How Labour councils are boosting apprenticeships

Labour authorities have responded to Ed Miliband’s call last year to enhance and advance the vocational route for young people.

Labour has a proud record on apprenticeships - we championed them throughout our time in office, establishing National Apprenticeship Week and boosting the number of starts, which quadrupled over the period.

Last year in his speech to party conference, Ed Miliband put apprenticeships centre stage in his vision of supporting the forgotten 50 per cent of young people who don’t go to university. That’s why we have set up our One Nation Skills Taskforce, comprised of leading representatives from business, education and trade unions, who have been looking at how best to take this agenda forward.

Apprenticeships are front and centre of our agenda for office and we’ve put forward plans to use the money which government already spends through procurement to create more apprenticeship opportunities. This builds on the approach we brought forward in government where major public sector contracts such as Building Schools for the Future and the Kickstart housing scheme all created significant numbers of new apprenticeship places. We even brought our plans to a vote in Parliament urging ministers to adopt this proactive approach but the Tory-led government voted them down.

We recognise that local government is key to delivering the step change we need. That’s why I, together with shadow planning minister Roberta Blackman-Woods, worked closely with The Smith Institute on a recent report which brings together best practice examples from 17 Labour local authorities leading the way on apprenticeships. 

All the councils featured are pushing forward this agenda in bold and innovative ways. For example, my own local authority in Blackpool have put apprenticeships at the heart of their youth employment programme. The council has been working closely with Blackpool and the Fylde College to reach out to local businesses and explain the range of incentives and support on offer if they take on apprentices.

A number of authorities are using their procurement spend to create new apprenticeship places. Manchester City Council is actively encouraging businesses within its supply chain to take on young apprentices with 66 young people being taken on as apprentices working on the Town Hall extension. Sandwell Council is using section 106 planning agreements in major public contracts to create new apprenticeships, with a target of 198 places over the next three years. Both Sheffield and Leeds City Councils have put obligations of offer apprenticeships for firms winning procurement contracts worth over £100,000.

Working closely with businesses is key to create new opportunities. Camden Council has been using the King’s Cross Construction Centre, which it set up in 2004, to work closely with large contractors to ensure apprenticeships are created on the major King’s Cross Central development – 58 young people started apprenticeships there between January and March this year.

Encouraging smaller firms to take on apprentices is key to improving the number of places available - Wakefield Council worked with 64 local small firms to create 197 apprenticeship placements, while Kirklees Council has dedicated significant resources into giving businesses a clear and easy to access apprenticeship offer.

Labour local authorities are also taking on new apprentices directly themselves. Newcastle City Council has over a hundred working across a wide range of disciplines. Plymouth City Council have doubled the number of apprentices at the council to 70 over the last year. Lewisham Council have taken on 74 apprentices this year and have developed structured career paths for them all.

The case studies detailed above are just a small sample of the submissions that have come in from the seventeen Labour local authorities we heard from. This report is an excellent showcase of the action which Labour authorities are already taking to address Ed Miliband’s call last year to enhance and advance the vocational route for young people.

The report also shows very real success that can be achieved working across the board at local level with councils engaging with colleges, LEPs, businesses and existing union learning initiatives - this is precisely the approach Labour would adopt in government.

Gordon Marsden is shadow minister for further education, skills and regional growth and MP for Blackpool South

A delegate waves a flag at the Labour Party Conference at Manchester Central on October 1, 2012. Photograph: Getty Images.

Gordon Marsden is shadow minister for further education, skills and regional growth and MP for Blackpool South

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

The Prevent strategy needs a rethink, not a rebrand

A bad policy by any other name is still a bad policy.

Yesterday the Home Affairs Select Committee published its report on radicalization in the UK. While the focus of the coverage has been on its claim that social media companies like Facebook, Twitter and YouTube are “consciously failing” to combat the promotion of terrorism and extremism, it also reported on Prevent. The report rightly engages with criticism of Prevent, acknowledging how it has affected the Muslim community and calling for it to become more transparent:

“The concerns about Prevent amongst the communities most affected by it must be addressed. Otherwise it will continue to be viewed with suspicion by many, and by some as “toxic”… The government must be more transparent about what it is doing on the Prevent strategy, including by publicising its engagement activities, and providing updates on outcomes, through an easily accessible online portal.”

While this acknowledgement is good news, it is hard to see how real change will occur. As I have written previously, as Prevent has become more entrenched in British society, it has also become more secretive. For example, in August 2013, I lodged FOI requests to designated Prevent priority areas, asking for the most up-to-date Prevent funding information, including what projects received funding and details of any project engaging specifically with far-right extremism. I lodged almost identical requests between 2008 and 2009, all of which were successful. All but one of the 2013 requests were denied.

This denial is significant. Before the 2011 review, the Prevent strategy distributed money to help local authorities fight violent extremism and in doing so identified priority areas based solely on demographics. Any local authority with a Muslim population of at least five per cent was automatically given Prevent funding. The 2011 review pledged to end this. It further promised to expand Prevent to include far-right extremism and stop its use in community cohesion projects. Through these FOI requests I was trying to find out whether or not the 2011 pledges had been met. But with the blanket denial of information, I was left in the dark.

It is telling that the report’s concerns with Prevent are not new and have in fact been highlighted in several reports by the same Home Affairs Select Committee, as well as numerous reports by NGOs. But nothing has changed. In fact, the only change proposed by the report is to give Prevent a new name: Engage. But the problem was never the name. Prevent relies on the premise that terrorism and extremism are inherently connected with Islam, and until this is changed, it will continue to be at best counter-productive, and at worst, deeply discriminatory.

In his evidence to the committee, David Anderson, the independent ombudsman of terrorism legislation, has called for an independent review of the Prevent strategy. This would be a start. However, more is required. What is needed is a radical new approach to counter-terrorism and counter-extremism, one that targets all forms of extremism and that does not stigmatise or stereotype those affected.

Such an approach has been pioneered in the Danish town of Aarhus. Faced with increased numbers of youngsters leaving Aarhus for Syria, police officers made it clear that those who had travelled to Syria were welcome to come home, where they would receive help with going back to school, finding a place to live and whatever else was necessary for them to find their way back to Danish society.  Known as the ‘Aarhus model’, this approach focuses on inclusion, mentorship and non-criminalisation. It is the opposite of Prevent, which has from its very start framed British Muslims as a particularly deviant suspect community.

We need to change the narrative of counter-terrorism in the UK, but a narrative is not changed by a new title. Just as a rose by any other name would smell as sweet, a bad policy by any other name is still a bad policy. While the Home Affairs Select Committee concern about Prevent is welcomed, real action is needed. This will involve actually engaging with the Muslim community, listening to their concerns and not dismissing them as misunderstandings. It will require serious investigation of the damages caused by new Prevent statutory duty, something which the report does acknowledge as a concern.  Finally, real action on Prevent in particular, but extremism in general, will require developing a wide-ranging counter-extremism strategy that directly engages with far-right extremism. This has been notably absent from today’s report, even though far-right extremism is on the rise. After all, far-right extremists make up half of all counter-radicalization referrals in Yorkshire, and 30 per cent of the caseload in the east Midlands.

It will also require changing the way we think about those who are radicalized. The Aarhus model proves that such a change is possible. Radicalization is indeed a real problem, one imagines it will be even more so considering the country’s flagship counter-radicalization strategy remains problematic and ineffective. In the end, Prevent may be renamed a thousand times, but unless real effort is put in actually changing the strategy, it will remain toxic. 

Dr Maria Norris works at London School of Economics and Political Science. She tweets as @MariaWNorris.