Proceeding contribution from Lord Young of Norwood Green (Labour) in the House of Lords on Thursday, 15 October 2009. It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL) and Debate on bill on Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Bill.
Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Bill
My Lords, I agree with my noble friend Lord Layard that progression from a level 2 to a level 3 apprenticeship is important. I disagree slightly with my noble friend that the entitlement is quite limited, given that he said in the previous debate that it was very ambitious. It is not often that I feel that I have to draw his attention to something like this, but it cannot be quite limited and very ambitious at the same time. I believe—and I think that the Committee believes, given the comments that have been made on all sides—that our ambitions, as defined in the Bill, are ones that will take a great deal of effort to achieve. In many industries, such as construction and engineering, the progression happens naturally, as apprentices usually continue the level 3 element of their training on completion of their level 2 apprenticeship. We are working to ensure that this is the norm across all sectors. First, the Government will fully fund the training costs of level 3 learning for all apprentices who start their learning before the age of 19. Secondly, the guidance to the specification of apprenticeship standards in England will emphasise the importance of progression through the various levels of apprenticeship and routes into and out of apprenticeships. Thirdly, the National Apprenticeship Service will work with those sectors without a strong track record of progression from level 2 to level 3 to identify specific barriers to progression and actions to overcome these. There are such sectors; there is no doubt about that. We also hope that, through this legislation, the right to request time to train will have an impact. Fourthly, following discussions with the noble Lord, Lord Layard, we will ensure that the apprenticeship agreement has a prescribed term that requires discussions to encourage progression from level 2 to a level 3 apprenticeship. Ultimately, unfortunately, this comes down to matter of priorities. I absolutely agree that we should seek to increase progression rates still further, but now we are clear that our focus has to be on ensuring the availability of a first apprenticeship place. I remind noble Lords that this year we are spending nearly £1 billion on apprenticeships. It is a question of finite resources and, we believe, of encouraging both employers and learners. We are making progress. There is no room for complacency but, on this basis, I hope that my noble friend may be persuaded to withdraw the amendment.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 713 c347-8
- Session
- 2008-09
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords chamber
- Subjects
- Disability Assessments Curriculum Apprentices Adult education Equality Finance Fees and charges Higher education Learning disability Offenders Qualifications Prisons National curriculum tests Political impartiality Statistics Standards Special educational needs Training Sports Vocational education Sixth form colleges Young People's Learning Agency Ofqual
- Legislation
- Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Bill 2008-09
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-04-21 13:12:47 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_584587
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_584587
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_584587