Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Bill

It is a pleasure to reply to the debate. I apologise to my hon. Friends and to Opposition Members if I cannot respond to all their comments in detail. A wide range of issues has been raised. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden) emphasised the needs of older apprentices, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac). Let me say to the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) that it is important for us to create new opportunities for young people to undertake apprenticeships. I reject the idea that an apprenticeship is an inappropriate way for someone to learn halfway through a career, and I reject the hon. Gentleman's apparent view that anyone who learns in that way should not be counted as a proper apprentice. That is simply wrong—yet it is the position of those on the Conservative Front Bench. My hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Mrs. Hodgson) spoke of people with special educational needs. She should be congratulated on her remarks, and on her private Member's Bill. The hon. Member for Buckingham (John Bercow) also referred to that important issue. There is clearly a strand of concern throughout the House about the need to ensure that apprenticeships can reach the widest possible range of young people. The hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) raised similar issues, as did a number of others. The hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Davies) and others—including the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis), who chairs the Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills Committee—spoke of the importance of quality in apprenticeships, which lies at the heart of the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) and the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough spoke of the importance of careers advice. My hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), the Chairman of the Children, Schools and Families Committee, also spoke of the need for quality in apprenticeships. It is clear that this has been a good Second Reading debate. I understand that there will no Division tonight. There is broad agreement on many parts of the Bill, which must now be subjected to detailed consideration in Committee. However, although it is always welcome when there is cross-party agreement on a number of clauses of a Bill, I should stress that the House must not be misled by the apparent agreement on many of the clauses into believing that the Opposition and this party stand for the same things, or believe the same things. Today we have seen a concerted attempt—and, in particular, an attempt by the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove)—to suggest that there is only so much difference between the two parties on many aspects of the Bill. We began with a discussion about spending. Spending is very important to our ability to implement many of the measures in the Bill, and the hon. Member for Surrey Heath made it very clear—he could not have been misunderstood—that there was absolutely no question of his party's not matching, pound for pound, the full amount that the Government will spend on the budget of the Department for Children, Schools and Families. The hon. Gentleman said, I think, that he had shot my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's fox. He said that we were misinterpreting the circumstances, and that we had misunderstood the remarks of the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) when he spoke of Conservative budget proposals. That is unfortunate for the hon. Gentleman, because I happen to have a transcript of the question asked by Mr. Andrew Grice—I believe he is a newspaper reporter—on 5 January at a press conference held by the right hon. Member for Witney. Mr. Grice said:"““In the past you have promised to match Labour's spending on education, today you use the word 'schools', does that mean you would spend less than Labour on other areas of education such as universities and skills?””" The right hon. Member for Witney replied:"““It means that the school budget specifically is the one that is protected in terms of their plans.””" There was no mention of Sure Start centres, or any other part of the DCFS budget. The hon. Member for Surrey Heath has completely contradicted the leader of his party. The fox which, a few hours ago, appeared to have been shot dead is now alive and running around, and is coming back to snap at the hon. Gentleman's heels.