Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Bill

I shall speak to Amendment 11 in my name. Before doing so, I congratulate all noble Lords who have so far contributed to this important debate. The quality of contributions, as ever from this Chamber, has been of a high calibre. It was fascinating for me as someone who spent many years working in the chemical industry, where apprenticeships were the norm, to listen to the debate around Amendment 1. It would never have been necessary to have the definition of "apprentice" written down anywhere. Employers knew what apprentices did and their value to the organisation, and the apprentices knew what their role was and what opportunities an apprenticeship offered them. The Minister has a background of training as an apprentice and as a long-standing trade union official and leader, and he has spent many years dealing with apprenticeships. In congratulating him on his role, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said, "Yes, my Lords, but it was a long time ago and things have moved on". Things have indeed moved on and for the better, but it is as important as it ever was to remember that an apprenticeship is worth the name only if the content of the training, on and off the job, is of high quality, the individual is well supported and the apprenticeship brings with it value not just to the apprentices, who receive the awards with great pride, but to the employer who recognises the skills of the individual and exactly what they can expect from each other. I declare an interest as having worked with Semta Sector Skills Council in putting forward my amendment and supporting its work with employers. SSCs are employer-led—my noble friend recognised that in his response to Amendment 1. Including them on a certificate is an indication that employers still have control over the content and quality of the framework. Explicit employer engagement is not mentioned in the apprenticeship elements of the Bill. If employers are truly to own apprenticeships, and if the name of the employer is not to appear on the certificate—there is mixed value in that, one disadvantage being the cumbersomeness of having several employers on the certificate as people move around—the SSC logo is a useful indicator to all employers of the nature of the programme. As my noble friend said earlier, the role of the SSC in developing frameworks was endorsed by our Government. That was stated clearly at Second Reading. There is an argument that the SSC should have responsibility publicly acknowledged, for both good and bad. If the framework is not up to much—and we hope that it never is in that state—why should any SSC get away without their name being associated with it and taking responsibility for it? I think that I heard my noble friend say when responding to Amendment 1 that the SSC name would appear on the certificates. If I heard correctly, I am delighted and I thank my noble friend for announcing this. If I did not, then I urge him to take on board the arguments put to him during this debate and to reconsider the Government’s position.