---

Education and Skills Bill

moved Amendment No. 18: 18: Clause 2, page 2, line 8, at end insert— ““( ) 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 Level 3, but have been falling steadily since 1999, and are now falling at Level 2. The Government have a long way to go if there are to be 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? The aim of these amendments is to make sure that the Bill works when it comes into force. 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.