Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Bill

I shall speak to Amendment 10 in this group. It is somewhat surprising to find such detail about the wording on the certificates to be enshrined in law, but, if it is to feature, we need to consider what is appropriate. Too much information leads to confusion and too little is obviously not helpful. I like the description of the purpose of a certificate given by the noble Baroness, Lady Wall, as a passport for employment. Certainly, one of the purposes of a vocational qualification is to provide public recognition that agreed standards have been met and to offer assurances of transferable skills that will help potential employers to identify suitable candidates for employment or further training. It is essential to have on the certificate—as stated in the Bill—the name of the candidate, as well as the apprenticeship framework and sector, which would include the trade, craft or industry of achievement, and the level of achievement. Presumably, there also would be a date. During my time working with City and Guilds, which has awarded many millions of certificates over the years, it was established practice for further education colleges to feature on vocational qualification certificates. This had and has the full support of the Association of Colleges. The college would normally have been responsible for ensuring that training standards had been met, as well as for the administrative registration of candidates. As educational institutions, they gave quality assurance of objective standards, took responsibility for the trustworthiness of the certificate and gained the credit for having done that. The college may also stand as an official employer if it is working with SMEs through a group training association. However, other training centres would not automatically be included on the certificate if it was considered that they might in any way restrict the acceptability of the qualification. For instance, qualifications gained during military service in engineering, construction and catering normally would not state that the training provider was in a military context. The skills and achievement were, after all, assessed against national standards and there was a possibility, however remote, that civilian employers would think that the skills would not transfer to a civilian workforce. By way of an example from a different situation, certificates awarded to those in prison would not name the place of training and assessment but would give credit for the proficiency demonstrated. They could be shown to a potential employer without incurring possible discrimination. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, flagged up in his first amendment putting an employer’s name on a certificate—the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, did the same. There are arguments against this which also centre on transferability, acceptability and quality assurance. Employers can, as we know, change their names; they can go out of business; they may be recognised only locally or regionally—I shall not reintroduce the debate on the Welsh-English borders at this point. An employer’s name might be a barrier to future employment. For instance, an apprentice to a builder in Tyneside might find that his certificate was less well accepted if applying for a job in Devon, where the employer’s name was simply not known. A few years ago, an apprentice with Woolworths, for instance, might have considered that they had the backing of a nationally recognised, well established employer, but they might find the relevant certificate a little more questionable today. If an apprentice was applying to a competitor organisation, they might be challenged on a conflict of interest, as well as on whether there were variations in standards between companies in the same business. None of those doubts would apply for an FE college. Naming colleges would continue a long-established practice. It would give credit to colleges for all the work and quality assurance that they do. It would give added security to employers and an ingredient of transferable employability to apprentices. I hope that the Minister will respond positively to this amendment in the group. I look forward to his reply.