Mr. Brian Nolan:

The fundamental difference between consortium-led and craft-led apprenticeships is that craft apprenticeships are always based on industry need. To be fair, even from the union's perspective we have to acknowledge the huge role employers play in apprenticeship. They deliver more than 80% of the training in the workplace so they are vital to the workings of it.

The need for an apprenticeship is dictated by industry need. I will give a quick example. Plumbing has been an apprenticeship for the longest time. Our pipefitters typically came from the plumbing industry but fundamental changes in industry need for pharmaceuticals, large data companies - not data centres but mass production such as the Intels of this world - and heavy industry call for more specific crafts in pipefitting and gas pipelines. This need in itself started a conversation in industry whereby stakeholders were brought together and training needs analysis and industry needs analysis were done to ask whether we will have jobs for people when we train them. The worst thing we can do is to train somebody to not be employable. A focus was put on this and the pipefitting apprenticeship was created. It has been hugely successful and is ongoing. It is fantastic.

With regard to consortium-led apprenticeships, there is potentially an idea from an employer but not necessarily groups of employers. They may come together and form a group over time. It could be a third level institute. Some of these apprenticeships we were familiar with as courses that were available off the shelf for many years. People could pay to do them but did not do so. They were rebranded and packaged as potential apprenticeships. There are various reasons for supporting them. Accounting technician is an excellent example because it appears to work for that industry. The industry stakeholders who came together at the time did it for the right reasons and just happened to get it right.

There have been proposals for various apprenticeships that we query. An example is road surfacing. Road surfacing is a profession but it is arguable that the people behind the apprenticeship and with an interest in it are the people who provide the products for making these finishings. Is there a demand for it? I do not believe there is. There are other apprenticeships that have not made the grade and have not got through. We have asked the vital questions. It has become harder and harder to have these conversations, to be quite honest. It is not led by the needs of industry; it is possibly led by the whim of individuals who think it would be good to have an apprenticeship.

The more alarming part is potentially in the hospitality sector. If an apprenticeship is not covered by the minimum wage then, arguably, the employer can pay anything as long as they pay something. Why would you put an apprenticeship into a profession that has always sought to pay less than the minimum wage, just to pay the minimum wage? Where is the long-term profession? The one thing that is key to all apprenticeships, and the one selling point every apprenticeship has, is transferable skills. People do not just become an electrician, a carpenter, an accounting technician or whatever it might be; they have the skills to adapt and go on to further education if they so choose. We have questions about this mode of apprenticeship. If it is only to push down rates of pay, then it is all the more reason to push the rate up to at least the minimum wage.

At that time the National Minimum Wage Act was being compiled there was input from trade unions. We were going from a platform where apprentices were not paid to having them paid something. This was the trade-off at the time. We understand fully why it was below the minimum wage in its time but that time has passed.