I was coming to the noble Lord’s contribution and I was going to address that very word. I do not believe that you can force employers other than in one area. If, as an employer, you bid for a government contract, you have to indicate how many apprentices you are going to take on. That is what we said to those who bid for the Olympic contract and it is what we said in relation to Crossrail. I do not see any problem with that. Why on earth cannot the Government accept that commitment? If you want to do something positive that demonstrates the Government’s commitment, that is it. If I have to use the word ““force”” in that circumstance, so be it, as I believe that that is an intrinsic part of it.
The noble Lord, Lord Elton, made a very valid point. If we made a mistake as a previous Government, it was that at one point we emphasised the academic side so heavily that that somehow created the impression that the vocational or apprenticeship route was second class. It is not a second-class route; indeed, it is not an either/or choice, because many young apprentices go on to take degree courses as well. I have dealt on previous occasions with the question of ensuring that we give proper credence to the value of apprenticeships— I am conscious of the time.
Once again, the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, talked about extra burdens on SMEs. Requiring people to take on apprentices does not impose a burden on them. It is the employers who do not take on apprentices who often live to regret it when they find themselves suffering from a skill shortage. I do not see apprenticeships as some kind of panacea for youth unemployment but I do see them as an essential prerequisite in helping to resolve the problem.
I welcome the fact that the Government have made some progress but in our view it is not enough; more could be done. I make it clear that I shall wish to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 89ZZAA, which refers to procurement contracts, but, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 89ZZA.
Amendment 89ZZA withdrawn.
Amendment 89ZZAA
Moved by
Education Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Young of Norwood Green
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 1 November 2011.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Education Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
731 c1189-90 Session
2010-12Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 13:44:46 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_780300
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_780300
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_780300