My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that there is a balance to be struck and in no way am I dismissing the requirement for technical knowledge. However, there are now more than 200 apprenticeship frameworks whose requirements vary hugely from ones such as retail where the amount of technical knowledge will be significantly less to the much more complicated engineering, electrical and IT apprenticeship frameworks. It really is horses for courses. I do not mean in any way to dismiss the importance of technical knowledge—it is fundamentally important.
The other point raised by my noble friend Lord Layard was that of separate technical knowledge and occupational competence qualifications. Many apprenticeships contain separate qualifications but there are single qualifications that cover both points. Where appropriate, they will be separately assessed. We understand the importance of that and do not wish to demean it, but there are examples of apprenticeship frameworks where this does not apply. The way that we have structured it is appropriate given the vast number of apprenticeship frameworks. I believe that I have dealt with all the points that were raised and I commend the amendment to the noble Lords.
Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Young of Norwood Green
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 2 November 2009.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
714 c22 
Session
2008-09
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 13:40:49 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_590688
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_590688
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_590688