Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Bill

I hear what my hon. Friend says, but I remain unconvinced. Children's trusts need a budget if they are to be accountable as organisations. Parents might think it was the children's trust that was taking decisions locally, but when they came to question things, they might hear that it was part of the health service, the education service or the probation service that had chosen, for its own reasons, not to deliver something that the parent wanted. I remain unconvinced, but if the proposals go ahead, I hope that something positive comes out of them. The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis), who is no longer here, made excellent points about the importance of careers advice. He began to persuade me that we should provide advice on apprenticeships to every child in every institution, because apprenticeships are not just for those who are not academically able. They are a route that can lead to higher education, but they can capture a person's imagination, whether that person is passing exams or not. They are a genuine option, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman is right to say that the advice should be provided for in statute, rather than the Bill requiring merely that the interests of the child be considered. Any school that is struggling to maintain its sixth form will find it easy to consider it in the best interests of the child that they carry on into the sixth form, and do not take up an apprenticeship, although that might be a better solution for them. That is another point that I hope the Minister will consider. I should like briefly—I am aware that time is passing by—to consider the Government response to a report by the Children, Schools and Family Committee, on which I sit. The report was part of our pre-legislative scrutiny. The Government response says that we questioned"““whether it is a good use of Parliamentary time to consider 'symbolic' legislation.””" If I recall correctly, our thinking was, ““Don't make a huge, symbolic promise of a choice of two apprenticeship places for everybody if you haven't got the mechanics to deliver.”” The proper thing to do would be to change the system and encourage employers so effectively that we were able to offer that choice to everybody, and then to legislate to keep it that way. Otherwise there is a danger that when the Bill is enacted, we will have created a promise that cannot be delivered. That would not be to the credit of the Government or any of us in this place. In our recommendations, we addressed the issue of the automatic right to progress from one qualification to a higher qualification. The Government's response was:"““We want to ensure that for these young people the route to a higher qualification is clearly set out and that the support they need is in place.””" That is right, but it would be interesting to have more detail on how that will be delivered. Perhaps that issue could be touched on. We also recommended that the Government should not block a young person's"““entitlement to an apprenticeship at the same level as that of a qualification which they already hold””." I congratulate the Government on listening to that representation and on changing the Bill in consequence. In recommendation 10, the Select Committee said:"““We have grave doubts about whether a statutory duty on the Learning and Skills Council (and in due course the National Apprenticeship Service) to secure sufficient apprenticeship placements can be met, or met without compromising on quality.””" The Select Committee—a cross-party, Labour-dominated Committee—was absolutely right to say that. That remains a key reason for my doubts about the efficacy of the Bill. The Government response says:"““We will publish a statement setting out how the scheme will operate in practice at the Committee stage of the Bill.””" That will obviously be tremendously important, and I hope that the statement will provide succour to those of us who have doubts about the deliverability of the promise as it stands. The Select Committee stated:"““We strongly support the concept of group apprenticeship schemes””." The Opposition have strongly promoted that idea. Getting SMEs to provide apprenticeships is a great challenge because of the bureaucracy involved. The Government's response was lukewarm, rather than effusive. They said:"““We recognise the key role””," but they did not say how they would take that forward. When the Minister winds up the debate, it will be an opportunity to be more effusive about group training associations and what they can deliver. If the Government are to deliver the promise that they are making, they will have to use group training associations effectively. We heard from the shadow Secretary of State today, in answer to the Secretary of State, an absolutely unequivocal guarantee of support for Sure Start children's centres by the Opposition, and an absolute guarantee that there will be no cuts in the spending on those centres. We can therefore look forward to the scrapping of so much scaremongering leafleting by Labour. Before today, that may have arisen from a misunderstanding, but after today it would be dishonest. We differ from the Government in that we recognise that although Sure Start has been a good thing, cutting back on health visitors would be a bad thing. I know that the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) on the Liberal Democrat Front Bench speaks regularly about the importance of health visitors. We propose to increase the number of health visitors by 4,200—a 56 per cent. increase on expected numbers in 2010—and to increase health visitor training concomitantly. That gives a flavour of how we will be different. We will certainly not make cuts.