Clause 9
5:45 pm
John Hayes (Shadow Minister, Innovation, Universities and Skills; South Holland and The Deepings, Conservative)
We are now speeding through our scrutiny and have reached clause 9. It relates to the contents of apprenticeship certificates, but it does not include provision to specify which qualifications have been taken, such as NVQs, BTECs, or which employer has provided training. Those are important aspects of any apprenticeship. Our desire, as expressed previously, is to ensure that apprenticeships reach the highest standard. Everyone who completes one should be proud of having done so, in the knowledge that they have been through a process that is testing and has conferred real, practical competences.
As you know, Mrs. Humble, I am passionate about elevating the practical. I believe in the empowerment that comes from craft learning. I am wholly committed to the idea of vocational education, standing alongside academic achievement as a way of delivering personal fulfilment and collective value. That is why I am so keen on apprenticeships. If we are going to shape my vision into something practical we have to be clear about what we demand of every apprenticeship.
We talked earlier about work-based learning. Now we are talking about being specific about qualifications and the character of employer training. Critically that would ensure that the schools matched the specification and vice versa. The amendments ensure that future employers are aware of the skills level and qualification of a candidate and that they have been through some form of employer-based training. That is directly beneficial to employers. David Frost, the director general of the British Chambers of Commerce said in response to the Opposition Green Paper on the subject:
“The reputation of a good apprenticeship must not be undermined by the need to meet targets. We wouldn’t want to see young adults put through classroom led apprenticeships with only a small amount of work based learning just because they are easier to deliver. Real commitment to employer led apprenticeships is vital, otherwise the system will fail our young adults.”
We want the framework to be tight and the stipulations clear. We want everyone, both employers and learners, to know exactly what comprises an apprenticeship, hence the amendment in my name and those of my hon. Friends. It is in the spirit that inspired amendments on previous clauses.
The Liberal Democrats have tabled amendments 108 and 234, which no doubt they will speak to at some length. In a similar spirit, they would stipulate that the name of the further education college at which training occurred be added to the list that I have outlined. That would be a valid addition, in that it would ensure that training had occurred through a recognised supplier thereof. The presence of the name of an FE college on the certificate would make it even more important that the employer’s name be registered, too. That would prove that work-based training had occurred in one case and that training in a college—a proper place of education—had taken place in the other.
The amendments seem to me to be hand in glove, as the Liberal Democrats and Conservatives are, thus far at least, on the Bill. I wonder whether there might later be a separation between the hand and the glove—let us hope not. With the intention of firming up apprenticeships in the way I have described, I happily commend the amendment to the Committee.