Miliband to stand by Labour’s controversial plans to scrap apprenticeships below level three

Labour leader Ed Miliband is set to stand by his party’s controversial pledge to scrap apprenticeships of less than two years’ duration and below level three in a speech today.

Mr Miliband will set out his vision for education if Labour wins the general election on May 7 in a speech this afternoon at his old school — Haverstock, a comprehensive in Camden, north London.

He will reiterate a series of proposals already set out by his party for FE, including raising “the quality” of apprenticeships so they all last a minimum of two years and are at least a level three standard.

He will also say that a Labour government would ensure that all young people studied English and maths until they are aged 18 and introduce a new technical baccalaureate for 16-18 year olds, including an employer accredited vocational qualification, English, Maths and work experience.

As part of a package of proposals which Labour claim would “prioritise the forgotten 50 per cent of young people who do not go to university”, Mr Miliband will also say that his party would launch new technical degrees as a next step for young people who “excel” in vocational studies at college and school.

A Labour government, Mr Miliband will claim, would also back new Institutes of Technical Education linked to local industry and charged with delivering its technical baccalaureate and revamped apprenticeships.

Labour lost a House of Commons vote on February 4 on its plans to scrap apprenticeships of less than two years’ duration and below level three.

A vote on a motion calling for the new standards was defeated 294 votes to 218, following a heated opposition day debate in Parliament.

The motion, submitted in Mr Miliband’s name and supported by Shadow Business Secretary Chuka Umunna and Shadow Skills Minister Liam Byrne, was criticised by government ministers and MPs who accused the opposition front bench of “dismissing” level two apprenticeships.

But Mr Umunna said: “It is not to devalue them, it is frankly to bring them up to the same benchmarks as our competitors who are more productive than us.”

The policy was unveiled in September last year by Labour’s Skills Taskforce.

Its report, A revolution in apprenticeships: a something-for-something deal with employers, said: “To protect the apprenticeship brand, level two training should be renamed as a traineeship or similar.”

It proposed that apprenticeships be level three or above and last a minimum of two years for level three (equivalent to A-level) and three years for level four (university level).

However, the Association of Employment and Learning Providers urged Labour to scrap its policy three months ago, as it said the changes would stop employers from taking on an apprentice where they only had level two positions available.

Your thoughts

Leave a Reply to Jaska Osahan Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

6 Comments

  1. Neil Bates

    Ed Miliband is absolutely right. Apprenticeships should be the gold standard producing the next generation of skilled engineers,technicians,and managers. For too long apprenticeships have been devalued in pursuit of volumes and producing low level, semi skilled outcomes. How can anyone seriously believe that electricians, plumbers, heating engineers, civil engineers, aircraft engineers, bricklayers, carpenters and so on are ‘qualified’ of ‘skilled’ with a Level 2 apprenticeship? We need a real level 2 pre-apprenticeship programme which acts as a bridge to level 3. where Level 2 is the outcome calls this something else, it is most certainly not an apprenticeship.

  2. Jaska Osahan

    Many employers don’t offer the experience needed for level 3, and some of the learners I teach are not capable of achieving at level 3. The young people who fall into either of these categories should not be made to suffer.

  3. Mark Smith

    Another example of how out of touch MP’s are. Apprenticeships are supposed to be a vocational alternative to an academic education. When will politicians understand that the classroom is not the best environment for every member of society. It seems that Mr Miliband wants to exclude those who are most in need of support. If apprenticeships become gold standard where do these youngsters gain a valuable first step on the working ladder?

  4. Richard Kendrick

    The majority of Level 3 Apprenticeships and vocational qualifications require the learner to be in a supervisory position. How many young people are going to start with an employer and begin an Apprenticeship at this level? Almost zero is the answer.
    Forcing 16-18’s onto a new ‘Level 2 Traineeship’ where they are classroom based with some level of work experience (rather than the current full-time employment Apprenticeship model) will lead to young people achieving a level 2 qualification but gaining less experience in work than they currently do; leaving them further away from a supervisory level role than they would be currently. How is this helping achieve a Gold standard?

  5. E Sommer

    How about this for a thought. Not all of us are high flying technicians or the like. I believe that out of those 16-18 year olds forced to retake their GCSE English only about 5 per cent actually achieve a ‘C’ grade. We are setting them up as failures. These young people need to be out of the classroom and into the workplace. They need independence, pride and the chance to mature. Yes the jobs they could do will be low paid and unskilled but just watch them flourish.

  6. Malcolm Hill

    Any form of learning for a period is good.Two years would allow certain trades to ensure that the person had a good grounding before taking them on.
    After al a couple of centuries ago t was 7 years fortunately that has been reduced considerably.
    If it was good enough for a person to do two years national service to become a fully trained soldier then 2 yaers learning simple trades is sufficient.
    Milliband as usual is out of touch and wrong