which is within the group employed in
SMEs, may be displaced in favour of older workers. As ever with impact
assessments, that might be a pessimistic interpretation, because we
always seek to err on the side of caution. Half of these—not
half of all young people in SMEs—may be displaced in favour of
older workers; that totals only 1,680 young
people.
In her work on
the issue, Alison Wolf asked whether we had underestimated the cost
impacts on the youth labour market—the hon. Member for Yeovil
asked about that, too. Our economists have looked closely at Alison
Wolf’s work, and having seen their analysis, I remain confident
that the estimates underpinning our impact assessment are sound and
considerably more credible than her estimates. First, Alison Wolf
assumes that all the 16 and 17-year-olds working in small firms will
simply be replaced by older workers, which assumes that no small
employer at all will continue to employ 16 and 17-year-olds with day
release. As a former director of a small business, I think that that is
not a likely scenario at
all.
Secondly, she
assumes that all the older workers who are employed would otherwise be
doing another job, and that there is no way of filling that job. In
other words, she assumes that the labour market for 18-year-olds and
over is at full employment. Although we know that employment is indeed
at record levels, we know we are not quite at the level of full
employment. Thirdly, the Department’s analysis compares the
costs and benefits of raising the participation age with the previous
policy goal of 90 per cent. participation among 17-year-olds. Professor
Wolf, in contrast,
assumes that overall participation among 16 and 17-year-olds is 80 per
cent. in 2016-17. That is significantly lower than the current
participation rate for 16 and 17-year-olds of 86 per cent., so we do
not think that that figure is credible. Even if she were right about
that, she should significantly increase the benefits of raising the
participation age so that costs and benefits are calculated on a
consistent basis. If that were done, benefits would exceed costs by an
even larger
margin.
Fourthly,
Professor Wolf takes no account of part-time workers. Some 40 per cent.
of those in jobs without training are working part-time. Those workers
would be able to participate under the legislation without spending
less time at work, so there is no need for a foregone productivity cost
for that group. Fifthly and finally, Professor Wolf assumes that all 16
and 17-year-olds would be on the national minimum wage for
18-year-olds. The analysis underpinning the costing by the Department
for Children, Schools and Families uses data from the labour force
survey showing that 27 per cent. of those in full-time jobs without
training earn below the national minimum wage for
18-year-olds.
Mr.
John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con): The
Minister has given us a very detailed and thorough critique of Alison
Wolf’s work. Because it is thorough and detailed, he will no
doubt give us his estimate of the proportion of 16 to 18-year-olds in
work who are in part-time work. I guess that most part-time workers are
not aged between 16 and 18: they work part-time because they have all
kinds of other commitments. Can he give us any feel for the proportion
of 16 to 18-year-olds in work who are in part-time
work?
Jim
Knight:
I am trying to recall that particular statistic,
and if it comes to the forefront of my mind, of course I will impart it
to the Committee. In the meantime, for the reasons I have stated, the
DCSF assumptions, are by far the most plausible. In my view, the chance
of all the worst-case assumptions produced by Alison Wolf being correct
is vanishingly small. In any case, the consequence of some of her
assumptions being correct is that the overall estimate of the benefit
would rise by far more than the overall estimate of the costs. If I
need to give any further information in reply to the question from the
hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings, I will seek to do so,
because I am sure that we will return to the effects on the youth
labour market, when we discuss chapter 3 and the duties on employers,
even if we have that debate in a disciplined and brief way, following
the extensive debate that we have had today. I would therefore argue
that it is not in the interests of individuals or the economy for young
people to go into dead-end jobs without training at 16, and I therefore
ask the hon. Member for Yeovil to withdraw his
amendment.
Mr.
Laws:
Mr Bayley, may I welcome you back to the Chair? You
must be delighted by our rapid progress this morning, as we have
already got halfway through clause 2. We have had an opportunity to
give an initial airing to concerns about the Bill’s effects on
young people who would otherwise be in employment. In
particular, we have been able to address concerns that I expressed
earlier about the loss of job opportunities for 16 or 17-year-olds, the
type of qualifications that they would be required to undertake, and
whether those would be useful and
valuable.
I did not
make the claim in my speech to which the Minister alluded, that young
people would be forced into particular posts. No doubt that comment was
prepared before I delivered my speech. We are grateful to the Minister
for his response to speeches from Opposition Members. No doubt, Alison
Wolf and others will go away and look with great interest at
the points made by hon. Members. The Minister’s comments will
inform our later debates, when we will have a chance to come back to
his claims on the important issue of costings, which will undoubtedly
be challenged. I only wish that we could pull Alison Wolf back in for
another evidence session and some exchanges with the Minister, but I am
not sure that our proceedings would allow for that.
On the two fundamental matters
that were raised this morning, I am still concerned that the Minister
has not registered our worries. On the issue of whether the
qualifications that people will be obliged to take will be valuable, at
the beginning of his contribution, the Minister referred to young
people who do not go into “good honest jobs”—I
cannot remember his exact characterisation. He referred to people who
do not end up with large exotic cars, such as BMWs, that they would
otherwise be able to drive away after their period in work and
training. He is setting a rather high and unrealistic bar for everybody
engaged in the labour market. Many young people in employment who do
not undertake education and training are doing work that gives them
valuable skills, and re-engages them after a period of alienation in
formal education: they benefit enormously from that experience. Who
knows what they may go on to do later in life? The key issue is whether
they would be better off, if they were obliged to take one of the
qualifications to which the Minister alluded. It is our contention that
they would not, because of the value of some of the qualifications and
because the job may not exist, which I will come on to in a
minute.
I cannot help
feeling that we have not yet bottomed out the issue of what
qualifications the Department assumes those young people will take. If
the Minister has had a chance to read Alison Wolf’s paper, he
will know that Professor Wolf claims that the Government are unduly
optimistic about the composition of the qualifications that they will
take. On page 27 of her pamphlet, she produces a useful summary of the
types of qualification that she thinks many young people will end up
taking and she questions whether all of them will have the economic
value that the Government claim. She also makes the valuable point that
there may be some young people get pushed into using up their level 2
qualification entitlement at an early age, although they may want to
take those qualifications later and benefit from them more
significantly. I hope that we will be able to look at the
Minister’s comments about the compositional issues around those
qualifications, and that we will be able to compare the different
claims that have been made. That that may strengthen our position when
we raise other points about the matter further on in the
debate.
The Minister
also sought to address issues about the labour market and the number of
young people who would lose job opportunities that they would otherwise
have. The Government acknowledge that something like 1,680 jobs for 16
or 17-year-olds will not be there as a consequence of the Bill’s
introduction. I cited a figure of 5,550, and I apologise if it was
inaccurate; I was citing evidence that we took from some of the
witnesses. I will not mention, to spare their embarrassment, which
particular witness it was, but one of our witnesses referred to 5,500,
but I am happy to correct that figure, if it is inaccurate and 1,680 is
the right figure.
4.15
pm
I
also referred to the group of youngsters particularly affected by the
measure as those in smaller businesses, but the Minister clarified that
it is a particular type of small business. I am happy to
acknowledge—and it is a useful clarification—that we are
talking about a more discrete group. I am happy to do so, because it
rather makes my point, which is that the Government have been looking
at a very narrow segment of the 16 and 17-year-old population in
employment as the vulnerable segment. On page 23 of her paper, Alison
Wolf sums up which group of 16 and 17-year-olds the Government assume
would be adversely affected by the Bill. I am happy for the Minister to
correct me if I am wrong, but it appears from what Alison Wolf’s
claims—and I think the Minister confirmed this—that the
relevant group of
businesses
“is taken to
be those which are very small (fewer than 50 employees), and where no
job related training is reported (using the LFS definitions) and where
the employed teenager is currently paid less than the minimum wage for
an 18 year
old.”
The
Government have therefore taken a very modest, specific segment of the
labour market, and claimed that for that sector, the Bill will have
significant employment consequences: 50 per cent. of the jobs in that
very small subgroup will be wiped out. The complementary aspect is
that, presumably, no other jobs are going to be lost in other, larger
companies or companies with different characteristics in terms of
training and the wage levels of the young people working
there.
We are still
left with the question I asked earlier about whether those assumptions
are realistic. The Government have got down to a figure of only 1,680
by defining the at-risk group of youngsters in a very particular way,
and Alison Wolf’s analysis claims that there are a number of
significant risks, not least if the Government fail to raise the
participation rate to 90 per cent. in the first
place.
Jim
Knight:
To help the Committee, I draw hon. Members’
attention to pages 26 and 27 of the impact assessment, paragraphs 5.20
to 5.27, which deal with the costs to employers. The impact assessment
states:
“Labour
Force Survey (LFS) analysis for 2006 shows around 40% of the 20,750
16-17 year olds in JWT work
part-time.”
It then goes
on to deal with medium-sized firms, small firms and the sorts of
assumption made. I particularly advise looking at paragraph 5.27, which
talks about the fact that the new arrangements are not coming in for
some time. That allows large businesses in particular to
adjust to what is going to happen over the next five years and to
respond accordingly.
Mr.
Laws:
That is helpful, and I recognise that paragraph 5.27
and 5.26 are saying that the Government do not expect young people who
are now in employment to lose their jobs as a consequence of the Bill.
It is more likely that some 16 and 17-year-olds who would have had jobs
will not be taken on. I still think that that is a major concern when
we consider that many of those young people may be more likely to
engage in employment and to learn valuable skills in that way than if
they go down the route being offered in the Bill.
I come back
to the point, which I do not think is addressed in the impact
assessment, that the Government have defined down the at-risk group in
a number of ways, one of which is the assumption that the participation
rate will in any case rise from 80 per cent. to 90 per cent. A lot of
those youngsters who might be included in the at-risk group have thus
been defined out. Secondly, I wonder whether the Government are being
realistic about the number of 16 or 17-year-olds who are in the labour
market but who are not receiving training in the way specified, because
the Government seem to have used quite a broad definition of training.
Also, the Government have excluded particular small firms, medium-sized
firms and larger employers, as well as the self-employed from the
at-risk group.
I put
it to the Minister that he may still have underestimated the employment
impact of the Bill. It would be useful if Committee members were told
before we debate some of the other clauses that will deal with this
matter not only more about the qualification assumptions that the
Government are making, but more about the rationale for completely
excluding some of these groups of young people from the group who may
suffer an adverse impact in terms of their employment
opportunities.
We
continue to be concerned about both those issues, but I am aware that
we will have the opportunity to return to them later in our
proceedings. The debates on other clauses will give us an opportunity
to flush out some of these facts and, perhaps, to table further
amendments. I beg leave to withdraw this
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave, withdrawn.
Mr.
Nick Gibb (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con): I beg to
move amendment No. 5, in
clause 2, page 2, line 8, at
end add—
‘(3) The Secretary
of State shall specify by order arrangements and duties applicable to a
person to whom this Part applies who has significant responsibilities
for caring for parents, siblings or other close
relatives.’.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to discuss
amendment No. 6, in
clause 2, page 2, line 8, at
end add—
‘(3) The Secretary
of State shall specify by order arrangements and duties applicable to a
person to whom this Part applies who has significant responsibilities
for caring for their own
children.’.
Mr.
Gibb:
Welcome back, Mr. Bayley. We have
conducted very thorough scrutiny of the 20 lines of page 1, and it is a
pleasure to move the first amendment that relates to page 2 of the
Bill.
Amendment No. 5 would ameliorate
the position of young carers. Clause 2 is very precise and clear about
the duty it imposes on 16 and 17-year-olds who do not have a level 3
qualification. They will either have to be in full-time education or
full-time apprenticeship, or they can be in a full-time job with
training which leads to an appropriate qualification. In that context,
full time means at least 20 hours a week and the amount of training
must be at least 280 hours a year, which is about one day a week. That
is very precise and prescriptive, which may present severe difficulties
for young people who have a range of responsibilities outside the
purview and life experience of—I do not mean this
disrespectfully—parliamentary draftsmen.
The Princess Royal Trust for
Carers, a charity that helps and supports young carers through its 129
carers centres, believes strongly that young carers should not be
exempted from the duties that the Bill imposes on other young people.
It makes this very clear, saying:
“We do not believe that
young carers should routinely be exempted from the requirement to
attend education and training. We fail young carers when we give up on
their education.”
The
thrust of that amendment is therefore not to exempt young
carers.
The trust
points out that there are 52,000 carers aged between 16 and 17 in
England and Wales and of those nearly 4,000 are responsible for care
that engages them for more than 50 hours a week. That figure is based
on the 2001 census, and the trust believes that it is likely to be an
underestimate.
Most of us
will have had a pretty conventional upbringing. It is hard to imagine
how a 16 or 17-year-old, let alone an even younger child, could cope
with the emotional and practical difficulties of caring for a seriously
ill parent or sibling. In their joint paper “Making it
Work” published in 2002, the Children’s Society and the
Princess Royal Trust for Carers quote some young people who are carers.
One
said:
“It’s
not just the caring that affects you. What really gets to you is the
worry of it all. Having a parent who is ill and seeing them in such a
state...you think about it a
lot.”
Another child
said:
“I used
to run away from school because I always wanted to be with my mum. I
used to think that my mum was going to die. I was about
eight...they treated me as if I was playing
truant.”
Another
said:
“It just
something I do. It has to be done and there is no one else to do
it.”
That, of course, is
the human condition. Children, like adults, will adapt and end up
responding to their responsibilities, somehow or other. However, doing
that will affect their education: young carers often underperform at
school, and many are subject to bullying or suffer mental health
problems.
The Princess
Royal Trust for Carers is concerned that the duty imposed by clause
2
“could result in 16
and 17-year-old young carers being prosecuted for non-attendance, where
they do not have anyone else to provide the care for a family
member.”
The trust
believes that the fact there are so many young carers is testimony to
the lack of community care support. However, its concern about the Bill
is that:
“As it
stands, the Bill offers little to these families, except the threat of
prosecution to young people who fail to attend school, regardless of
the pressures upon them.”
It believes that
“this Bill should ensure that
families are being offered sufficient and reliable alternative forms of
support so that young carers aged 16 and 17 are not relied upon for
levels of care that prevent them from attending
education;”
The Bill
should also
“ensure that
parents’ needs are assessed by adult services when considering
the application of parenting contracts and parenting orders arising
from poor attendance;”
and—this is
the key point that I wanted to draw to the Committee’s
attention, and it is the subject of the
amendment—
“offer
flexibility on attendance and methods of learning to young carers in
exceptional circumstances, such as those caring for a parent in the
last stages of terminal
illness.”
Mr.
Hayes:
My hon. Friend is making an important case on
behalf of young carers. He came to that word
“flexibility” and I wonder if he agrees with me that the
theme has been emerging today is that the inevitable universality of a
legal commitment—a legal obligation—is incompatible with
the sort of flexibility and responsiveness we want for those vulnerable
groups?
Mr.
Gibb:
Yes, my hon. Friend has put the point better than I
have so far. He is correct: legislation is by its nature inflexible and
prescriptive and in the amendment we are trying to introduce an element
of flexibility into the Bill, particularly on attendance and methods of
learning.
The
amendment would introduce into the clause a requirement that the
Secretary of State produce regulations that set out a more flexible set
of duties to which a person with significant caring responsibilities
would be subject. The duty to participate in education or training
would remain, but arrangements could be made that were more suitable
and adaptable to their
circumstances.
Amendment
No. 6 is designed to deal with similar problems faced by a young person
of 16 or 17 who has a child of his or her own, with all the
responsibilities that come with having and raising a baby or young
child. The Government’s Green Paper “Raising
Expectations: staying in education and training post-16” says at
paragraph 5.44 on page 41 that the
Government
“want to
support teenage parents to engage in learning. This depends on their
being able to access childcare and provision that fits their
circumstances.”
In the
next paragraph, they
say
“The Care
to Learn scheme supports childcare costs with funding paid directly to
the childcare provider. This will continue and we will consider what
else needs to be done to ensure teenage parents have real opportunities
to
participate.”
The
purpose of amendment No. 6 is to draw out from the Minister the results
of the Government’s consideration and to ask what he has
concluded also needs to be done to ensure that teenage parents have
real opportunities to participate? With teenage pregnancies continuing
to rise, there is clearly a real concern. Between 1999 and 2005, the
number of 16 and 17-year-olds becoming pregnant rose from 39,247 to
39,804. When girls aged between 13 and 15 were added, the total rose
from 46,655 to 47,277.
The Green Paper says
that:
“Of
course expectant mothers will need some time off before and after the
birth. There would need to be flexibility in this to respond to
individual circumstances and we would need to ensure enough local
discretion to allow for this.”
That discretion— that flexibility,
as my hon. Friend put it—is not yet incorporated into the Bill.
That is what the amendment is designed to remedy. The Green Paper goes
to say that
“For mothers of
compulsory school age, guidance sets out that the normal period of
time”—
that is,
time off
school—
“is
maximum 18 weeks, but we know that sometimes where good provision is in
place they are able to engage earlier than this. For example, within
specialist units the expectation is often six weeks. We will consider
what guidance we should set for local authorities about
this.”
It would be
enormously helpful if the Minister gave us some idea about the guidance
that he is
considering.
4.30
pm
The
Prince’s Trust has expressed its concern about teenage mothers
and the effect that the duties imposed by the policy of participation
to the age of 18 will have on them. In its written submission in
response to the Government’s consultation, the Prince’s
Trust
says:
“Supporting
childcare for young mothers to enable them to continue education or
training is
critical.”
Referring to
the six-week period alluded to in the Green Paper, the trust
says:
“Six
weeks off to have a baby is clearly not enough time; it should be more
in line with maternity leave practices for those in employment, with
them re-entering education at a later
date.”
It
continues:
“School-age
fathers also have educational and emotional needs and this should be
addressed to instil
responsibility.”
The
purpose of amendments Nos. 5 and 6 is to incorporate into the
legislation a mechanism to enable the Secretary of State to introduce
some form of flexibility for young carers and teenage parents. Such
provision is not in the Bill as it stands. Clearly, the Government are
aware of the matter; the purpose of the debate is simply to draw out
from the Minister more details of how they intend to respond to the
very real needs of both these groups of 16 and
17-year-olds.
Mr.
Laws:
The hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton
has clearly set out the purpose of these two useful probing
amendments—I think that is what they are intended to
be—so I need not repeat everything that he said. However, the
amendments are important because they deal with two groups of people
who might be considered either vulnerable or at risk from a
sledgehammer approach of compulsion and criminalisation, however
refined that sledgehammer is, as the Minister has sought to
argue.
We are talking
about two very different groups in terms of their characteristics and
the ways in which they might need to be accommodated. I think that the
hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton indicated that, although
there are a large number of carers in the UK who are under the age of
18 and fall into the group covered by the Bill, it is sensible to make
sure that the Bill provides them with all the opportunities that we
would want them to have and that we do not simply assume that because
they have caring responsibilities, they can have an exemption and
therefore be forgotten about.
Mr.
Gordon Marsden (Blackpool, South) (Lab): I have a great
deal of sympathy with the importance of focusing on the needs of young
carers. The hon. Gentleman might be interested to know that there are
already pilot projects around the country involving young
carers—there is one in my constituency sponsored by the Princess
Royal Trust for Carers—which examine how the health and
education needs of young carers can be identified and dovetailed more
closely. That might be a useful way to
proceed.
Mr.
Laws:
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for sharing his
constituency experience and I am sure that he is right that there is
already a lot of good practice around the country. Although we do not
agree with the approach of compulsion in the Bill, accepting, for the
sake of the argument, that that approach is being taken by the
Government, we want to make sure that the approach to carers
acknowledges that what many of them will be looking for is not a
waiver, but support to allow them to engage with education, training
and other services that might be useful to them. I hope that Ministers
and others involved will be able to learn from the type of project that
the hon. Gentleman refers
to.
There will of
course, as the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton
mentioned, be a group of carers in special circumstances, such as when
a terminal or very serious illness is involved. In those circumstances
I imagine that the Minister would want to be flexible, sensible and
pragmatic. I believe that the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and
Littlehampton was trying to tempt the Minister in to giving us a bit
more clarity and guidance about how that group of young people will be
approached, particularly as that is not a group where there are likely
to be problems of abuse of rules if they are too public. This ought to
be an area where Ministers can be relatively straightforward about what
some of the guidance will be.
Amendment No. 6, however, deals
with a group of young people—young parents—whose interest
might not simply be to be accommodated within the compulsion under the
age of 18; instead, there could legitimately be expectations of their
not having to be in education or training but potentially taking up
some of those opportunities at a later age. The hon. Gentleman cited
some evidence about the number of mothers under the age of 18, of whom
there were about 10,000 in England in 2005. He mentioned some of the
issues that are relevant to them, such as post-natal depression, which
is three times higher in teenage mothers than in older mothers, high
child care costs, and so on.
I remember not so long ago
being a lone voice in arguing that the existing responsibilities on
parents in relation to the benefits systems and their obligation to be
in work were too light touch. I said that the present system, where the
parents can remain out of the labour market until their children reach
the age of 16, was too generous, did not recognise the responsibilities
that people have in society and was way out of line with international
practice. I seem to remember that the spokesmen on both other Front
Benches at that time—this was only a couple of years
ago—argued for the existing benefit rules to be maintained. Now,
both sides have changed their views and have entered into something of
a competition to encourage parents to go
back into the labour market as early as possible. However, even I draw
the line at forcing people back out—either into the labour
market, or into education and training—when they have very young
children. That is exactly the type of area where the Government could
be doing a gross disservice to a group of young people—and their
children—by trying to force them into education, training or
employment at too early an age. I therefore hope that the Minister will
give us some reassurance today that he will not take an excessively
draconian approach.
The evidence in the UNICEF
report indicated that one of the multiplicity of reasons why we have a
lot of problems with young people’s well-being in this country
relates to the very high rates of teenage pregnancy. UNICEF linked that
to low educational aspirations and to young people regarding having
children at a very early age as reasonable way of proceeding in life.
It then made the obvious point that the higher people’s
educational and employment aspirations are, the more likely it is that
they will delay child bearing to a later age, after they have achieved
education and training qualifications and when that may be easier to
accommodate in their life.
Becoming a
parent at age 16 or 17 is not something that I would strongly
recommend, but whether I recommend it or not, there are likely to be 16
or 17-year-old parents and I cannot think that there will not be a lot
of cases where they will be far better off at home with their child
than if they are pushed into education, training or into the labour
market.
Mr.
Oliver Heald (North-East Hertfordshire) (Con): Obviously,
one would not want to create any perverse incentives. Does the hon.
Gentleman feel that there is a case for having training about parenting
or some other regime that fits in with young parents’
circumstances, so that something educational is
happening?
Mr.
Laws:
The hon. Gentleman makes two good points. First, he
alerts us to the risks of creating incentives we would not want to
create, although I think it is unlikely, however draconian the
legislation, that people will have children to get around it. They will
probably be confident of being able to get around it in many other
ways—some local authority representatives told us that by the
time they had taken young people through all the hoops, they would
probably not be under the age of 18 any
longer.
The hon.
Gentleman also makes a very sensible point when he comes back to the
fourth option that I was talking about the other day of not simply
insisting that we will provide people with education and training, but
looking at other types of support that ought to be made available to
them. My point is that education, training and employment will not
always be the right approach for young people who have ended up as
parents at a very early age. I hope that we will hear from the Minister
about the types of flexibility that he will introduce into the guidance
under the Bill. I can see that he is desperate, post-lunch, to get back
into the debate, so I will conclude my
comments.
Jim
Knight:
The starting point for legislation to raise the
participation age is that it should give the same expectations and
opportunities to everyone, whatever
their situation, and I accept that these amendments do not seek to alter
that. It should not be the case that teenage parents, young carers or
any other group of young people are treated differently from the
outset, with reduced aspirations and opportunities as a consequence.
Providing the same opportunities for such groups of young people may
bring challenges, but just because it is difficult does not mean they
should be excluded. We already have a comprehensive system of support
available, and we will develop it further as we move towards
implementation in 2013. We will ensure there is appropriate provision
in place to enable all young people to learn in a way that is suitable
to their circumstances. There will be a fully flexible set of learning
options, timetabling and settings available to help young parents and
young carers to participate in a way that suits
them.
I will talk
about amendment No. 5, which deals with young carers, and amendment No.
6, which refers to young parents, but first I want to take the
opportunity when I am talking of young parents to congratulate the
Under-Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills, my
hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Lammy). It is not
often I can correctly name his constituency—I have often made
the mistake of calling it Haringey. Given that this is the first
sitting of the Committee that he has attended since he became a father,
I think it is appropriate to congratulate him. [Hon.
Members: “Hear,
hear!”]
Amendment
No. 5 refers to the support available to young carers. We want to
ensure that all young carers receive the support they need to
participate. Our recent carers review consultations have indicated that
young carers share the view that they should have the same
opportunities. We are looking at a range of options to ensure that
young carers can continue their education and our thinking will take
account of the recommendations from the cross-Government carers review,
which is under way. The measures that result may involve, for example,
targeted youth support, which will provide a dedicated lead
professional to help in organising support across a range of services
including education, social services and Connexions. There is a range
of financial support available, including educational maintenance
allowance and carer’s allowance, both of which go directly to
young carers.
The
Government are committed to continuing to improve the provision of
support available to young carers and we will examine what more can be
done as we move towards implementation. I make no apologies for
extending learning opportunities to that group, and talk of compulsion
and penalties is misplaced. The challenge is to deal effectively with
the barriers that can get in the way of their participation. We are
committed to doing this and our thinking will take account of the
carers review.
No-one
will enter the enforcement system if there is a good reason why they
are not participating. I will talk about the independent attendance
panel later, but local authorities and schools will have key
responsibilities to deliver the services that young carers need, local
authorities will have significant resources through general funding
which they can draw on; in addition, over the past nine years, they
have been able to make use of the carers special grant, which is not
now ring-fenced, because of the freedoms we are giving
local authorities, but which from 2008-9 will be paid as part of the
area-based grant. That continued funding means that by March 2009, we
will have invested more than £1.2 billion to support councils in
their work with
carers.
4.45
pm
Amendment No. 6
deals with the support available to young parents. The Government have
committed to having a Sure Start children’s centre in every
community, where teenage parents can access a broad range of support in
one place, including child care, education and training, parenting
support—I am sure the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire
will welcome that—and health-related information, advice and
treatment. Information, advice and support to help young mothers are
also available through Connexions and targeted youth support services.
There is a range of financial support available to young parents to
help with the costs of accessing education and training, including
child tax credits and child benefit, which their parents may be able to
claim, and education maintenance allowance, which is means-tested and
goes directly to the young person. As has been mentioned, there is also
financial help available through the Care to Learn programme, which
funds child care to enable young parents to return to
education.
It is very
important that we help this group. Teenage mothers’ rates of
post-16 participation in education, employment and training are low:
only about 30 per cent. of that group are in education, employment or
training. Some teenage mothers who do want to return to learning are
experiencing difficulties finding child care and other support. It is
certainly part of our focus in continuing to address teenage pregnancy,
but I say to the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton that
there has been steady progress on reducing teenage pregnancy rates
since the teenage pregnancy strategy was launched. The under-18
conception rate has fallen by 11.8 per cent. since 1998 to its lowest
level for 16 years, and the under-16 rate has fallen by 12.1 per
cent.
The
Government are committed to continuing to improve provision as we move
towards implementation. We will do everything in our power to remove
the obstacles and difficulties that prevent young carers and young
parents from participating in education and training
post-16.
Mr.
Laws:
If I am leaping in too rapidly, I apologise, but
could the Minister clarify what his expectations are going to be,
particularly of 16 and 17-year-old mothers? How quickly will they be
obliged to go back into the labour market and what potential exemptions
will there
be?
Jim
Knight:
I will seek to expand on our thinking—that
is the phrase that we have been using—regarding
“reasonable excuse”, about which the hon. Member for
Yeovil is extremely concerned, very soon for his and the
Committee’s benefit. We may need to rename clause 4 “the
fourth clause” after the fourth option. Under that clause I will
expand on some of the other options available to provide support to
this group and others.
At the moment, we do not have any plans to do anything different post-16
to pre-16, but 18 weeks is just a maximum in respect of mothers
returning to education or training; often, where there is the right
provision, they will want to return sooner. We do not believe that it
should be like maternity leave, because 16 hours a week of education or
training is certainly less onerous than employment. It is vital that
those young people have the right support. It would not be appropriate
to pursue enforcement action against them in any normal
circumstances.
Mr.
Laws:
I want to ensure that I understand precisely what he
is saying. Is he saying that every 16 and 17-year-old parent, including
mothers, will be obliged to go back into education, training or
employment within 18 weeks of the birth?
Jim
Knight:
I am saying that if, after 18 weeks, they have not
started to re-engage with going back to education, employment or
training, their personal advisor, probably through the Connexions
service, would discuss with them what their support needs are and what
would be required to get them back into education or training, be it in
employment or otherwise. I doubt it would be appropriate for them to go
into employment as well as education or training, because they would
obviously have the significant caring needs of looking after their
young child. However, with the Care to Learn programme, which is
successfully funding child care to enable young parents to return to
education, it is perfectly possible for them actively to work towards
returning to 16 hours a
week.
Mr.
Laws:
I am sorry to push the Minister, but obviously there
will be people in that situation once the Bill is passed, and we need
to be clear about what we are saying. What is the earliest time after
birth that we might find some of the powers of compulsion contained in
the Bill used against young mothers in that
category?
Jim
Knight:
I shall talk directly about the use of enforcement
in those circumstances. If the hon. Gentleman is still unclear once I
have done that, perhaps he will want to intervene again. I am sure that
he will, as he is of that
persuasion.
Angela
Watkinson (Upminster) (Con): Before the Minister moves on
to compulsion, will he agree with me that one of the most useful things
that very young mothers can do in continuing their own education and
that of their children is to introduce their children to books at the
earliest possible time? If they cannot afford to buy books, they can
borrow as many as they could possibly want from the public library, and
that would help to break the cycle of illiteracy if the young mothers
come from homes where the parents have not achieved in their own
schooling and there are no books in the
home.
Jim
Knight:
I certainly agree with the hon. Lady on that very
important point. No age is too early to start reading and looking at
books with babies and young children, not just for the sake of the
literature, but for
the sake of creating special moments of bonding between parent and
child. For young children and babies to have that bonding experience
with parents, to learn to concentrate, and to enjoy listening to a
story are all really important formative experiences. That is certainly
something that children’s centres and other parent support
services are trying to engender among parents who may not have had that
experience when they were growing up. In this, the national year of
reading, I hope that the message is going out to use public libraries
and other ways of borrowing books, which are sometimes available
through pre-schools, nurseries and children’s
centres.
Mr.
Hayes:
Drawing the debate closer to the Bill, some of that
sort of support is provided by family learning groups and family
learning centres, such as the one I visit annually at Gedney Dyke in my
constituency, where challenged families, sometimes with parents who are
themselves learning to read and write for the first time, work closely
alongside their youngsters. If that sort of learning did not lead to
accredited qualifications, it is entirely possible that that work would
not count in terms of the legal obligations of the Bill. That would
surely be monstrous. Will the Minister have a look at that and, if he
cannot answer now, will he come back to the Committee with certain
assurances?
Jim
Knight:
We certainly want to see that sort of activity
continue. I am not sure there is anything in the Bill that would stop
it, but I am certainly happy to reflect on the points the hon.
Gentleman has made, and if I need to come back to him I certainly
will.
Let
me move on to the point surrounding enforcement. Clause 39 makes it
clear that before commencing any sort of enforcement the local
authority must ensure that appropriate support has been made available
and that the young person has been given the opportunity to take
advantage of services to support participation. Clearly, that would be
very significant in the case of young carers and young parents. Clause
42 provides further safeguards to ensure that a young person with unmet
needs does not enter the enforcement process inappropriately by
establishing attendance panels, which will hear appeals against
attendance notices and will be able to confirm or dismiss them and make
recommendations to the local authority. We will specify in regulations
the make-up of the panel and how it is to carry out its functions, but
in general we expect it to consider the specific circumstances of the
young person, the support and provision they have been offered, and
whether they have any unmet support needs that mean they cannot be
expected to participate at that time. I am confident that knowledge of
those safeguards, through attendance panels and elsewhere, will deter
local authorities from inappropriate enforcement action, particularly
where those sorts of vulnerable young people are
concerned.
Participating
helps young people to move on to successful and fulfilling lives and
has wide benefits for both the individual and society. It is critical
that young parents and carers have the same opportunity to succeed as
other young people. I reject the amendments on the grounds that these
groups of young people will be given every kind of support to
participate and will be treated the same as all other young people of
their age. It cannot be acceptable for any young person to be
deemed too hard to engage; we must raise our expectations for and with
the young people and raise their expectations of
themselves.
In the
light of my reasoning and because it is not necessary to legislate
here—the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton himself
said that legislation is by its very nature inflexible—I urge
him to withdraw his amendment and opt for the flexibility of not
legislating and instead going for the mechanisms that I have set
out.
Mr.
Laws:
I am sorry to detain the Committee. I know that we
have spent a long time on the amendments, but I am still slightly
concerned about a number of points relating to the Minister’s
response.
First,
on amendment No. 6 relating to young parents, the Minister appeared to
say that he could contemplate young parents being obliged to go back
into education, training or employment 18 weeks after the birth of the
child. I encourage him to stop me if I get anything wrong. That seems
extraordinarily soon, particularly when contrasted with current
expectations for parents to go out into the labour market, education,
training or anything else. Until recently—I believe it is still
the case—we have allowed parents, or lone parents, to stay at
home without a work obligation until their youngest child has reached
the age of 16. Even now, parties are talking about reducing that time
limit significantly, but to nothing like to the expectation that a
parent will return to an education, training or work setting so soon
after the birth of their
child.
The hon. Member
for Upminster made an excellent point. She talked about the importance
of parents educating their children, accessing libraries and so forth.
It is a point that could more powerfully be made on our side of the
argument rather than the Minster’s because it highlights that
parents have an important responsibility not only to themselves and
their futures but also to the children they bring into the
world.
Jim
Knight:
The way people will judge that depends on where
they want to give the benefit of the doubt. Clearly we are on different
sides of the divide. My interpretation, if it helps, is that I have
talked about the importance of the right support, and the attendance
panel will have to be mindful of whether an individual has had the
right support to enable them to fulfil their duty to participate. It
might be more complicated than simply having a young baby. They might
have housing or other issues that affect how their child is
progressing. The emphasis should be on the support that young person
needs to make their life easier, rather than on enforcement.
Enforcement is the last resort, but I understand that for the sake of
scrutiny the hon. Gentleman has to assume that it would be one of the
things that we would rush
to.
Mr.
Laws:
It is not that I have to assume that the Minister is
more draconian than he may be. It is not reasonable of him to suggest
that all the decisions about how that flexibility should be exercised
should fall to the
panels.
Jim
Knight:
What I am trying to say is not that it all falls
to the panels, but that knowledge of how the panels will judge things
means that the local authority
which is exercising its duties around participation and support will
view things from the perspective of how the panel would interpret
things if they chose, as a last resort, to go for
enforcement.
5
pm
Mr.
Laws:
My concern is that we are still looking to the
panels to exercise discretion, and there is a presumption that the
right way forward is for parents of very young children to be in
education, training or employment. I am suggesting, at this stage in
legislating, that that is the wrong presumption, that it is too
draconian, and that the hon. Member for Upminster may have been
correct—if this is what she was getting at—that it is
possible that, in the interests of certain parents and certain
children, it may be useful for the parent to be in the home environment
for a longer period. I am not sure that that judgment can very easily
be made by the panels, since it seems clear to me that the
Government’s presumption in the legislation is that all 16 or
17-year-olds ought to be in education, training or
employment.
I assume
that when the Minister talks about safeguards, he is largely thinking
of the mechanisms that would enable the young parent to return to
education, training or employment. In other words, he is asking us to
believe that there would be flexibility if there is not child care and
other provision. I accept that there probably would be in that the
panels would be able to consider whether there were child care and
other elements of support, but the panels would still be deprived,
through legislation, of making the overall judgment about whether the
right setting for a parent with a young child in this particular age
group is at home with the child or in the setting that the Minister
wants. Ministers do not have a monopoly on wisdom with regard to
whether it is better for a parent to be in the home environment or in
education, training or employment. He is assuming too much for the
panels to be able to exercise that element of
discretion.
I also
still have concerns about the degree to which it will be possible to
exercise discretion in respect of carers. I hope that it will be
exercised sensibly. I accept that we want to offer the vast majority of
carers the support they probably need to be in education, training or
employment, but we can all think of examples where it would be very
difficult indeed for panels to make judgments. They might make
different judgments in different parts of the country. We would all
probably agree that it would be easy to decide that the carer of a
terminally ill person should be allowed to stay in the home environment
and focus on their caring responsibilities, but what about someone who
was very seriously ill, had been for some time and was likely to remain
so, where there was no certainty about how long that person would have
to live?
One could
have an environment in which there were two children of the same age,
one of whom might decide to go into the armed forces—exercising
a freedom they will still have—while the other might wish to
remain as a carer rather than going into education, training or
employment. I have no idea whether, with the Bill, the guidance and the
panels, that option would be open to them. I fear that there is still a
great deal of uncertainty about how the panels will be handled for those
special cases, which comes back to many of our concerns about the
compulsion route, because that route means fitting people around
legislation and around Government presumptions about what is best for
them, rather than allowing people’s lives to be framed and
determined by what is in their own best
interests.
Mr.
Gibb:
I was disappointed by the Minister’s
response. I agreed when he said that we must have the same expectations
for everyone. Young parents and carers should not be treated
differently as far as their expectations are concerned. I am
absolutely, fully in agreement with him on that. Then he went through
the support he hopes to give to young carers. He described a range of
options: the outcome of the cross-Government carers review, targeted
youth support, education maintenance allowance and so on. Then he said
that we were talking not about compulsion and penalties, but about
getting rid of barriers and that no one would be subject to enforcement
if they had a good reason not to be.
The
Minister then cited clause 4. That is about appropriate full-time
education or training, which is
that
“which is suitable
for the person,
having
regard—
(a) to the
person’s age, ability and aptitude,
and
(b) to any learning
difficulty”.
However,
that does not seem to apply in these circumstances. It goes on to
say
“at a school, at a
college of further education, at an institution...or
otherwise.”
I assume that
the “or otherwise” opens up a range of options. I do not
feel that this is the clause where “to have a good reason not
to” would be invoked. When the Minister responded to amendment
No. 6, he referred to clauses 39 and 42, which is where the phrase
“without reasonable excuse” comes in. By that stage, the
enforcement process has commenced. That is what those clauses are
about.
Jim
Knight:
It is through clause 4 that a range of provision
will be developed and needs to be developed. Some has been developed
over the past five years and some may include provision appropriate for
this group of people. The enforcement duty, in respect of reasonable
excuse, will not have started because the local authority will know
that there is reasonable excuse and therefore it has no chance of
enforcement. That will reinforce its need to provide proper support,
rather than to take the enforcement route.
Mr.
Gibb:
If the Minister has issued guidance—this is
really what the amendment is about—to say to local authorities
that the circumstance that I and the hon. Member for Yeovil are
alluding to will always be and should be regarded as a reasonable
excuse then that is fair enough, but that is not where we are. Clause
39 is invoked when the local authority gives written notice to the
person who has not been attending. At that point, as the Bill is
drafted, the person can tell the local authority that they have a
reasonable excuse within clause 39(2)(b) and then the local authority
can respond to that reasonable excuse.
The Minister also cited clause
42, which is about the attendance panels, by which time there has been
not only the written notice, but the attendance notice. The person has
to appeal against that attendance notice. The matter gets referred to
the attendance panel, which has to meet. It hears from the person, who
has had all these enforcement notices issued against him or her, what
the reasonable excuse is. That is why I am disappointed by the
Minister’s response.
The amendments are reasonable.
Amendment No. 5 simply
says:
“The
Secretary of State shall specify by order arrangements and duties
applicable to a person to whom this Part applies who has significant
responsibilities for caring for parents, siblings or other close
relatives.”
Amendment No
6 is similarly worded but
for
“who has significant
responsibilities for caring for their own
children.”
That gives the
Minister the opportunity to provide the guidance that we are seeking
and that he is intimating in his response.
Angela
Watkinson:
My hon. Friend makes an important point. The
domestic circumstances of new young mothers can vary enormously. One
teenage mother may still be living in her family home, getting a lot of
support from her parents and her mother may be taking a large amount of
responsibility for the baby, which would make it much easier for the
mother to return to education. However, that might not be happening.
She may be living on her own in council accommodation, for example, and
the stresses of coping with the demands of looking after a baby,
probably on a small income, would make it extremely difficult for her
to access training or education at that
point.
Mr.
Gibb:
My hon. Friend makes a valid point. In the former
circumstances, we would expect the young person to be in education or
training, but in the latter that would be an unreasonable
demand.
Jim
Knight:
Perhaps I should be clearer with the hon.
Gentleman in respect of clause 39. Yes, we will issue guidance to local
authorities about how they interpret it, in particular subsection (5),
which
says:
“The
authority—
(a) must take
all reasonable steps to secure that relevant support is offered to the
person, and
(b) may not give the
notice unless satisfied that the person has been afforded an
opportunity to take advantage of the support
offered.”
I hope that
gives him the necessary reassurance about guidance and the fact that
support will come before
enforcement.
Mr.
Gibb:
Not entirely. In response to amendment No. 6, the
Minister went through a range of support mechanisms. He talked about
the Sure Start centre in every community, child tax credits, child care
credits and Care to Learn. All of those are already in place and were
in place when the Government’s Green Paper “Raising
Expectations” was published. It says that
“we will consider what else needs
to be done to ensure that teenage parents have real opportunities to
participate.”
In paragraph 5.45, it states that the
Government will consider what guidance they should set for local
authorities not about new provision, but about the circumstances in
which more flexibility should apply. It is for that reason that I am
disappointed by the response. He merely reiterates the services that
are already in
place.
Jim
Knight:
I remind the hon. Gentleman that the
children’s plan sets out our ambitions to develop those services
further and to look further not only at the things that lead to teenage
pregnancy, but at the obstacles that may prevent teenage mothers, in
particular, from accessing opportunities. They may be housing related.
We stressed that. More needs to be done when bringing in these
duties.
Mr.
Gibb:
I am grateful to the Minister for that, but I am
concerned about why he is so resistant to the amendments, which would
simply clarify the flexibility that local authorities need to take into
account in dealing with young people who have significant caring
responsibilities. It would clarify matters hugely if he were able, by
order—it would be helpful, too, if we could see it in
draft—to state in the Bill that flexibility will be incorporated
in legislation. I accept everything he says about wanting to provide
more services and support, and when that is in place, we will support
it.
However, the Bill
as drafted is restrictive and prescriptive, and my hon. Friend the
Member for Upminster and the hon. Member for Yeovil can both envisage
circumstances in which people with a huge array of responsibilities on
their shoulders will find themselves coming up against the whole of the
enforcement procedure: written notices, appeals panels and attendance
notices. We could get away from that by simply adopting the amendments,
which would give the Secretary of State the power to set out, by order,
a set of circumstances in which a more flexible approach could be
taken.
Jim
Knight:
I shall have one last go at trying to persuade the
hon. Gentleman, and then leave it up to the Committee. I oppose the
amendments because they are likely to leave less room for discretion.
They will specify by order specific duties and arrangements, rather
than leaving local flexibility. It is largely the local flexibility
delivered by clause 39(5) which specifies support. That is for local
interpretation, to provide local flexibility based on the individual
circumstances of the vulnerable person and the specific range of
services and facilities available in that locality. It is much more
flexible than having us, centrally, here in Whitehall, dictate by order
what duties and arrangements need to be put in
place.
Mr.
Gibb:
At the moment, the legislation created by Whitehall
is very draconian and applies to the person. The amendment would
alleviate the duties imposed on the young person. All the Minister has
spoken about is issuing guidance to the local authority about the
support services that they should provide, which is a different set of
issues. He has not persuaded me that there is no case for providing
flexibility just on the duty in clause 2. We want to ensure that we do
not end up with a very unjust position whereby a 16 or 17-year-old
person with a huge range of responsibilities in caring for a sick parent
or sibling finds himself suddenly encountering the enforcement
procedures. Both the amendments would create a much fairer and more
tolerant position as far as those vulnerable young people are
concerned.
5.15
pm
Question
put, That the amendment be
made:—
The
Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes
10.
Division
No.
4
]
AYESNOES
Question
accordingly negatived.
The
Chairman:
I am advised that the two amendments are so
closely related that there should be only one
Division.
‘( ) This section
may not come into force before the Secretary of State has certified
that in his opinion there are sufficient contracts of apprenticeship
available to meet in full the level of demand for such contracts by
persons to whom this Part
applies.’.
The
amendment brings us to the point where we can consider once
again—some might say yet again, but I know that you,
Mr. Bayley, would not—the quality of what is on offer
to young people as a part of the argument for the Bill. It is an
argument that the Minister has made exhaustively. He has said that the
range of options available to young people will be so
inspiring—so alluring—that he believes that they will
consider lightly the loss of their liberty. To that end, the amendment
suggests that until the Secretary of State can make real the claims
that have been made by the Minister in the Committee and elsewhere, it
would not be reasonable—even if we accept the argument of
compulsion—to go ahead with the Bill’s
provisions.
How
would it be if we said to young people, “You must stay in
training but there is no appropriate training for you.”? The
Minister would not want that circumstance any more than I would.
Therefore, the amendment might be regarded as a way of strengthening
the provisions. It would certainly be an improvement and is not a
wrecking amendment in any way, shape or form. It
would simply oblige the Government to guarantee that what they are
offering to young people is right and proper, given that young people
will have to accept what they are
offered.
According to
the explanatory notes, clause 2 creates the central duty—in
other words, the duty to participate in education or training. We have
heard a lot about that. The clause details the ways in which young
people might fulfil that duty, and I spoke about that this morning and
listed those ways. One of them, which is why I tabled the amendment, is
by
“participating in
training in accordance with a contract of
apprenticeship”.
However,
the Committee, including the Minister and his noble Friend the
Under-Secretary—I do not mean “noble”; that may
have been a Freudian slip in anticipation of some future
event—know that there is a shortage of apprenticeship places
owing to a lack of employer engagement. As a result, the Government
have consistently missed their target for the number of
apprenticeships. In 2003, the Prime Minister, who was then Chancellor
of the Exchequer, announced that apprenticeship numbers would rise to
320,000 by 2006. In fact, as we know, there were only 239,000
apprenticeships in training in 2006-07, and numbers are falling, as was
confirmed by the figures that were published just before Christmas.
Alarmingly, the numbers were falling not only at level 3—they
have been falling steadily since 1999—but now at level 2. I
should be more than happy to make graphic evidence of that available to
the Committee should any hon. Members wish to see it.
We could debate the reason for
that decline at length, but it is not appropriate here to do so, as I
am not sure whether it would be in order. However, the Government must
go a long way if they are to create enough apprenticeship places to
make the duties implicit in the Bill a reality. If they do not provide
additional apprenticeship places, how could they possibly oblige young
people to sign up to them? That is the simple thrust of the argument
behind the amendment.
Once, all
apprenticeships were a level 3 qualification. Eager young learners
acquired alongside experienced craftsmen vital practical skill that
gave them a sense of accomplishment and worth, and well deserved too,
and that fulfilled an economic need. Although statistics show an
increased level of participation in the apprenticeship system since
1997—the Under-Secretary made that point a number of
times—the inclusion of lower qualifications labelled
“apprenticeships” has disguised the fact that fewer
people are training at level 3. In addition, work-based training has
been in decline for about 20 years; in fact, it is about half of what
it was 20 years ago. There is a pattern of decline of people training
at higher level, a decline in work-based training, and a willingness to
include under the badge of apprenticeship qualifications at level 2
that are not always fit for purpose, because they are not well based,
not mentored and, sometimes, not employer-engaged at all.
To that end, a fairly
unattractive picture emerges. It is a similar picture to the one
painted by the hon. Member for Yeovil, who spoke of the possibility of
people signing up to NVQs that might not enhance their employment
prospects. Some academic evidence
suggests that some NVQ courses—clearly, I do not mean all such
courses—may not bring the return of greater employability. Hon.
Members on both sides of the Committee can agree on this: it is
important that we establish that the critical test—the key way
in which to judge vocational education and training of any
kind—is whether it adds to the individual’s
employability. That is the nature of vocational training: it should
lead to a vocation, and that vocation should be about the acquisition
of a real competence that has economic
value.
We are training
fewer people at level 3, which is why there are doubts in our mind
about whether the Bill can be implemented. I have said a number of
times that my principal reservation is that I simply do not think that
it will do the job for which it is intended. There has been broad
agreement about ambitions. Our ambition is for more young people to
stay on in education or training after the age of 16, but I am not sure
that the Bill in those terms is fit for purpose. One of the critical
weaknesses relates to whether enough meaningful training
places—apprenticeships are, or at least should be, about
meaningful training—can be put in place in time for the
statutory duty to have the impact that hon. Members want, which is one
of greater participation, particularly among young people who currently
do not make it in terms of their educational progress and level of
skills.
It would be
remiss of me, in proposing the amendment, not to say something about
the apprenticeship review published at the beginning of last week. That
review is important in these terms because it is clear that the
Government know that what I have said about increasing the number of
apprenticeships is of real significance. Both Ministers on the
Committee have made that point themselves. In fact, they know that, in
a sense, my amendment, whether it is accepted or not, is critical to
the Bill: if the number of apprenticeship places does not grow, the
Government will not meet their own targets and fulfil their own
ambitions. However, the apprenticeship review, in my judgment, will in
the end be unhelpful, because it sails in the opposite direction to the
recommendations made by Lord Leitch, who examined these matters closely
for the
Government.
Lord
Leitch’s key recommendation was that the Government should move
from supply-side planning to demand-led skills training. He concluded
that
“history tells us
supply-side planning of this sort cannot effectively meet the needs of
employers, individuals and the economy. The Review recommends a fully
demand-led approach, with an end to this supply-side planning of
provision.”
He stated
that, as a consequence, planning bodies such as the Learning and Skills
Council will
“require a
further significant
streamlining.”
However,
the apprenticeship review reinforces supply-side planning by
establishing a national apprenticeship service. That service is part of
the LSC. The bureaucracy that at the moment is unhelpful to the
provision of apprenticeships will be reinforced by the new
service.
Mr.
Hayes:
I give way to the hon. Gentleman, who is a student
of—indeed, an expert on—these
matters.
Mr.
Marsden:
As ever, the hon. Gentleman gilds the lily, but I
am deeply appreciative of his comments. He mentions the national
apprenticeship service. We have only just had the statement and do not
know the details of how that will pan out eventually. Is it not
perfectly possible to have a national apprenticeship service that is
strategic and focused and is not supply based in the way that he
envisages? I do not see the necessity of saying that because we are to
have a national apprenticeship service, it will automatically be supply
based rather than demand led. It is perfectly possible to have a scheme
that strategic that is demand
led.
5.30
pm
Mr.
Hayes:
I describe the hon. Gentleman as expert because he
is chairman of the all-party skills group, which does a good job of
encouraging debate of such matters in a non-partisan way. He and I have
enjoyed many conversations on this matter and others. However, his
optimism might be ill-founded, given that the review said that the NAS,
part of the Learning and Skills Council, will be responsible for
the
“achievement of the
targets set by Government. This includes determining and publishing the
strategy for expanding places by region, sector and age group
consistent with the Government’s published national
plans.”
If that is not a
supply-driven, centrally-based, target-orientated model, I do not know
what is. It does not sound responsive to demand, or dynamic in the way
that Lord Leitch hoped that the system might be.
I go further.
The NAS will be responsible for determining apprenticeships
qualifications. By the way, I believe that sector skills councils
should have a bigger role. I recommend to the Committee an excellent
paper that I wrote with my adviser Dr. Scott Kelly, who is an even
greater expert on the subject than the hon. Member for Blackpool,
South, which is entitled “Towards a gold standard for craft:
guaranteeing professional apprenticeships”. In it, we reinforce,
or perhaps borrow from—having been immodest, I move straight
into my modest mode—Lord Leitch’s view. It is clear that
sector skills councils, as bodies that are linked closely to employers,
are best placed to fulfil precisely the role that is now to be put in
the hands of the NAS. In other words, it is about anticipating demand,
transmitting that demand to the people who provide skills—the
various agencies that train people—and ensuring that the
qualifications are best suited to changing skills needs.
I am alarmed
that the new review weakens the role of sector skills councils in the
process. That will weaken those aspects of the Bill that require a
robust apprenticeship system to provide the training necessary, given
the compulsion that lies at the heart of the Bill.
The creation of the NAS adds to
the confusion. There is already a confusing array of organisations with
overlapping responsibilities crowding the skills sector. The NAS will
be responsible for a national information and marketing service for
apprenticeships. That is in addition to the careers and training advice
that is already provided by schools and colleges, local authorities,
the Connexions service, the proposed new adult careers and advice
service, and skills brokers as part of Train to Gain. A litany of
organisations advise young people in which direction to travel in order
to fulfil their statutory duty, but I am not sure that the advice
received will be consistent or always helpful.
As far back as 2001, the
Cassells review recommended that the apprenticeship system should be
led by employers, with training providers acting only as apprenticeship
agents with a clearly defined role. In 2002, the Learning and Skills
Council announced that it accepted that recommendation, but it has
never been implemented.
We could
debate apprenticeships all day, but I do not want to delay the
Committee unduly—except to say, for the avoidance of doubt, that
I am a passionate supporter of vocational education and training. I
admire the apprenticeship system, which, at its best, produces superb
training. It a world-recognised brand, and we must not see it diluted
in any way, shape or form. Some of the best apprenticeships, such as
those of BT, Rolls-Royce and Honda, are the envy of the world, but
unless we underpin the Bill, without sacrificing rigour, by ensuring
that sufficient apprenticeship places are available, we will be
short-changing potential trainees and British business. Neither of
those is acceptable.
I
trust that the Under-Secretary, who has hared to his place, has
assembled his notes. I have resisted my instinct to abridge my remarks
to give him sufficient time to pull his notes together. I hope that he
will recognise the amendment as an important safeguard. I think that he
knows that if the terms of the amendment are not met, the Bill simply
will not
work.
The
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and
Skills (Mr. David Lammy):
I am grateful to have
my first opportunity to speak for the Government on this occasion, and
I am pleased to have made it back to the Committee following the birth
of my
son.
Mr.
Hayes:
I was out of the room when that was announced
earlier. May I congratulate the Minister on that splendid
occasion?
Mr.
Lammy:
The Government share the sentiment behind the hon.
Gentleman’s amendment. I think that we all agree that
apprenticeships provide a high-quality work-based route to continue
learning at 16 through which young people can properly engage with
employers. Those young people, with the employer and alongside someone
who is dedicated to continuing their learning and training, are getting
a degree of mentorship, developing craft and skills, and learning
important skills that employers talk about in relation to soft skills
such as discipline, routine, dedication and commitment. Apprenticeships
that work well also help young people to work alongside people who are
much older than them. That is a particular advantage of apprenticeships
working at their best.
The hon. Gentleman will know
that, since 2007, the Government have sought to double the number of
apprenticeships for 16 to 18-year-olds from 75,000 to 150,000. I was
pleased that he relied heavily on the apprenticeship review and that,
notwithstanding his concerns about sector skills councils, to which I
shall
return, the broad thrust of his comments was in support of the review,
which was published on 28 January by my right hon. Friends the
Secretaries of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills and for
Children, Schools and Families. In the review, we restated our
intention to put in place an apprenticeship entitlement for every young
person who wants one by the time this legislation comes into
effect.
In the end,
the system must be based on employer demand and on employers coming
forward, so we put in place the things that we all want to see further
to incentivise employers to come forward so that we can meet that
ambition. Today, fewer than one in 15 of 16 to 18-year-olds are in an
apprenticeship. Our goal is that within the next 10 years, one in five
young people can get an apprenticeship place. That is ambitious, but
meeting that ambition is key to our productivity and our
country’s success. Galvanising the system and getting employers
to come forward to offer apprenticeships is the key to
that.
Our
apprenticeship trajectories are modelled on an analysis of learner
demand that was carried out by the Learning and Skills Council. It
projects that there will be another 90,000 apprenticeship places by
2013, which will be a 60 per cent. increase on the number of places
that we have now. The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings
will see when he reads the review that we have worked with our sector
skills councils precisely to identify the sectors in which there are
growth opportunities. For example, the sector skills councils in the
creative and culture sector, the media and the creative industries have
come forward to suggest that there are growth opportunities in the next
period. That is particularly relevant in London, where we have the
smallest proportion of apprenticeships available for young
people.
Mr.
Hayes:
There are fewer apprenticeships in central London
than there are in Leeds, as the Under-Secretary will know. I agree with
him about those new industries, and he is right to emphasise that
because, too often, apprenticeships are seen as old-fashioned or to do
with older industries, but many are not. The House of Lords Committee
on Economic Affairs report on apprenticeships states, “Many
young people unfitted to start apprenticeship”. Does the
Under-Secretary share my concern about that? The report says:
“some 300,000 16—19 year
olds are unable to access training or any worthwhile employment as a
result of a lack of basic
skills”.
Getting the
numbers right is about getting apprenticeships right, but surely it is
also about getting the fit between people who are capable of studying
for apprenticeships and what they are likely to
study.
Mr.
Lammy:
The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. In
the evidence sessions, the Committee heard a lot from organisations
such as the Prince’s Trust and Barnardo’s that indicated
that there was a group of young people who would not be ready to begin
an apprenticeship. The hon. Gentleman has also talked about the
quality, brand and integrity of apprenticeships. I hope that he will
welcome in the review the Government’s intention to define
clearly what an apprenticeship is and is
not.
We also said in the review that
there is a place for those young people who are on that journey towards
an apprenticeship for whom a pre-apprenticeship or, indeed, a
programme-led apprenticeship, might be appropriate. At some point, they
will get to take up an apprenticeship. We also clearly say in the
review the minimum qualification that will be required to begin an
apprenticeship. I hope that that addresses the point that the hon.
Gentleman made, which he has also made in the past.
In galvanising the system to
meet that 2030 ambition, which we believe that the legislation will do,
it is important that we do not just reach out to new sectors through
our sector skills councils, but identify areas and regions for growth.
We must also understand that the sort of growth that might occur in the
process industries in the north-east, for example, will probably not be
replicated in the south-west or in London. In London, we would hope for
growth in, for example, public sector apprenticeships, which poses a
challenge to us in Parliament. Apprenticeships could be attached to the
House of Commons, and certainly more could be provided across Whitehall
Departments and non-departmental public bodies. All that is fleshed out
in the review. I hope that that reflects the sentiment behind the
suggestion from the hon. Member for South Holland and The
Deepings.
5.45
pm
Mr.
Hayes:
The Minister is right that the review is welcome in
a number of ways, particularly in providing a statutory definition of
apprenticeship, as he described, and in creating a baseline. As he will
recall, I called for both measures. However, he must tell the Committee
why level 3 numbers have declined steadily year on year, and why level
2 numbers are now tailing off. To meet the targets, we need
considerable growth. Rather than growing from a rising trend, we will
reverse a downward tend, which will make the job that much
harder.
Mr.
Lammy:
The hon. Gentleman must concentrate on
apprenticeship completion rates. The overall completion rate stands at
63 per cent., having gone up from 25 per cent. in 1997, and completion
rates for advanced level apprenticeships have also gone up. It is not
only about being on an apprenticeship, but about successfully finishing
it.
Mr.
Marsden:
I agree entirely with the Minister’s focus
on the road to completion, but does he agree that one of the very
encouraging things about the Government’s latest announcement is
the fact that they are looking at ways in which those apprenticeships
can be flexibly structured to accommodate the complex work-life balance
of younger and older people? Does he agree that portability is a key
part of achieving increases in completion rates, which is a goal that
he, the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings and I all
share?
Mr.
Lammy:
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the
issue of portability, which goes to the heart of our discussions on
unitisation. We want vocational qualifications, for which individuals
can do a unit, then
move to different parts of the country, or to different institutions,
or—in relation to apprenticeships—between different
providers and, sometimes, employers within the same sector. We are
moving in that direction and running pilots until summer 2008. That is
very much the direction of
travel.
On completion
rates, it is important to remember that the number of young people
completing the full advanced apprenticeship framework has grown from
17,000 in 2001 to about 33,000 in 2006, which represents a significant
increase. The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings talked
about companies such as Rolls-Royce, which represent the gold standard
within the apprenticeship family, and he should recognise that those
completion rates go to the heart of such things. Something else that is
relevant to the hon. Gentleman’s question is the
Government’s absolute commitment to quality. This is not just
about being on an apprenticeship. Ten years ago, we were in a situation
in which there were poor employers, little or no inspection, and
training providers who did not take apprenticeships seriously. We have
sought to root those bad employers and training providers out of the
system. That has resulted in a reduction in their overall number, but I
repeat that it is important to concentrate on completion rates, which
are going in the right direction. In addition, we have undertaken an
apprenticeship review, which the hon. Member for South Holland and The
Deepings has broadly welcomed.
Mr.
Hayes:
I am relying on the Minister’s indulgence,
as he is likely to be in an extremely buoyant mood today, given his
happy event.
The
Minister speaks about completions a great deal. One of the witnesses to
the Committee suggested that there was a relationship between
completion rates and the dropping of the technical certificate. The
Minister will remember that in 2003, the Government insisted on a
technical certificate for all apprenticeships, but the Learning and
Skills Council subsequently dropped that requirement. Will the Minister
explain whether, with regard to the need to maintain rigour and
quality, the LSC would require those technical qualifications to be
certificated in the way in which they once
were?
Mr.
Lammy:
On the matter of technical certificates, the hon.
Gentleman may be running away with himself
slightly.
All our
apprenticeships are independently assessed, and there is a curriculum
framework and a relationship with the Qualifications and Curriculum
Authority. They are all independently and rigorously assessed and
inspected. In relation to the technical certificates, it is precisely
because we have sought to be responsive to employers that we have
allowed flexibility. I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that the LSC has
sought to move away from the technical certificate in only four areas
of apprenticeships, including hairdressing. That does not mean that the
courses are not still independently assessed by the qualifications
agency, but it does mean that we have given it the flexibility that it
has sought. I want to reassure the hon. Gentleman on that point,
because I looked into it personally after he raised it in the
past.
As I have
previously explained, part of our rationale for legislating is to
galvanise the system to provide appropriate support and opportunities
for all our young people by setting a clear expectation in law that all
young people must participate until they are 18 years old. We are
making it clear that it will no longer be an option to forget the
student who sits quietly at the back of the class, watching the clock
and waiting until it is time to leave. To link the raising of the
participation age to the achievement of our apprenticeship targets in
the way proposed by the amendment would remove an important driver for
the system, as it gears up to meet the apprenticeship entitlement by
2013. There are further clauses on apprenticeships later in the Bill,
and, in light of my reasoning, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will
withdraw his
amendment.
Mr.
Hayes:
I am grateful for the way in which the Minister
addressed the Committee in conciliatory—I could go as far as to
say collaborative—terms. However, three or four points stand
proud from our short debate on such a vital subject. There is common
ground, first, about the need to increase the number of
apprenticeships—without that, the Bill cannot do its
job—and, secondly, about the need to do that while retaining
rigour. There would be a not inconsiderable risk that, in trying to
achieve the first purpose, we might lose sight of the second, and that
many young people might be encouraged into training that was less than
rigorous. There is probably more common ground on the fact that the
test of that rigour is enhanced employability; does the completion of
an apprenticeship improve job prospects and performance? I would go
even further and say that the Government have moved, hesitatingly and
grudgingly, but moved none the less. We should always rejoice when a
sinner comes to the
Lord.
The Government
have moved in our direction, and the statutory definition of
apprenticeship is now part of the review for which I called, as the
Minister generously acknowledged. That is critically important for
employer engagement, mentoring and the degree to which the
apprenticeship will include work-based training. There were doubts
about programme-led apprenticeships and some level 2 apprenticeships in
that regard, which were reflected in the adult learning
inspectorate’s final report, which said that it was entirely
possible to complete an apprenticeship without setting foot in a
workplace. That is not
right.
There
is, however, a fundamental difference between us—and this is why
I am inclined to press the amendment to a Division—and I am not
sure that the Government have sped in our direction. They might not
even be moving falteringly in that direction. Indeed, evidence from the
review suggests that they are plodding in the opposite direction. The
difference concerns the question of how apprenticeships are managed and
funded. I am convinced that the central tenet of the Leitch analysis is
that we must inject dynamism into the apprenticeship system to grow the
numbers, with the caveat that we retain rigour, and that we must
therefore make it more responsive to employer
demands.
The hon.
Member for Blackpool, South is a heady optimist—an
idealist—in such matters. I am a romantic idealist, too, but I
cannot reconcile the
ambition to increase numbers in a robust way with a system that is still
driven centrally by, and built around, the Learning and Skills Council.
I am not saying that that is wrong. If we did not have that
arrangement, we would have to have a method for funding such things,
but I suspect that Lord Leitch hoped for—he certainly alluded to
it in his report—a more radical overhaul of the management and
funding structure. I am inclined to say that the growth that the
Minister wants—and it is a desire that I share—will be
inhibited by an over-bureaucratic way of funding and managing
apprenticeships.
Mr.
Lammy:
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the review
points to a new national service for apprenticeships, but with a local
field force that can interact locally and with the regions? Does he
also recognise that, for the first time in this country, a new group of
students will have a matching service similar to that provided for
another group of students, who have been able to apply for university
admission through the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service and
previously the Universities Central Council on Admissions? It will go
some way towards meeting employers’ needs, as it will provide
brand integrity, identify local needs and enable young people to
connect with
employers.
6
pm
The hon.
Gentleman cannot have it both ways. He cannot say that he wants us to
be responsive to employers, but then ask us to raise the technical
certificate and other things that respond precisely to what employers
tell us will make the system work better and create greater numbers of
apprenticeships. I remind him that there is an apprenticeship clause
later in the Bill, and I urge him to reflect further on whether he
wants to press the amendment to a
vote.
Mr.
Hayes:
We can therefore debate the matter at even greater
length when we discuss that clause. We may consider this to be just a
preliminary discussion—early skirmishes between the Minister and
myself.
The
Minister is right about the matching service. It is a good development,
but it is not enough. We need an all-age careers service that pulls
together advice and guidance from several disparate sources. When I put
that to witnesses in the evidence sessions, they agreed. The record
shows that even the chief executive of Connexions was sympathetic to
the principle of reinvigorating careers advice and guidance on
apprenticeships through a radical change in structure. We have a
cluttered landscape on advice and guidance, which is unlikely to
provide a clear and coherent focus for advice and so, perhaps, will
leave young people
wanting.
As I said at
the outset, the essence of my amendment is to underpin commitments made
by the Minister again today. It is necessary to grow the number of
apprenticeships to provide the level of training that is required for
the numbers desired. He said that we will debate apprenticeships later.
I hope that during further consideration of these matters he will have
a chance to think deeply about some of the things that I said today.
His contribution has been helpful, as he said that employer involvement
in apprenticeships will be a
condition of public funding. I believe that he said that—perhaps
he will correct me if he did not. That is certainly what I want, and if
the statutory definition means anything, it means
that.
I want the
licensing of apprenticeships to be led by the sector skills councils,
as that would be a helpful way of ensuring that the product meets the
demand. We certainly need apprenticeships to teach and test real
competencies. I wonder why the Minister did not say more about how we
will engage small and medium-sized enterprises, and he may wish to
intervene on me again to do so. We heard a lot about the new duties of
SMEs. To achieve the expansion that he described, it is critical to
involve many more SMEs in apprenticeships. One way of doing so is
through an expansion of group training associations, and the Minister
knows that I have advocated such a measure. The review did not say much
about associations, but he may wish to elaborate
now.
Mr.
Lammy:
The hon. Gentleman will know that in the
apprenticeship review, we advocated group training associations.
However, this goes back to my previous point about how we ensure
quality while creating a system that is attractive for employers. We
might debate that later, because the hon. Gentleman has tabled
amendments about the local contract of employment. He will know that
engagement in an apprenticeship is key for certain SMEs—two or
three-man businesses in various sectors, from the creative industries
to a group of electricians or plumbers—but that they find it
difficult to undertake the core business of liaison with the Learning
And Skills Council and the bureaucracy necessary to meet the
requirements of the legislation. For that reason, we support the
training associations. However, I hope that the hon. Gentleman accepts
that there must be flexibility in the
system
Mr.
Hayes:
Yes, the Minister is right. This boils down to who
owns the contract. The difference between us is that I want the
contract to be owned either by a group of employers through a group
training association or by a single employer, whereas he wants the
contracts to be owned by the training provider. I think that that is
the essential difference between us, although the Minister may not
agree.
Mr.
Lammy:
It is not the case, as the hon. Gentleman suggests,
that I am prescriptive. I believe that it is for the employer to
determine whether the contract should be with the training provider
with which he is working or whether it should be with him. Big
employers like Rolls-Royce, for example, may want the contract to be
with them. Smaller employers, however, would either want a group
training association to have that responsibility or they would want the
local further education college to be the liaison point with the
Learning and Skills Council while the individual is in their employment
completing their
apprenticeship.
Mr.
Hayes:
Countless reviews of the system have suggested that
the contractual relationship should be refocused on employers. I do not
want to get too nasty, because I am not nasty, particularly today.
However, the Minister will understand that doubts remain about how we
define employers. Employers were mentioned
in the evidence sessions. There are what one might call real employers
and those whose principal or sole business is training. If an
employer’s sole or principal business is training—there
is nothing wrong with that—it is something of a con for it to be
included in a definition of employer-based or led apprenticeships.
There are real doubts—I have tried to get answers about this in
parliamentary questions and elsewhere—about how we break down
the employers involved in apprenticeships and define precisely what
kind of organisations they
are.
I
want to move swiftly to a conclusion, because the final point in the
programme for government that I have laid out, in terms of
apprenticeships at least, is, as I have said, the creation of an
all-age careers service. With the measures that I have briefly
outlined, I think that we could rejuvenate the apprenticeship system
and increase dramatically the number of people engaged in
apprenticeships, providing we get the basic skills and soft-skills
issues right, so that we do not have 300,000 young people ill-equipped
even to begin an apprenticeship. I agree with the Minister that that is
partly about pre-apprenticeship training. However, I cannot see why the
Government, even if they do not adopt all these things immediately,
should not, given the time frame available to them, accept the
amendment and be confident that they can grow the number of training
places in the way that we all agree is
necessary.
Perhaps the
Minister will rise at this late stage, and suggest that he will accept
the amendment with the alacrity with which he swapped places with the
Minister for Schools and Learners and contributed to this debate. If he
does not do so, I will have to test the mood of the Committee by
dividing it on this
subject.
Question
put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided:
Ayes 6, Noes
10.
Division
No.
5
]
AYESNOES
Question
accordingly negatived.
Motion made, and Question
put, That the clause stand part of the
Bill:—
The
Committee divided: Ayes 10, Noes
6.
Division
No.
6
]
AYESNOES
Question
accordingly agreed to.
Clause 2 ordered to stand
part of the
Bill.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2008 | Prepared 7 February 2008 |