Not very well

Rather alarming statistics about Rochdale.

21% of the residents of Rochdale have some form of disability or long-term health problem.

Significantly higher than the UK average.

The fact is, that "one in five working age people are disabled."

http://www.rochdaleonline.co.uk/news-features/2/news-headlines/98558/simon-danczuk-letter-from-parliament

How people interpret those statistics will depend on their perspective on life and on statistics, but, it's quite a cause for concern however you look at it.  

Disabled and unhealthy! Start by removing from those figures those that make a living from being personally 'unhealthy and disabled' and I think you might find the figure is more like 15% which for a town like Rochdale with its history and its deprivation is the same for many other places across the country with the same type of problems. You can blame Thatcher's lot for their 'disabled' benefit policy in the '80's' which massage the figures in their favour by shuffling the unemployed around and giving certain sections a new designation. Once having become used to that system many families (and their offspring) became used to 'claiming' unfitness and many still do.
People don't seem to realise that such figures will automatically go up as medical advance proceeds, people survive longer and illness becomes more prevalent (though containable). Diagnosis becomes better but unfortunately cure doesn't always keep pace.
The question should be - can we afford to save everybody? Are there the resources to sustain a population on less than 20% of the working population providing the tax revenue? It's easy to complain but not so easy to justify. Not that 90% would know or give a damn.

Can we afford it?

We were persuaded that industry and manufacture were outdated as a way to make money, service industries being the way forward. If more people train as barristas and serve ever more complicated and expensive cups of coffee to each other, perhaps we will be able to.

We have one saving grace - technology. But to keep ahead of the race to the bottom we MUST train our young in the advanced sciences. One cannot live on 'services' alone. To generate foreign exchange we must have something to sell. It, whatever that is, has to be better than our competitors or unavailable elsewhere. We, like the Germans, are very good at quality and innovation. It is towards that we should be putting the greatest effort. If successful - the rest will follow. If not - it's curtains and a big black-out.

The technology that counts has become a lot more boring of late, it's all computer systems that change and become ever more complicated and tedious. Given a basic understanding and some reliable, repeatable silicon chips, making robots would be more interesting for young people than diddling about with cyber-fraud and cyber-espionage.

A freindly and practical street cleaning robot would be useful, as it seems to be becoming obsolete as a task humans can do.

Nay and thrice nay. We should have plenty of street cleaners available already. Jobs for the immigrants before we send them back .
No - our expertise will come from bio-technologies and specialist machines that will become in great demand throughout the growing economies especially in the East. Aim high. Fund well. Take the large profit - and move on. Education. Education. For those that want it. Get the rest to keep the ball rolling.

You seem to be having a laugh with your idea of immigrants sweeping the streets It doesn't happen. However, laughter is the best medicine.

Bio-technology is important, but to get young people generally involved with high tech, rather than just a minority of technocrats, something hands-on is needed. Kitchen table bio-tech is do-able, but I'd rather our apprentices experimented with robots than with genetic modification.

One has to laugh at the present situation otherwise one might just as well go outside and pick a tree branch capable of taking one's weight.
I'd rather we first had 'apprentices' that were doing 'proper' apprenticeships in the first place instead of 'playing' at apprentices for firms that simply want dogs-bodies to attend to the menial tasks. The whole thing is a sham if not policed and regulated properly.
Apprenticeships were paid for by the employers - not the government - in order to train up and have qualified people for the firm's future. I know it didn't always work out and was in many cases abused by employers dropping apprentices when they qualified, but at least the people concerned were properly trained. (I know - I was one of them).

Class of '15 apprentices this year totals 15 - that is new starters in year 1 of the programme. similar numbers in previous years plus a variable number of graduate trainees.

Note: primary finance is by the company, but any grants, etc. gratefully received.

Could you elucidate johnb. Not sure I properly understood your post? 15 totals 15?

I was under the impression we had a government sponsored apprenticeship scheme in place - am I wrong?

In year 2015 we have 15 first year apprentices - the class of '15.

Yes, the government sponsors (contributes to) apprentice training in industry, but not the whole cost, and not all manufacturing companies can support apprentice training.

I think I have it now. When you say 'we' you mean 'your company' not the whole country. Got yer.
OK.
Yes I was aware it's only partially funded. In my day of course there wasn't any government funding. It was down to employers. Which I have to say seemed reasonable to me - as those employers were only looking after their own futures - so to speak. I see no reason (if as stated everyone is going to live ten years longer) why the same procedures could not be the norm today. Apprenticeships starting at 17 and qualifications being gained in the persons early twenties - retirement being in their early seventies etc etc. It was and still is the reluctance of employers to spend on training and the ability of the labourer to command good wages that helped ruin the apprenticeship schemes of the past. I know. I was there. I saw and was involved with it at the time. Legislation didn't help and 'controlled' schemes was only possible amongst the large employers. One hat doesn't fit all heads.
So what's the answer -?