Part of – in a Public Bill Committee at 4:30 pm on 10 March 2009.
Absolutely. My hon. Friend is right that most peoples vision of an apprentice is of someone learning their trade at the knee of an experienced craftsman in the workplace. However, in recent years, many apprenticeships have been virtual, involving little or no employer engagement. In some cases, employers provide little of the training that the apprentices they employ undertake, most of which is provided by a further education college or independent training provider.
That is not just my view. Two of the leading academics in the field, Professors Lorna Unwin and Alison Fuller, describe such schemes as restrictive apprenticeships. Other apprenticeships involve little or no time in the workplace, either in work or in training, as a result of branding training that is not in the workplace programme-led apprenticeships.
One of the doubts that the Conservatives have was articulated admirably by my hon. Friend this morning. In offering an entitlement, the Government could dilute the quality of the apprenticeships that are offered to meet the ambitious targets that they have set. If they aim to entitle everyone to an apprenticeship and set ambitious targets for numbers, there is an obvious temptation to rebadge all kinds of training as apprenticeships, to weaken and dilute the necessary standard and, in so doing, to damage the valuable apprenticeship brand.
The Select Committee on Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills expressed a similar concern when it scrutinised provisions for programme-led apprenticeships in the draft Bill, concluding:
Business was clear that for apprenticeship schemes to work they must be employer led and based in the workplace to make them effective...so called programme-led apprenticeships could provide a useful preparation for an employer-led apprenticeship but they are not apprenticeships within the meaning of the proposals in the draft Bill.