Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Bill

My Lords, we have a great deal of sympathy with the two amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Layard. Regarding Amendment 110, it is really illogical that the Government are not encouraging the expected progression. The noble Lord, Lord Layard, has pointed out that he does not want the provision to come into effect immediately. He proposes that by 2015, the raising of the participation age will mean that young people will have to be either in education, at college or at school, or in training or in an apprenticeship. The Government are anxious to encourage young people to progress—there is a logical progression open to young people, for example, who stay on and do their A-levels. We make it easy for them to go on to university but this is not the case in the progression from a level 2 apprenticeship to a level 3 apprenticeship. I find this quite extraordinary and we support that amendment. Turning to Amendment 129, the Minister may know that there has been a recent CFBT publication called Lessons from history: Increasing the number of 16 and 17 year olds in education and training. This points out that a scheme of subsidies to employers to take on young apprentices during the recession of 1979 to 1983 actually helped to increase the number of 16 to 18 year-olds going into employer-based apprenticeships by 57,000. These are very substantial figures. There are lessons to be learnt from history. In Committee, the Minister talked about the "dead weight" of perhaps providing a subsidy for young people. He should bear in mind that we are talking about those under 19, not those over 19 for whom this wage subsidy should be provided. One could argue that it should be for small firms rather than large firms. The noble Lord, Lord Layard, pointed out that many large firms do not pull their weight in taking on the number of apprentices that they might. If you look at Train to Gain you can argue that the wage compensation for small firms provides some form of subsidy for those who are over 19. If you are providing a subsidy through Train to Gain for those over 19, why not provide it for those under 19 as well? The Government say that they will increase the learning participation age to 18 by 2015. In trying to encourage more 16 to 18-year-olds to go into apprenticeships—they will have all the stocks by that stage—they are offering any young person who wishes to go into an apprenticeship the entitlement to do so; yet no apprenticeships are available at present. How will they ensure that the number of apprenticeships is available? Such a scheme would undoubtedly help to increase the number on offer. They need, in any case, to expand the 16 and 17 year-old employer-based apprenticeships by turning jobs without training into apprenticeships. It is part of their whole strategy that those who leave at 16 and go into jobs without training should become apprentices. Finally, part of the Government’s strategy is to reduce the number of those who end up not in employment, education or training—the NEET category—which currently stands at 9 per cent and is rising. However, I point out to the Minister that over the past year the number of 16 and 17 year-olds going into apprenticeships has not increased but has gone down. On Amendment 99, a very disappointing number of young people have progressed from a level 2 apprenticeship to a level 3 apprenticeship. Both the amendments have a great deal of logic to them, and we on these Benches support the noble Lord’s argument.