The debate on this section has been quite interesting; it has been about whether we have an integrated set of committees and bodies that consider everything in the round, so that we get full integration and are able to deal with big sectors—such as finance, which dominates many regions across the country, not just one region—or a more bespoke approach in which we deal with regions on an individual basis, deal with graduate apprenticeships in a sub-committee, and have an industry committee.

At the heart of an awful lot of this debate is the fear that apprentices will simply be tacked on to the Funding Council. Whenever we get change, everybody looks to protect what they have, rather than perhaps looking to see what the opportunities are for integration. I fully accept that that is the debate that we have all been struggling with. I have certainly been struggling with that, through the process and progress of this bill and the Withers report. I accept that there are benefits from trying to change the way that the Funding Council operates as a whole, not just to deal with apprentices but to consider what learning there is to be gained from apprentices for the college and the university sector, and vice versa. What can the apprenticeship system learn from the way in which those institutions work, and the other way around? All of that is a valid debate to be had.

I worry about sometimes being a bit too prescriptive in the way that we legislate here, when, in fact, as well as some prescription, we should be allowing some degree of flexibility, to allow the new body to evolve over time to meet the new needs of the economy and the skills landscape.

I am pleased that the Minister accepts my Amendment 109, which deals with the

“appointment of the chair of the committee”;

amendment 100, which sets out that advising on “work-based learning” should be part of the committee’s remit, so that foundation apprentices are represented; and amendment 104, which would ensure that, when deciding who should be a member of the committee, the council must have regard to representation from business and apprentices. All that is fine.

I hope that the minister has heard all the anxieties in the room, particularly regarding my point on graduate apprenticeships, to ensure that the system is a damn sight swifter than it has been so far, that it is flexible and meets modern needs swiftly, that it is not overly bureaucratic, as it is now, and that the committee’s composition reflects the need to include many employers—people who take on apprentices and have direct experience in the current system—while also maintaining the committee’s overall authority. I accept that the apprentice committee will be a sub-committee of the Funding Council, which is probably how it will be for accountability purposes, but I hope that the Funding Council fully respects the committee’s authority and, more often than not, just accepts what it says. It should not have to rubber stamp what it says, but it should accept almost everything that it says, because that is where the authority should lie. I hope that apprentices understand, engage and debate with the committee but that they understand that it should have the authority to gain the confidence of the business community and ensure that we get the policy right. I hope that the minister listens to all that.

For those reasons, I will not move my amendments in the group, other than amendments 109, 100 and 104, which I will move.