We Brits are a pragmatic lot, so when I see new principles set out in a new charter, I’m always keen to test them against the messy reality that I know. As it happens, I’m particularly well-placed to do so with the CIPD’s new charter for internships, as my son is just about to complete his. Let’s take each in turn.

Recruitment: “interns should be recruited in broadly the same way as regular employees of an organisation”. My son (graduating this summer) got to know about this opportunity because a friend of my daughter’s already works at the company. She’s met him, and when her colleagues were talking about the kind of person they wanted for an IT internship, she said she knew just the person. The techies took over, talked to him on the phone to establish that he had the right knowledge and skill, then met him, to check he would fit in, and that was that. Is this how the company normally recruits? (which is CIPD’s slightly surprising, but I presume carefully drafted, test). Yes: that’s exactly how my daughter’s friend got her job: through contacts. Tick.

Induction: “interns should receive a proper induction to the organisation…”. It sounded a bit informal, but he certainly got one, because the company was keen for him to get stuck into some work. Tick.

Supervision: “organisations should ensure there is a dedicated person(s) who has allowed time in their work schedule to supervise the intern and conduct regular performance reviews”. Well, it was a bit more informal than that, given high volumes of work all round, and especially with the second part (rather more a chat down the pub than is implied here, but the effect was the same). Taking the requirement in terms of outputs rather than process – ie, whether my son got appropriate guidance on what to do, and feedback – the test was met. Tick.

Treatment: “interns should be treated with exactly the same degree of professionalism and duty of care as regular employees. They should not be… automatically assigned routine tasks…” As soon as the company got the measure of what my son could do, they gave him real work, and work which mattered to them, at first relatively straightforward, then with real substance. He was unquestionably doing something of value to the company (and learning from it). Two ticks.

Payment and duration: “as a bare minimum the organisation should cover any necessary work-related expenses … “ My son was paid the minimum wage, as promised. He was told it would probably last up to three months, and it has done. Tick.

Certification/reference and feedback: “organisations should provide interns with a certificate/reference letter detailing the work they have undertaken…” My son’s company hasn’t met the letter of this requirement: it has gone much further. His boss said he was keen to offer him a job but unsure if he’d be able to - so he used his contacts and recommended my son to other firms with appropriate vacancies. The first firm he approached has offered him a job he’s really pleased with, which he starts in a couple of weeks, and which he wouldn’t have come across without the internship. That matters far more to him than a letter. It may not be exactly what CIPD had in mind, but I call that a result. Three ticks!

So, with my mildly pragmatic reading of it, I’d rate the CIPD’s charter highly, and recommend it. Tick!