| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
In respect of planning, the Learning and Skills Council currently has a duty to ensure appropriate provision for all 16 to 19 year-olds. This role includes preparing assessments of the sufficiency of education and training in an area, assessing demand from young people, and planning provision to meet that demand. In March, we published a White Paper which set out our intentions for transferring the funding and responsibility for commissioning provision for 16 to 19 year-olds from the LSC to local authorities. So in future, assessing the sufficiency of provision will become the role of the local authority, which we believe is best placed to make these judgments, which would, under the amendment, fall to central government. We believe it is appropriate that these judgments should be made by local authorities, which, of course, are the strategic commissioners of provision in their areas.
We agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, in respect of her Amendment No. 17, that it will be crucial to successful implementation that participation is as high as possible immediately prior to the new compulsory requirements coming into effect. All our policies that I have described, including the learning agreements and activity agreements that we discussed in the previous group of amendments, are geared to that end. I am in danger of repeating myself, but the latest statistics show that post-16 participation rates are at their highest level ever and are very encouraging: 90.8 per cent of young people currently participate at 16, the first year after compulsory schooling, up from 87 per cent last year; 78.4 per cent of 17 year-olds were participating in education and work-based learning in 2007—up by 1.5 percentage points over the year. The proportion of young people not in education, employment or training has fallen substantially at all three ages and the proportion of 16 and 17 year-olds has declined from 8 per cent to 7.2 per cent.
While we are making good and steady progress towards the 90 per cent participation rate, it would not make sense to link the commencement of the duty on young people to the publication of reports and data,
25 Jun 2008 : Column 1523
To repeat myself, when it comes to enforcement, that is subject to the requirement in Clause 39 that local authorities should have regard to reasonable excuses. As I said in the letter, which I once again promise to circulate to Members of the Committee, on 9 June, on what could constitute reasonable excuses, it could be that,
- “if a particular learning difficulty has been identified and the right support to address it is not yet secured or in place, it would be reasonable to expect that the young person could not begin their learning programme until that support was in place”.
If we take into account the measures in train to meet the fuller range of learning needs, the evidence of increased participation at the moment and the enhanced role for local authorities to plan locally with the provisions in the Bill, which give a proper balance between compulsion and reasonable excuses for not participating, we believe that the dates of 2013 and 2015 are appropriate.
Baroness Morris of Bolton: I am most grateful for what the Minister said about our amendment; I think that we are all looking forward to getting to Clause 39. The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, said the most important thing of all tonight just before we broke for dinner-hour business. I wish that the Government had more faith in what they are already doing. You will get there; you will reach the 90 per cent; and we wholeheartedly support you in all that you are trying to do.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: Critics will say that we are putting the cart before the horse; I still think that the Government are jumping the gun on the issue. Yes, lots of reforms are in hand and yes, we wish them very well, but given the history of failure on the introduction of practical, more vocational courses, we want to see that the new diplomas are working well before we introduce compulsion and the potential criminalisation of those who are not motivated and do not participate.
The same applies to the apprenticeship group. There will be a duty, initially on the Learning and Skills Council, but it will be transferred to local authorities, to ensure that apprenticeships are available for those who want to take them up. We know that there is a lack of apprenticeships at the moment. It is difficult to persuade employers to enter into apprenticeship schemes. We are well aware that a lot of reforms are at hand, but it is sensible to wait to see whether they are satisfactory before trying to push people to stay on in compulsory education. As the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, said, five years is quite a short time in education.
25 Jun 2008 : Column 1524
If we look back to the raising of the school leaving age, there was not a very long lead-in then. If you have successful reforms in hand, you do not necessarily need a five-year or seven-year lead-in; a three-year lead in would be perfectly adequate. Three or five years is a very short time in education. However, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.30 pm
Baroness Morris of Bolton moved Amendment No. 18:
“( ) The duty under this section shall not apply to any person until the Learning and Skills Council has certified that in its opinion there are sufficient contracts of apprenticeship of suitable quality available to meet the level of demand by persons to whom this Part applies.”
The noble Baroness said: I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 21, 54 and 55. These amendments make a similar point to the last group. We must not dictate that young people must take up apprenticeships if those apprenticeships are lacking in number and quality. If we are going to make vocational training the viable and respected alternative to academic qualifications that we know it to be, it should go without saying that the apprenticeships themselves should be viable and respected. This should mean practical, hands-on learning. Taking an apprenticeship in plumbing solely using a computer simulation surely cannot be a substitute for dismantling a real water pipe and learning how to use tools in the real world. This is only one example; I could cite many. I was amused by the anecdote of my noble friend Lady Perry. I do not want my plumber to be able to write a thesis; I only want him to be able to do his job in the most effective and practical way.
Delaying the onset of the duty would allow the Learning and Skills Council to gauge what works and in what capacity. This is surely preferable simply to saying “go” and expecting everything to fall into place. Amendment No. 21 would impose a condition that the Secretary of State must certify that a sufficient number of contracts of apprenticeship are available before the duty applies. This is an important safeguard. I think the Minister would agree that if the terms of the amendment are not met, the Bill simply will not work. At the moment 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, there were only 239,000 apprentices in training in 2006-07, and numbers are falling, as was confirmed by the figures published just before Christmas. Numbers are not only falling at
25 Jun 2008 : Column 1525
Amendment No. 54 relates to the sufficiency of provision. Clause 10 imposes a duty on local authorities to promote participation in education and training. That ought to mean that local authorities have a duty to make sure that there is sufficient educational provision to help young people to fulfil their duty to participate, but there is no specific duty linking the provision of educational facilities to the duty of all young people to participate. There is a danger of complacency by local authorities. Amendment No. 55 would require Ofsted to conduct an annual audit of the sufficiency and diversity of educational provision in local authorities, in order to assess their adequacy for fulfilling their duties. It seems only right that if we are placing 16 and 17 year-olds under a duty, or if we are asking them to face sanctions, we should look at local authorities on an annual basis to make sure that they are upholding their side of the duties. I beg to move.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: On these Benches we have a great deal of sympathy for these amendments. As I mentioned on the previous set of amendments, in many senses apprenticeships are the most satisfactory route for young people who have a more practical bent and wish to learn by doing. At present there are far too few apprenticeships and considerable excess demand. The Government are coming forward with new proposals, which will be contained in the Bill that we will see next year. They are setting up a national apprenticeship service.
I am not sure how far the Government are moving in this direction but if we are to see an expansion of apprenticeship places there has to be, first, some subsidising of apprenticeships, particularly for small and medium-sized companies. At the moment there is a degree of confusion because, through the train to gain programme, companies can receive funding for putting their employees through NVQ level 2 qualifications and yet, by contrast, they have to pay apprentices an apprentice wage and have to make a contribution towards their training costs.
On the evidence we have received from the CBI and the Institute of Directors, both large and small companies find that there is excessive red tape surrounding apprenticeships. The CBI noted that 81 per cent of large companies, which have the capability to handle these matters, find that there is excessive red tape and a lack of suitable candidates for their apprenticeships. I am aware that the introduction of functional maths, functional English and functional ICT may help in providing more suitable candidates.
There is not a clear route at the moment between diplomas and apprenticeships. It is not clear whether young people from the age of 14, if they opt for one of the diploma routes, will have preferential consideration for going into apprenticeships. This needs to be clarified,
25 Jun 2008 : Column 1526
Perhaps the Government will consider introducing in the Bill that they are going to bring forward the notion that all companies that have public sector contracts should be required to take on apprentices and to declare how many apprentices they are training. I know that that proposal is not appropriate for this Bill, but I hope the Government will consider putting it in the next Bill.
We have a great deal of sympathy for Amendments Nos. 18 and 21 but, as we said on a previous occasion, we will have to wait and see how the diplomas work. The apprenticeship route is important but at the moment we have no idea whether we will be able to ensure the supply of apprenticeships that we are promised. I assume that the requirement will transfer from the LSC to the local authorities.
On Amendments Nos. 54 and 55, again the sufficiency and diversity of local authority provision is an important issue. We have raised it in Amendments Nos. 59 and 61A and we shall discuss it subsequently. I do not want to say more than that at the moment but it is an issue that we are concerned about.
Lord Lucas: On the question of requiring suppliers to the public sector to take on apprentices, when I have tried that out on industrialists I get quite a good response. As long as the burden is imposed universally, they are prepared to accept it. They all see the need in current circumstances to increase the supply of skilled labour.
The first set of employers who ought to take this on board is the public sector. It is quite extraordinary, for instance, that local authorities moan on and on about the lack of planning officers to help them carry out their planning but they do not, as far as I know, train any of them. So the public sector ought to do this first.
Lord Adonis: That was a commendably succinct contribution.
Since 1997, apprenticeship starts have increased from 65,000 to 180,000 in 2006-07 and are projected to grow to almost 210,000 by 2010-11. I acknowledge what the noble Baroness said, that the overall number of apprentices in learning declined slightly in the past year. However, this needs to be seen in the context of very significant improvements in completion; it is completed apprenticeships that carry most value. The number of apprenticeship completions has risen from barely 40,000 in 2001-02 to nearly 100,000 in the current year. This represents a rising completion rate from 24 per cent.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I am sorry to interrupt the Minister. Am I not right in thinking that, while the number of apprenticeships has risen quite considerably, there has been a very disappointing increase in the number of apprenticeships for NVQ level 3? The
25 Jun 2008 : Column 1527
Lord Adonis: My information is that the proportion of apprenticeships at level 3 has remained at around 30 per cent in recent years. However, I will look at the specific point raised by the noble Baroness and see if I have any further information. The information I have is that the level 3 proportion is holding up.
Given the increase in the number of apprenticeships over the past 10 years, plus the improvement in the completion rate, we believe that our ambitions in respect of apprenticeships are realistic. The apprenticeship review was jointly published by my right honourable friends the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families and the Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills on 28 January. It not only restated our intention to put in place an apprenticeship entitlement for every suitably qualified young person who wants one by the time this legislation comes into effect, but also introduced other reforms to improve the regime for apprenticeships including, crucially, the creation of a new national apprenticeship service, which will provide a single point of advice and guidance for any employer interested in apprenticeships, alongside the Apprenticeship Ambassadors Network, which we hope will continue its good work in promoting apprenticeships to employers. But I accept the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that the public sector has an important part to play in this, too, and its contribution will be fully galvanised by the national apprenticeship service.
We are also looking for a more flexible and responsive model for apprenticeships to be developed by the national apprenticeship service. Employers will be allowed to submit their own frameworks for funding by drawing from a sector skills council bank of qualifications. All apprentice experience will be recognised as an apprenticeship, meaning that apprenticeship training that does not rely on public funds will still be recorded and recognised and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, said, more apprenticeships will be delivered through Train to Gain, which is the Government’s primary skills service for employers in England.
Taking all these factors into account and in the light of the remarkable growth that we have seen in apprenticeships in the past 10 years—both in overall numbers and in completions—we believe that the goals we have set are realistic. The commitments that come in for apprenticeships alongside the raising of the education and training participation age make this increase credible.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: Can the Minister clarify the Train to Gain situation? My understanding had been that money going to companies under the scheme was not to fund apprenticeships but was expressly to enable the qualifications of those already in employment in the firm to be expanded up to level 2, so that you encourage those who are already in the company’s employ. But from what the Minister was saying, perhaps there has been a change in the rules and they can use this money to fund apprenticeships.
25 Jun 2008 : Column 1528
Lord Adonis: I shall need to come back to the noble Baroness on the precise relationship between the two, but my advice is that more apprenticeships are to be delivered through Train to Gain. I shall need to elucidate more fully precisely what the term “delivered” means, and I shall return to the noble Baroness on that point.
Baroness Morris of Bolton: I am most grateful to the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford, for her support. I think that the noble Lord said that completed apprenticeships had risen to 100,000, but that leaves a great number of young people who are not finishing them. It is still possible to complete an apprenticeship without going anywhere near a workplace, which turns many young people off. A lot of it is still too classroom based. We are also concerned that a number of employers are just not engaging in providing more apprenticeships, especially in small and medium-sized enterprises. I shall read with care what the Minister has said in Hansard and, given the hour, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 19 to 21 not moved.]
9.45 pm
On Question, Whether Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill?
Baroness Walmsley: Noble Lords will be pleased to hear that, although I cannot promise to be quite as succinct as the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, with his two-word response a few moments ago, I have no intention of wearying the Committee by going through all the arguments again. They have already been debated very effectively. I shall summarise the three main points. Clause 2 is at the heart of the compulsion element of the Bill, with which many of us have difficulty. I shall do something I do not often do: give the Minister an opportunity to shut me up and possibly even shut up some of the Official Opposition Front Bench as well. I say that because this issue is one of the two main points on which both main opposition Benches are united, so the Minister could get through the Government’s business a lot quicker and save us trouble if he accepts that this clause should not stand part of the Bill.
The first of the three main arguments is that we believe that compulsion is wrong in principle because it moves the duty from the parent to the child. It is contrary to both the spirit and the letter of a number of international conventions to which this country is a party. The other two points are that compulsion is not necessary and that it could do harm. It is unnecessary because a number of changes are in the pipeline which we have debated in the last couple of groups that may well continue to reduce the number of NEETs, at which this Bill is targeted. The Government should certainly wait and see how well their initiatives work out before introducing compulsion. I say that particularly in the light of the fact that compulsion will not necessarily lead to quality participation and actual achievement of qualifications. It could simply secure bodies on seats behind desks. The point about it possibly being harmful is that compulsion could turn young people
25 Jun 2008 : Column 1529
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |