Clause 1(7) states:

“An ‘English apprenticeship agreement’ … is an agreement under which a person undertakes to work wholly or mainly in England”.

As no reference was made in the Explanatory Notes to this restrictive condition, I wondered why it was there.

If it were not there, and an amendment had been tabled to put it in, the proposer would risk being told that such an amendment was unnecessary. How about Scotland? Are the Welsh to be confined to Wales? Things may be more serious than that. It is not in our interests to be any more restrictive or controlling than we need to be. All skills initiatives should be welcomed.

If I were running a United States textile company with subsidiaries in the United Kingdom and in three or four other European countries—perhaps a textile company interested in supplying Italian design fabrics to George Davies—I would not welcome this subsection. What does “mainly in England” mean? Is my budding apprentice capable of giving me an undertaking that I do not really want? Who would enforce it if the undertaking were not kept? Is it lawful anyway? I thought that there was freedom of movement and employment in Europe. In our proceedings so far, the Minister has given us well argued examples of top-down control whereas we need bottom-up diversity with the minimum of so-called coherence.

Subsection (2)(e) of proposed new Section 63E on the subject of study applications states that study,

“would be undertaken within or outside the United Kingdom”.

Why the difference? I beg to move.

I thank the noble Lord for moving his amendment. There are those who think that the Welsh should be confined to Wales and the Scots to Scotland. I am not one of them, I hasten to assure the Committee.

I live in Wales, not very far from the border, and am aware that many young people live on the border. We go to one side of the border or another for various public services, including our local hospital, which although it is in Wales gets a lot of people from across the border in England. That happens in this part of the country. I should be grateful for the noble Lord’s clarification on the position of someone living near the border in England who may wish to carry out apprenticeship requirements just over the border in Wales.

I agree with my noble friend Lord Eccles that the purpose of subsection (7) is opaque to say the least. We very much look forward to the Minister’s explanation for its purpose.

Let us hope that I can shed some light.

The noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, raised an interesting point about the location of work and training that is undertaken as part of the apprenticeship arrangements that we are putting in place for England. We have been clear that this legislation is intended to create a statutory framework for England, and a separate statutory framework is being created for Wales. We have to recognise devolution. This subsection and the Welsh mirror in Clause 5(8) are intended to take account of the different apprenticeship systems that will be operating in England and Wales, and there are some differences. These are set out in the Specification of Apprenticeship Standards for England—SASE—and the Specification of Apprenticeship Standards for Wales—SASW. Although both countries will have an apprenticeship agreement with the same prescribed terms, there will be slight variations in the apprenticeship being undertaken.

This subsection is intended to reflect the fact that the English certifying authority should issue certificates only to apprentices working wholly or mainly in England. Clause 5(8) provides that the Welsh certifying authority should be issuing certificates only under the same circumstances in Wales. Therefore, we need to retain this clause to avoid any overlap of responsibilities.

I understand the noble Viscount’s concern about companies that operate globally and that may want to deploy English apprentices overseas for some of their employment and training. There is no reason why they should not do that. However, in practice, I suspect that very few apprentices will be deployed in this way. The vast majority will be working under an apprenticeship agreement which will be covered under employment law of England and Wales, and we need to be clear about where the responsibility lies. In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, we recognise that there will be across-the-border activities. We would not rule that out, but we must recognise that different authorities are involved. We do not rule out some flexibility; we recognise that there might be circumstances when, for part of the time, employment and training might be across the border in Wales or, the other way round, in England—and, possibly, part of the time it would be overseas. But we think that there is sufficient flexibility, and hope that on the basis of that explanation the noble Viscount will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

The Minister said that there would be slight variations between England and Wales. Can he expand a bit on that? What sort of variations does he expect, and why?

I cannot give the noble Lord a specific example, except to say that they are a different authority and we have devolved that power to them, so there will be variations in the apprenticeship framework. I am sorry that off the top of my head I cannot give a specific example, but the fact that there are two authorities, that we have devolution and there are devolved powers means that inevitably there will be those variations. It could be an English-based or Welsh-based apprenticeship, which is why we put in the phrase to which I referred. We expect that the majority of the time, if it is an English apprenticeship framework, the apprenticeship will take place in England—I say the majority; we are not ruling out that some of the time it will not be. If it is a Welsh apprenticeship framework, the majority of the time it will take place in Wales.

Am I right in thinking that at present the certifying authorities are sector skills councils? Do they operate across these national borders within the United Kingdom? Do they operate in Wales and in Scotland?

Yes, they do.

So at the moment, since they are the certifying authority, the apprenticeship certificates are issued on a cross-border basis.

As I said earlier, this subsection is intended to reflect the fact that the English certifying authority should be issuing certificates only to apprentices working wholly or mainly in England, and vice versa. That will be in the Specification of Apprenticeship Standards for England and in that for Wales. Although the sector skills councils may operate in that way, that is where we are in terms of issuing the certificates and what the authority should be. We believe that there is enough flexibility, as defined. It does not rule out some movement. We are saying that they should be working wholly or mainly in England. My experience of apprenticeships, and others’ more current experience, suggests that that will serve the vast majority of cases.

I find this rather confusing. Could it be that some difference of fee structure is making clarification between the two nations difficult?

It is not the fee structure; it is that we have devolved powers. The differences between England and Wales include: key skills in Wales instead of functional skills in England; no personal learning and thinking skills in the Welsh framework; and a Welsh baccalaureate qualification. We cannot ignore the fact that it has the devolved powers to do that. It is not about fee structure; it is the fact that we have devolved powers, and that we have defined the authority that is going to specify the apprenticeship standards—one for England and one for Wales.

As somebody who is very heavily involved in the sector skills councils, I support the final statement made by my noble friend; there are differences across the four nations in NVQs and other elements that sector skills councils deal with. I will make the arguments when moving my own amendment, but as regards a passport for employment, the certificate should be able to be read right across all the countries. People do not just get an apprenticeship in England and then work forever in England. There are other arguments about where the sector skills councils’ logo should be on the certificate, but I should like to reserve those. There are differences in how the sector skills councils work across four nations—Scotland has different NVQs and Wales, as my noble friend has said, has a baccalaureate, which we do not have here—but that does not necessarily mean that they have to manifest themselves across the certificates as well.

The House has accepted a definition of an apprenticeship which includes a mixture of on and off-the-job learning, and we have heard the example of a community which goes across the Welsh border to a hospital in Wales. What happens if those same people in that hospital do their off-the-job learning in England and their on-the-job learning in Wales, or vice versa? The subsection says “wholly or mainly”, but does the certificate have to emanate from the authority in which the greater amount of time is taken, or is there some other criterion? I think there will be real cases like this; we are not just talking hypothetically.

What ill would befall, if this section were left out, and it were merely left to the good sense of the people running the system? What possible iniquity do the Government imagine that this subsection is preventing?

It is not a matter of iniquity. We are addressing the fact that, first, we have devolved powers in this area, and, secondly, we have two different apprenticeship standards authorities; one for England, one for Wales. With due respect, we are discussing hypothetical cases and that is part of the problem. We are discussing the case of whether somebody might be with a training provider in England and carrying out some of their training in Wales. I believe that that is a hypothetical case.

To a certain extent, who will take responsibility for learners on the Welsh border will depend on where the particular learner lives. I thought the major concern was whether there would be some flexibility in where the apprentice carried out their learning or their work experience. We say that there is some flexibility, because we have said that the work must be “wholly or mainly” in England, so there is a bit of flexibility there. We think that that is sufficient.

The Minister said that we were discussing hypothetical cases. He also said that there would be occasions on which this happened. He then said in an aside—I merely ask him to confirm that he said this—that it would be decided according to the authority in which the learner lived. Is that the criterion, because it is not apparent from the Bill?

I was simply trying to respond to a question about who would take responsibility for learners on the Welsh border, and merely made the point that that would depend on where the learner lived. I want to come back to the main point of concern, which was articulated by the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, about the need for flexibility. I think that I have responded to that.

I might point out to the Minister that subsection (7) makes it quite clear that the key issue is that,

“a person undertakes to work wholly or mainly in England”.

The key issue is where the work experience is, not where the learner lives.

Yes, indeed. A lot of jobs, after all, involve being outside the United Kingdom, let alone being in different parts of the United Kingdom. If you are trying to train in many leisure-related activities, the company for which you work may well have activities abroad. Many English people are sent to work abroad to look after English people who are holidaying there. I imagine that we still have something approaching a small Merchant Navy, which might well consider that its training took place offshore some of the time. If you work in the oil industry, you might well work offshore or in different countries as part of a good apprenticeship. This is a totally unnecessary restriction, and we will keep on at the Minister until he says that he will take this away and think about it. He is not getting much help from his officials in the Box. I imagine that they have run out of ideas. Why not give them some time to think about it better?

Perhaps I could decide what to do about my amendment. It is after the dinner hour, and I thought that I was engaging in a leitmotif overture, but it seems to have turned into Act 1 of a Wagnerian drama. We are back almost to Hans Sachs and his apprentice David.

I introduced Scotland and Wales only because it seemed to me that no one was going to suggest that you could not move freely across the boundaries to Wales and to Scotland, and that “mainly”—I asked what that meant—would not be applied to people who moved between Wales and Scotland. The Minister will be surprised to hear that I was once a premium apprentice. I did part of my apprenticeship in Glasgow, but I suppose that I was not really supposed to do that; I should have stayed in England. This is my problem; I do not understand why we have to have these restrictions.

I also asked a couple of other questions which, with due respect, the Minister has not quite dealt with. How can an apprentice be enforced to give this undertaking? I was 23 when I got my premium apprenticeship; I must have had special educational needs to have waited so long.

How can we expect somebody who undertakes an apprenticeship to give an enforceable undertaking? They might give an undertaking, but it is not enforceable, that is for sure. The Minister did not answer the question about Europe. I wonder whether Clause 1(7) is okay under European law. I would guess that it is not, but I am not a lawyer. I was grateful to the Minister for mentioning that we lived in a global economy because that was my central point. A lot of employers operate in England and are not English: perhaps they are German or from the United States. Faced with this clause, they would say, “I don't want to be any part of this system if I've got to get into the bureaucracy of what’s in Clause 1(7)”.

The Minister should take this matter back and think about it. What I said at the beginning is entirely right. This is entirely unnecessary, so why not drop it so that we have one less restriction?

To address one point, having met a number of BMW and Porsche apprentices, I assure the noble Viscount that they undertake the majority of their apprenticeship training in the UK, which is not to deny that there may be other examples. I think that they undertake some exchanges with their German equivalents. I will take this away to consider it because I fear that I have not totally convinced the noble Viscount of the efficacy of this particular clause.

I am grateful to the Minister and all those who have taken part in a debate that I did not anticipate. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

In moving Amendment 7, I shall also speak to Amendment 8, which is consequential to it. I will also use this opportunity to apologise for tabling so many amendments without speaking at Second Reading. I did send the Minister an explanatory note saying that I had to be at a funeral that day, which was quite unavoidable, but I apologise none the less. Since everyone else is declaring interests, I declare an interest which is perhaps tangential, but will become less so in the Bill, as an honorary fellow of the City and Guilds of London Institute.

I revert—in much better heart than I expected before this afternoon began—to the question of definitions, because the Committee has decided to start the Bill with the definition of apprenticeship. There is an established principle that a definition should always come as early as possible when you are talking about anything. My amendment is aimed at the definition of the term “prescribed manner” which appears in Clause 5(1). You have to go to Clause 6(2) to get the definition of it. That is a quite unnecessary separation of the use of the word and its definition. My amendment simply substitutes for “prescribed manner” the definition that is in Clause 6, which is “the manner prescribed by Welsh Ministers”, because that is the bit that deals with Wales.

I was not intending to look at that aspect of the Bill at all, but one reads through before one comes to the patch that one is concerned with. I perhaps did so too quickly, because I skimmed over the very beginning of the Bill when we have the same phrase used in Clause 1(1). If the Minister finds that he has the information to hand, it might be helpful for him to tell me where the definition of that is; I cannot find it in this end of the Bill. That may be relevant.

All I am trying to do is use fewer words, which we are all encouraged to do; take out a subsection, which one should always do if it is unnecessary; and let the reader know what he is reading when he reads it instead of having to turn over a page or two and find the definition later on. I beg to move.

I strongly support what the noble Lord, Lord Elton, is trying to do. It is bad enough, when you have a Bill that amends a lot of Acts, to require a pile of those previous Acts on your desk to find out what is being amended; it is even worse when you have to look forward several pages in the same Bill to find out what is being talked about. I hope that the Minister will take that back to those who draft these Bills and make it general practice. When people talk in acronyms, the first time that one appears, Hansard helpfully gives the full title. The same sort of principle should apply to the drafting of a Bill.

My noble friend explained his amendment with his usual clarity. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, I agree with him, and I cannot imagine how the Minister could do otherwise.

Imagination is a wonderful thing. This is definitely one for the connoisseurs. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, for the time and attention he has given to the Bill and to how it could be simplified and made straightforward.

Clauses 5 and 6 give the Welsh Ministers the power to issue certificates, provided that the Welsh completion conditions have been met. While I appreciate the noble Lord’s desire to reduce the length of the Bill, Amendments 7 and 8 would instead reduce the level of clarity that we seek, which is to be certain that the Welsh Ministers’ powers are prescribed in a manner that is by regulation. Removing Clause 6(2) would mean that the “prescribed manner” referred to in Clauses 5 and 6 was not defined, and it would not be clear that it means prescribed by regulations by Welsh Ministers. I told you that this was one for the connoisseurs.

Clause 256 provides a definition of “prescribed” for the Secretary of State as meaning “prescribed by regulations”, which is why Clause 1 does not need the same definition. On the basis of those explanations, I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment. If there is any doubt in our minds that we have not addressed this issue properly then naturally we will look at it, but we believe that there is a distinction between the two, which I have just defined. That is why the word “prescribed” is used with regard to the regulations by Welsh Ministers.

I cannot withdraw my amendment until I have understood the reason why I am being asked to do so. Let us set aside my parenthetical question about Clause 1, which I do not think impinges on this; I am happy simply to read what the Minister said before the next stage. On the amendment, though, I understood him to say that if we took out Clause 6(2) there would be no definition of the prescribed manner. That, however, is only on the assumption that we had not substituted the words in subsection (1) that I propose, which would make it clear. I do not follow his reasoning here. I may have misheard him, and maybe other noble Lords have heard him better than I have, but, for my own benefit, could he tell me slowly and clearly whether there is anything that he said, beyond what I have repeated, that I could possibly accept as a reason for withdrawing my amendment?

Our view is that these amendments would reduce the level of clarity, which is to be certain that Welsh Ministers’ powers are prescribed in a manner that is by regulation. Removing Clause 6(2) would mean that that prescribed manner referred to in Clauses 5 and 6 is not defined and it will not be clear that it means prescribed by regulations by Welsh Ministers. I am also advised that the amendment does not mention the words “in regulations”.

I am obliged to the noble Lord for that. It seems to me that I must come back with the word “regulation” in my back pocket and put it where it needs to be put. I hope that I will have the noble Lord’s sympathy in trying to get clear English at the beginning of a Bill and shorter phraseology. With those cheerful nods along the Front Bench, I will happily withdraw this amendment.

Amendment 9 proposes that the apprenticeship certificate must state that the qualifications “have been successfully completed” and identify the employer. We want to see adequate details of an apprenticeship included in the relevant certificate. That is important for two reasons. First, it would give employers, principally future employers, greater ability to see what lies behind the certificate. Secondly, it would ensure that the highest possible standards are achieved and maintained in apprenticeships. I look forward to hearing the explanations of those noble Lords proposing the other amendments in this group because I expect that I will sympathise with them. I beg to move.

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.

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.

I support these amendments. It is difficult for us to realise how confusing the world of education can seem to employers, particularly small and medium enterprises. We move the goalposts and the names and nature of qualifications far too fast for the average busy and preoccupied employer to understand. When a young person presents themselves for employment, the employer will look at the information that they provide and the certificate that they have achieved. If they can recognise something that gives them confidence—from the sector skills council, the previous employer, the further education college or whatever piece of information it is—they will say, “Yes, these people have said you are okay, so I know you are okay”. That is important. Just a basic statement that you have achieved an apprenticeship is not enough for the average employer. They need to have something that explains to them exactly what it means, so I strongly support all three amendments in the group.

The amendments raise some important issues that we grappled with in developing the requirements for the contents of apprenticeship certificates, which are set out in Clause 9. Indeed, we considered both the suggestions in Amendment 9. Our aim has been to strike a balance between setting a clear statutory framework and avoiding placing unnecessary burdens on individuals, providers and employers. To include qualifications that have been successfully completed on the completion certificate would duplicate existing information. For the apprenticeship certificate to be awarded, the apprentice must have completed the qualifications set out in the framework. The awarding bodies will provide certificates for the qualifications for which they are responsible. Indeed, I have in my possession somewhere at home a range of City and Guilds certificates, if I could ever find them again.

The name of the employer with which the apprentice trained will be available on the individual’s CV. It will be a piece of information routinely included in application forms for jobs. It was interesting listening to the eloquent contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, when she pointed out some of the problems with including employers’ names on apprenticeship certificates. Similarly, I recognise that there might be some interest in knowing with which provider an apprentice undertook their learning, but I should point out, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, that this would not necessarily be a college of further education. She gave a number of interesting examples of why providing that information would not be appropriate.

Details of the institution and awarding body may be provided on the certificates issued for each of the qualifications attained during the apprenticeship. To include these details again on the apprenticeship completion certificate would be unnecessary duplication. Perhaps the most important point for me is that we should ensure that there is parity of esteem for apprenticeships. If somebody has an apprenticeship certificate and makes it clear that they have undertaken an apprenticeship where the standards have been clearly defined to a high set of criteria and have been validated, that is what an employer would specifically be interested in.

There is a concern about identifying, for instance, FE colleges. There are FE colleges and FE colleges. Do we really want that to be associated with the apprenticeship certificate? We do not want to in any way undermine the fact that the individual concerned has been through that apprenticeship and has met the requirements of the apprenticeship standards. We have concerns about FE colleges in that respect.

If, despite that, these matters are important to an employer, the information will be available to them through the other routes that I have described. I recognise that there is a debate on this issue and I assure the Committee that if, in the light of practice and experience, it becomes clear that it is necessary to make regulations specifying other matters to be included in the certificate, Clause 9(2) provides this power.

Turning to Amendment 11, I pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Wall for her intervention. I am happy to reiterate the importance of sector skills councils to the apprenticeship programme. They are the bodies that, in consultation with employers, will help to derive the apprenticeship framework; they are the bodies that will make sure that it aligns itself with certain standards. I am happy to confirm that the apprenticeship certificate will state the name of the apprenticeship framework and the sector to which it relates and will carry the branding or logo of the sector skills council that issued the framework.

There may be occasions when the issuing authority is not a sector skills council—for example, when the framework covers an occupation that is not within the footprint of a sector skills council. In such cases, temporary alternative issuing arrangements will have to be made and it would not be appropriate to include the branding on the certificate. However, that is an exceptional circumstance.

While we expect the National Apprenticeship Service to include the sector skills council branding on apprenticeship certificates, we do not consider it appropriate to require that in the Bill. Wales will have its own arrangements for the issuing of apprenticeship certificates—I am frightened to mention the word “Wales” in case it encourages another debate—and I understand that Welsh Ministers, too, will expect their issuing authority to include sector skills council branding.

I hope that the noble Lord and the noble Baroness will be willing not to press their amendments and recognise that what we need to ensure is that, when an apprentice produces their apprenticeship certificate, it does not matter, with due respect, whether it has been obtained with the help of a certain FE college or another training provider; what matters is that we have provided a quality experience for that apprentice and validated it, so an employer can say, “With that certificate, I can be confident when I employ that apprentice”.

It would be a fascinating principle to apply to universities. The proposition that we should know that someone has a first class degree but not know which university it came from would startle us all. It is immensely important that the name of the FE college should be on the certificate—it is the motivation for the FE college to do its job well. An FE college is known by the quality of the people who have been through its apprenticeship schemes—this is the way many FE colleges work. They are immensely proud of the quality of their graduates, maintain a strong relationship with the industry and are known to be great places to train as this, that or the other. That sort of reputation is the motivation for FE colleges to do well, and to continue to do well. It is essential that the FE college brand should be on an apprenticeship certificate; that someone should be known by the FE college that they have been to; and that the FE college should be known by the quality of its graduates.

Something else that appears to be missing from the certificate is a date. If the certificate is to be of any value, it must be something that can be checked. If you present a certificate that just says, “Ralph Lucas has this apprenticeship”, where does it get you? There are plenty of Ralph Lucases in the world. You do not know where it comes from, there is no one obvious to check it with—and even if you did, they would ask, “When?” and you would not be able to answer. There must be something on the certificate that enables it to be validated by an employer. A date and the name of the FE college would do it. If the sector skills councils are going to keep records, fine—but the certificate must still have a date.

However, I come back to where I started: it is of immense value to have the FE college on the certificate. It is good for the person who has done the apprenticeship, particularly if they have been to an FE college with a good reputation. Many of these colleges have nationwide reputations in particular sectors. It is very good for FE colleges to be able to be known by their students in this way.

I strongly support what my noble friend has just said. I found it extremely upsetting that the Minister was dismissive in saying, “Well, there are FE colleges and FE colleges”, as if somehow there were accredited and publicly financed FE colleges which were somehow inferior, whose names would be a disadvantage on a certificate. I find that extremely concerning. I would have thought that the name of any accredited British educational institution on a certificate ought to be an absolute guarantee of its quality. If that is not true, I ask myself what the Government have been doing for the past 12 years.

Perhaps I could have phrased that more carefully. I certainly did not mean to impugn the quality of FE colleges. I was trying to say that I do not want us, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, was suggesting, to start distinguishing between FE colleges. That makes the point. Why do we need to do this? I recall that my City and Guilds certificates probably contain the name of the college, but they are not the apprenticeship certificate. That is not the only thing that an employer will be requesting of a potential employee, as I am sure that noble Lords are well aware.

I do not accept the analogy with HE. Of course the employer can be aware if they want to see the individual’s actual qualifications. However, first, not all apprentices, as we have heard the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, tell us, will do their training in FE colleges. So, what are we saying? That we will leave a blank space in some cases, so that some certificates will contain that information and some will not? We are trying to create a situation where we acknowledge the fact that the individual concerned has been through a properly accredited and validated apprenticeship scheme where the standards have been clearly defined and inspected. Surely that is the number one consideration of any employer.

The Minister was implying that this was an unnecessary additional piece on the certificate. There would be some certificates without a training provider on them; that is normal practice. We—including noble Lords on the Conservative Benches—are saying that it would be an additional benefit to those who gained apprenticeship certificates if there were the name of an FE college to show that that was an additional form of accreditation and guarantee of standards on the certificate.

I was rightly accused by the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, of implying a differentiation in standards in FE colleges. On the other hand, we are told that we have to display them. Do we really want to do it in that way? The most important thing that we can do is to establish that the individual concerned has been through a properly validated apprenticeship programme. That is surely the most important thing that an employer would want to see. The number one thing that the certificate needs to establish is that they have been through that particular apprenticeship framework.

It is appropriate that the sector skills council should be acknowledged, as they were after all the group that helped to determine the particular framework and are representative of the employers. If employers want other information about the FE college, they are quite capable of seeing that from certificates. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, you will see the name of the university on the degree, just as you will see the name on the qualifications provided by an FE college. The debate that we are now having is to do with whether we need to include all that information on the certificate. In some circumstances, as the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, identified, it would be unhelpful for this information to be there. Perhaps I misunderstood the context. I thought that the noble Baroness referred to prisons, for example, and employers that had gone out of business.

Let me correct any misunderstanding. I was saying that there were some forms of training provider or employer that might reduce the value or transferability of the certificate by being on the certificate. Not for one moment was I suggesting that an FE college’s name on a certificate would in any way hinder transferability.

I wonder if the Minister would accept that, whatever is on the certificate, the question that anybody will be asked is, “Where did you serve your time?”. That is the question. There is absolutely no way that anybody can avoid being asked that question and answering it. The question then becomes one of how open you are before the interview.

On a point of information, what appears on the certificate issued by the sector skills council at the moment?

If somebody is capable of providing the answer to that question, we will do so. This debate is, I believe, still missing the main point. The main point for an apprentice is whether they have something to demonstrate that they have been through a properly validated and accredited apprenticeship programme. Surely that is the main point. Are we seriously saying that, today, anybody who employs someone does not ask them who their previous employer was and where they undertook their courses of study? It seems to me that it is an inherent part of any application for employment. That information is not going to be concealed from any potential employers, so it has nothing to do with openness and transparency.

The core of this argument is whether we want an apprenticeship certificate— regardless of the FE college or training provider—to demonstrate that the individual has the core competencies to carry out the type of work. If I have qualified in electrical work or plumbing, the employer wants to see that I have been through that apprenticeship framework and have a certificate, properly validated by the particular sector skills council. The additional information is available, if that is what the employer feels is most important. I accept the point of the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, about knowing where they did their workplace experience and who their previous employer was. That is normal employment practice. It does not have to be on the apprenticeship certificate. I give way.

I thank the Minister. He encourages me again to try to make the point that I was going to make a moment ago. The noble Lord relies, in his approach, on his hope that, in the future, the credibility and understanding of what an apprentice means will be so general that there will be no need to put the FE college, or almost anything else, on the certificate. That is a hope. It may well be that, in time, employers and anybody else will understand sufficiently what the standard of an apprenticeship certificate means. Until that time, it would really be helpful to employers to know where training took place.

I can help the Minister a little by pointing out that we would be quite happy to accept his definition of what is the most important thing about the certificate. It is that the apprentice has completed a course that has been regulated and is of quality. That does not have to be the only information. I am sure that we would be happy to accept that if he would accept that an important supplementary piece of information is the place where the work was done. Then we would all be satisfied.

I feel that this is becoming a circular debate—we are reiterating the points. Perhaps I ought to at least have another look at the points that are being made in the interests of time.

I am grateful to all the noble Lords who have spoken on these amendments, and indeed to the Minister for trying so valiantly to respond. However, we feel that inclusion of this information will encourage employers, and others involved, to aim for higher and higher standards. I detected an element of agreement from the noble Baroness, Lady Wall, on that point.

We also think that the very least that can be expected is that the certificate should say, on its face, that the qualification has been successfully completed. My noble friend Lord Lucas spoke about university degrees. It is proposed that these certificates will not even say that the qualification has been successfully completed. Because I have not heard a satisfactory answer from the Minister, I would like to test the opinion of the Committee.

I will not be moving this amendment, but in the light of the Minister’s remarks we believe that this is an important principle. We are proud of our further education colleges. Having their names on certificates is an important issue. The Minister said that he would consider the matter and bring it back. We reserve the right to raise it again on Report.

In moving the amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment 14, which is grouped with it. The amendments were laid in another place by my honourable friend Annette Brooke, the MP for Mid Dorset and North Poole, at the instigation of the RNIB, which is concerned about putting wording into the Bill to ensure that people with disabilities are not excluded from the opportunities of apprenticeships. As she pointed out, such people may take longer than others to carry out a task and they may therefore not be an attractive proposition for employers, unjustifiably of course in many cases. However, that is the situation. It is of course also essential that people with disabilities are physically able to carry out both the work and the training parts of a programme.

My honourable friend asked how the Government were going to overcome the issue. In his reply, the Minister, Siôn Simon, called in aid Clause 101, which is now Clause 102 in our version of the Bill. He pointed out,

“the chief executive of skills funding may provide or secure a range of services to assist ‘effective participation’ of learners undertaking apprenticeships”.

This, he said, would allow the chief executive,

“to include such services as would assist learners with disabilities to access apprenticeships”.—[Official Report, Commons, Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Bill Committee, 10/3/09; col. 223.]

I have laid this amendment again in your Lordships' House because we are still concerned that that answer does not adequately address the problem. Clause 102(1)(a) states that the chief executive:

“must provide or secure the provision of such services as the Chief Executive considers appropriate for assisting persons to find apprenticeship places”.

However, Clause 102(1)(b) states that he:

“may provide or secure the provision of other services for encouraging, enabling or assisting the effective participation”,

and so on. Note the difference: “must” in the first paragraph—an entitlement—and “may” in the second paragraph—a pious hope. I suggest that a pious hope, however pious, is not strong enough.

Clause 112 relates to persons aged 19 or over with learning difficulties. Under subsection (1):

“The Chief Executive must … have regard to the needs of persons with learning difficulties”.

These phrases at least demonstrate that the Government are aware that special services need to be provided to make sure that those with physical or mental disabilities or difficulties have equal access to apprenticeships. That is good, but we on these Benches, along with the RNIB and other groups, feel that this aspect of the Bill needs strengthening. How can the Minister reassure us that there will be equal access for those with disabilities to the opportunities afforded by the Bill? I beg to move.

We sympathise strongly with the argument for increased access, especially access to apprenticeships, for those with disabilities. The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, has made a powerful argument. Having said that, we feel it is important that a balance is achieved between widening access, maintaining the highest standards in apprenticeships and ensuring that already burdened employers know exactly what each level means. We look forward to hearing from the Minister how that will be achieved.

Noble Lords will know that I am chairman of the RNIB, so it is not surprising that I welcome this amendment. It provides an opportunity to make the point that the needs of disabled people need to be given proper consideration in the design of apprenticeship frameworks. It is not quite enough to say that apprenticeship frameworks should meet a disability access standard if that means complying with the DDA, because it should apply anyway. In this context, I repeat that I have extensive interests in the disability field, including research assistance, which were fully declared at Second Reading. The Government’s standard response to representations from disability organisations asking for things to be put into the Bill to address the particular needs of disabled people has been that that is not necessary because it will be taken care of by the DDA.

However, there are three problems with that. First, the DDA is too general to give the designers of apprenticeship standards specifications and frameworks a clear idea of the specific things they need to put in to meet disabled people’s needs. Secondly, some of the things that disabled people need are specific kinds of provision that would not necessarily be required by the DDA, such as access to work support.

Thirdly, where specific kinds of provision are not included as a matter of course, it is not right that the individual disabled person should be left to assert their rights by recourse to the law. It is therefore highly desirable that apprenticeship frameworks should be required to meet an accessibility standard in the sense of spelling out in some detail the specific kinds of help that disabled people may need to enable them to derive maximum benefit from an apprenticeship.

I echo what my noble friend Lord Low has said. It would be nice if we had reached the point when we did not feel it necessary to reiterate yet again that special needs, disabilities, and so on must have equal access. But I fear that that point has not yet arrived.

I congratulate the Government on the attention that they have given to this, but the way in which the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, illustrated the issue makes it clear that there is still an unevenness, and it may give rather too much flexibility on how it can be interpreted locally. I support the amendment.

I thank the noble Baroness for her amendment. As I have already said this evening, I fully support the need to ensure that young people with learning difficulties have the opportunity to benefit from the life-changing opportunities provided by apprenticeships. There is nothing dividing us on that, but it is how we deal with it that we need to crack.

I shall try to keep my contribution as brief as I can. The chief executive of the Skills Funding Agency will be bound by the Disability Discrimination Act and it will be unlawful for him to discriminate in the exercise of any of his functions. In addition, as a public authority, the chief executive will be bound by the disability equality duty in Section 49A of the Disability Discrimination Act. That will require him to proactively improve equality of opportunity for disabled people and promote positive attitudes towards them. It is intended that, when passed, the Equality Bill will revoke the Disability Discrimination Act, and the Equality Act provisions will then apply to the chief executive and to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills.

I want to be as helpful as I can. As an indication of our positive attitude, we met with the noble Lord, Lord Low, and other representatives of organisations on this issue to address how best we can address particular problems. As the noble Lord noted at Second Reading, we are ensuring that assistance under access to work will be available to apprentices. We are working with organisations representing disabled learners and potential learners to examine what practical actions can be taken to ensure that apprenticeships are accessible to those with disabilities. This includes work with Skill, representing disabled learners, and the RNIB to consider how the specification of apprenticeship standards for England could take account of an accessibility benchmark. In the light of that assurance—and obviously we shall continue those discussions—I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.

I thank the Minister for his reply and thank all noble Lords for supporting the amendment, in particular the noble Lord, Lord Low, for the perceptive points that he made. I was a little concerned about what the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, said. I am sure that he did not mean that access to apprenticeships by disabled people would necessarily lower standards. He is shaking his head, so I correctly interpreted that he does not mean that. However, he made another point about putting excessive burdens on employers. Of course we would not want to do that. There are many supportive organisations that can support employees and apprentices with disabilities and provide them with the wherewithal to enable them to do the work part of the job and the training part. With the help and support of those organisations, I am sure that there would not be excessive burdens on employers if apprenticeships should become equally accessible to people with disabilities as to fully able people. I know that that is an objective that we all share.

The Minister relied very much in his reply on the DDA. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Low, pointed out, there is a lot more to it than that. I am reassured by the fact that the Minister told us that there are ongoing conversations about how to reassure people about this aspect of the Bill. With that reassurance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.