Apprenticeships

Derek Twigg Excerpts

Monday 19th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)]

I welcome tonight’s debate on this very important instrument in tackling unemployment in Britain today, which promotes a highly trained, suitably qualified, sustainable work force. I think that I am one of the few parliamentarians who has been an apprentice. I was a brickie and I learned my trade through an indenture route. Many years later, I became a vocational training instructor. In addition, I have worked for the Learning and Skills Council and its predecessor organisation, and was responsible for delivering construction training in the Merseyside sub-region. Therefore, I have some limited understanding of the issue.

In modern times, many traditional occupational areas are still three-year, and in some cases four-year, apprenticeships, and are still seen as being a detailed introduction to a trade: a valuable period of on and off the job training to industry recognised standards. Apprenticeships should not be 16-week test drives, as some are today. This will result only in damage to the brand.

I must confess that I feel that some right hon. and hon. Members’ interpretation of apprenticeships is slightly different from mine. For me, some employers are still confused about the precise definition of an apprenticeship. I welcome the Minister’s comments tonight about ensuring that quality does not suffer through quantity.

Thanks to the cuts in career services such as Connexions, many youngsters starting out today will be reliant on parents, grandparents and teachers for career support and guidance, and will need to decide whether to say on at school, whether they can afford the tripling of tuition fees and go to university, or whether to try to get an apprenticeship. Very few people, apart perhaps from some Conservative Members, would advise a young person to pack in school at 16 to take part in a six-month apprenticeship. So let us incorporate the question of definition into today’s debate. All training programmes cannot simply be rebadged as apprenticeships or they will lose all credibility. They should at least include the NVQ qualification at levels 2 or 3, the technical certificate and the key skills element.

There are many on the Government Benches who will no doubt advocate their love for and devotion to apprenticeships, but who have no intention of taking on an apprentice themselves, or of encouraging their own children to complete one. In fact, many Members claim that apprenticeships are the be all and end all if you listen to some of them, but despite my minor misgivings at times about the last Labour Government’s emphasis on academic routes over vocational training, the last Tory Government nearly destroyed apprenticeships completely. We were down to about 20,000-odd in the year before their last year in power.

Any increase in apprenticeship numbers, as identified by the Minister earlier, is welcome—

[Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the recently announced construction projects that the Government support are an ideal opportunity for the Government to stipulate that they should include a number of apprenticeships? In our part of the world, the council is working hard to ensure that there are apprenticeships on the Mersey gateway. Should not the Government stipulate that any construction project they support should have apprenticeships?

[Steve Rotheram]

I agree with my hon. Friend. We tried to push the Government on that. The old rule of thumb used to be that for every £1 million-worth of procurement an apprentice was taken on. The Minister should seriously look again at that, because it is a way of stimulating demand for apprenticeships.

The point made earlier about 10-week programmes makes a mockery of the brand and looks like statistical gerrymandering to all those responsible for delivering quality apprenticeships. They are not what people out there believe to be apprenticeships; they are training programmes. They are very welcome in the vocational field, but they are not apprenticeships. While the Government take credit for all that they have done and for the current level of apprenticeships, many Members seem to forget that some current apprentices in traditional occupations started their apprenticeships under the Labour Government. For example, my beloved son is an apprentice electrician, which is a four-year programme. Perhaps I am being cynical, but the Government seem to be systematically rebranding work experience programmes as apprenticeships, and I genuinely hope that that is not the case.

The reason for my scepticism probably has something to do with a recent incident in my constituency of Liverpool, Walton. I keep questioning why the Government, who claim to be so dedicated to reducing unemployment and increasing apprenticeship numbers, allowed the National Construction Academy in Aintree to close its doors on their watch. Not only will the decision deny up to 80 young people each year the chance of accessing training via the centre, but Walton is unfortunately home to the sixth highest level of unemployment in the country.

The Minister will know that I have the greatest admiration for his undeniable appreciation of vocational routes into employment, but surely he must understand the relationship between public sector spending and private sector growth. Despite the coalition’s at times relentless desire to drive a wedge between the public and private sectors, the two are heavily interlinked and mutually co-reliant, as can be seen in the construction sector, for instance. As I have said on a number of occasions since becoming a Member of Parliament, the symbiotic relationship between the public and private sectors means that cutting one makes the other bleed. Needless to say, the construction sector is haemorrhaging badly at the moment and needs an urgent transfusion. The construction industry has a long history of taking on apprentices, but such programmes have now been savaged, with capital investment slashed—