Mr.
Simon: I am Welsh, although I sit for the nation’s
finest city and manufacturing hub,
Birmingham.
Stephen
Williams: I would like to say for the record that I am
also Welsh, but I sit for England’s finest city,
Bristol.
The
Chairman: Order. I do not think that we should be debating
the finest city in
England.
Mr.
Simon: We will not resolve that matter today.
The words
quoted by the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings are indeed
disappointing. They do not reflect my understanding of what has
happened and do not characterise the relations that I have had,
although I admit that I come relatively late to the process, with the
Welsh Assembly Government. As he knows, the devolved arrangements for
Scotland and Wales are separate from the English arrangements. As part
of the devolution settlement, it is for devolved Administrations to
decide exactly how they want to be involved in the process. We wrote to
the Welsh Assembly Government. They gave instructions to us on the
clauses relating to apprenticeships that they wanted to apply, and
counsel then instructed. A number of amendments have been drafted in
accordance with the wishes of the Welsh Government. Most of them are
relatively minor, but their arrangements are slightly different and
they have asked for certain amendments to reflect that. Where we have
been happy to facilitate that, there has been nothing but joy in the
relations I have had with the Welsh Assembly
Government.
Mr.
Hayes: I appreciate that it is difficult for the Minister
to be specific. I am sure that he has received inspirational guidance
on the clause—as he will have had on all the clauses in the
folder that sits before him—but clearly there is an ongoing
concern about the way in which legislation affects the Principality.
The expressions of disquiet regarding the Bill, reflected by the
comments of the Select Committee in respect of the draft Bill, are not
the first time that doubts have been raised about the process and how
we consider the way in which legislation applies across England and
Wales. In articulating those concerns, I hope that I might have done
the House, the Committee and even, may I say, the Government a service.
I just hope that the Minister will agree perhaps to come back to the
Committee when he has had a chance to reflect and study this matter
more carefully with absolute assurances that the doubts that I have
raised about clause 8 and its application in Wales will be addressed or
have been addressed. I hope that that is
reasonable.
5.45
pm
Mr.
Simon: The hon. Gentleman is immoderate in his
reasonableness. I would have it no other way. But I am not sure that
there is much that I can come back to him with by way of reassurance
beyond where we already are. I honestly would if I could. I understand
the sentiment. I agree that the words of the Select Committee are
harsh, worrying and disappointing. Our relations with the Welsh
Assembly Government have not been anything like that. There have been
no difficulties. I do not in any way mean to diminish the importance of
the Select Committee’s views on the matter, which have been
looked at very seriously and given full account. Perhaps it is
significant that those words come not from the Welsh Assembly
Government but from the Select Committee. Perhaps he can draw some
comfort from
that. Question
put and agreed
to. Clause
8, as amended, ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
9Contents
of apprenticeship
certificate
Mr.
Hayes: I beg to move amendment 19, in clause 9,
page 5, line 27, at end
insert ‘(e) the qualifications that
have been successfully completed,
and (f) the employer or
employers with which the apprentice has
trained.’.
The
Chairman: With this we may discuss the following:
amendment 108, in
clause 9, page 5, line 27, at
end add— ‘(e) the name of
the further education college where a course of training has been
completed.’. Amendment
234, in
clause 9, page 5, line 27, at
end insert— ‘(e) the name of
the further education college or other training provider where a course
of training for the apprenticeship has been
completed.’.
Mr.
Hayes: 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.
Stephen
Williams: I do not know whether we are hand in glove, but
perhaps we are part of a group training association just for the
purposes of clause 9, because our amendments are indeed
complementary. The
Minister, in our long discussion on clause 1, in effect admitted that
no particular thought seems to have been given to the design of the
apprenticeship certificate, because we do not even know who will be the
signatory of the
authority.
Mr.
Simon: If the hon. Gentleman does not mind, that is a
little sweeping and harsh. I said that I was not absolutely certain
whose signature would be at the bottom, but there is already quite a
lot of detail and specificity in the Bill about what will be on the
apprenticeship certificate. Obviously, a lot of thought has gone into
that. I would hate to denigrate the thinking powers of all those who
have been doing such
work.
Stephen
Williams: I accept what the Minister has said. It is
certainly not my intention to be harsh to him or to denigrate the
efforts of others; it is not in my nature to be like that. However, if
I were an apprentice who had worked and studied in Bristol, I would be
proud to have on my apprenticeship certificate—however it was
designed and whoever authorised it—that I was employed by, for
instance, Rolls-Royce or Airbus and
that I had done my engineering training at the excellent City of Bristol
college facilities nearby. That would be similar to what is provided
whenever someone receives a certificate from another training provider,
such as a university. I have a BA in history and it is important to me
that it was awarded by the university of Bristol. I think that an
apprentice, whether from the city of Bristol or the west of England in
general, would like it to be shown on the certificate on their wall
that the City of Bristol college was the excellent institution at which
they were
trained.
Jim
Knight: I would be fascinated to know whether the hon.
Gentleman’s A-level certificates include the name of the
institution at which he studied for them, assuming that he has some. If
they do not, is he very disappointed that the name of the institution
is not shown on his
certificates?
Stephen
Williams: The Minister is asking me a trick question in
asking me to think back to when I last looked at the Welsh Joint
Education Committee O-level and A-level certificates, or the S-level
certificate; by the way, I got a distinction in history. Whether it was
specified that it was at Mountain Ash comprehensive school, I do not
recall.
Certainly,
when one goes on to achieve a higher level of qualification beyond the
compulsory age of school leaving, it is normal for the institution at
which one has studied to be specified on the certificate. I do not
think that my colleagues and I, or the Conservatives, have tabled
unreasonable amendments. I hope that, in the friendly fashion that we
are conducting our discussions this afternoon, the Government will be
minded to accept
them.
Mr.
Hayes: The virtue of the employer on the certificate is,
of course, that it might add to the employability of the person who has
received the certificate. If someone has done an apprenticeship at
Rolls-Royce, it would be worthy, given the status of that business. It
would be the same with many small and medium-sized enterprises in my
constituency. It seems extraordinary that we are embarrassed about
putting the name of an employer on a certificate, given that we want
only good employers that have some status, from which the apprentice
might confer a benefit, to be involved in
apprenticeships.
Stephen
Williams: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. It is entirely
reasonable for an apprentice to feel proud of wherever they have
trained—whether with a multinational company, such as
Rolls-Royce, or a SME, which may be a supplier of that multinational
and therefore would have a working relationship with
it. Finally,
this discussion leads me to ask the Minister about the responsibility
for the training records of the apprentice. I have never been an
apprentice, but I do have a professional qualification and one goes
through much the same process of needing to have a job—as the
Minister says, that is essential—and having to undertake
work-based training and studying in relation to the job. In my case,
that was with a private sector training provider. Normally, to get a
professional qualification—mine is from the Chartered Institute
of Taxation—people must present evidence of all their training
for the certificate
to be issued. Therefore, I wonder what evidence the apprentice or the
employer will have to present to show that all those components have
been satisfied, and who is responsible for keeping that
record? Mr.
Simon: As the hon. Gentleman mentioned how proud he would
be to be an apprentice at Airbus in Bristol, I want to mention that I
have relatively recently visited Airbus in Bristol and met some
apprentices there. I can tell him that, although I am to my core a
Welsh Brummie, I would also be very proud to have been an apprentice at
Airbus in Bristol. It is a very fine company, which is providing some
very fine training and learning in the workplace.
I understand
entirely where Opposition Members are coming from with these
amendments, and I have a good deal of sympathy with their approach. On
balance, we have decided not to accept their amendments, although I
should add that clause 9(2) provides the power to make regulations to
specify that “other matters” be included on the
certificate. I will go through the counter-arguments against their
amendments, but I will do so with the proviso of saying that theirs is
a good argument and that, over time, if matters appear otherwise, the
ability will exist in the Bill for other matters to be
included.
I need to
stress a point that we mentioned earlier in our discussion about why
the certifying authority is the NAS, rather than the sector skills
council. One of the reasons is the uniformity of the certificate. For
the first time, a consistent, clearly recognisable certificate will
exist across England to mark the successful completion of an
apprenticeship. That is good for both employers and apprentices, and it
is an important part of what we are trying to
do.
6
pm In
specifying the information to be included in the certificate, it is
essential to strike a balance between setting out a clear statutory
framework, ensuring that the information that the apprentice’s
and employer’s needs appear on the certificate, and placing
unnecessary burdens on individuals, providers and employers and
obfuscation through a surfeit of information, which, as we all know, is
always a danger. That is why the clause keeps to a minimum the
information required for the certificate to be effective. It will
include the name of the holder, the level of the apprenticeship and the
framework and sector to which it relates.
I take the
point made by the hon. Member for Bristol, West and with which the hon.
Member for South Holland and The Deepings agreed. The stature of the
institutions in which the work is done and the learning provided can
attach to the apprenticeship and therefore to the individual. We need
to be clear that the authority that the certificate is designed to
express is vested in the NAS. It is a single national scheme, with a
single national certificate. That is how we intend clearly to express
the authority of the certificate, rather than by doing so through the
institutions. We
considered the case for including additional information carefully,
including the things that the amendments cover. We concluded that to
include qualifications that have been successfully completed
would be a duplication and, as such, unnecessary. The apprenticeship
frameworks will set out the qualifications that need to be achieved to
be eligible for a certificate. That information will be publicly
available, and more importantly, apprentices will also receive
certificates from the appropriate awarding bodies for each
qualification that they achieve. It is therefore unnecessary to repeat
that certification on the apprenticeship completion
certificate. We also
concluded that to include the employer or employers was, on balance,
not desirable. First, we do not want an apprenticeship certificate to
be a CV. We expect apprentices to list their career history on their
CV, not on their apprenticeship certificate. Secondly, the
counter-point to the one made articulately and elegantly by the hon.
Member for Bristol, West is that we want parity of esteem for the
programme across the sector. We do not want differentiation of esteem
based on the institutions at which apprentices have studied or
worked.
There is also
a practical difficulty with the work aspect. As we said when debating a
previous group of amendments, apprentices might have undertaken
training with several providers. All of a sudden, there might be seven
different workplaces and seven different providers on the certificate
and things will start to look unclear.
As I have
said, a good, valid case has been made, and we have considered it
carefully. The power to add information later is in the
Bill.
| 
