An 11-month government inquiry into apprenticeships has recommended a host of changes, including “closer scrutiny, careful monitoring or even complete reform”.

The Business, Innovation and Skills Committee today published its report on apprenticeships. Click here to download the report.

It has called for an “overarching government strategy and clear purpose for the apprenticeship programme,” along with a “formal” definition of apprenticeship.

It also recommends a simplified funding system and a review of profit levels among training providers.

Committee chairman Adrian Bailey MP said: “The apprenticeship programme can play a key role in resolving some of this county’s most pressing issues.

“It can help us to create a more skilled workforce, to increase employment and to generate sustainable economic growth.

There are many areas that require closer scrutiny, careful monitoring or even complete reform”

“For these reasons, the government has, quite rightly, made apprenticeships a priority and has devoted significant resources to helping them thrive.

“But money does not guarantee success. The apprenticeship programme needs clarity, oversight and, in these straightened times, to demonstrate that it is providing value for money.

“There are many areas that require closer scrutiny, careful monitoring or even complete reform.

“This wide-ranging, evidence-based report carefully lays out the areas where we feel the current model could better serve apprentices, their employers, or, in many cases, both.

“Young people in this country should be given every chance to fulfil their potential in school, in work and in life.

“An apprenticeships programme that is fit for purpose will help them do this.”

The inquiry looked at a number of areas on apprenticeships, including government policy.

“Without clarity, there is only confusion. Confusion as to what the Government is trying to achieve, what apprentices should be focussing on and what employers should be offering,” said Mr Bailey.

“An apprenticeship programme without a clear strategy and purpose will not achieve its goals and will be open to abuse.

“This needs to be addressed as a matter of urgency.”

He added: “Quality, not quantity should be the over-riding measure of success for apprenticeships.

“It may be more difficult to measure, but this should not be a barrier to trying.

“An increase in numbers may always be welcome but a guarantee of quality will always be vital.”

Further issues examined by the committee were delivery and funding, apprenticeship preparation and value for money.

Mr Bailey said: “Apprenticeships are not just for the young. The current funding structure does not reflect this.

“It is disturbing that the Minister has no idea of the impact his department’s funding decisions may be having on older applicants.

“Apprenticeships are a viable and attractive route to a career and should be seen as equal to the university route.

“It is the responsibility of the Government, our schools and the National Apprenticeship Service to make sure they are presented in this way at an early stage in the curriculum.

“Our workforce must be encouraged to be as skilled as possible. Progression through the apprenticeship programme is key to achieving this.”

He added: “This is a time of austerity for Government, individuals, for families and for businesses. But it is important that we continue to invest in skills.

“We heard evidence of excessive profits at the public’s expense, of a Government paying out too much money far too easily and of a lack of genuine value for money being provided by apprenticeship schemes. This is unacceptable.”

See the November 11 edition of FE Week for in-depth analysis and reaction to the committee’s report.

Your thoughts

Leave a Reply to Marco Faccini Cancel reply

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

8 Comments

  1. Calls for an end to training providers and awarding bodies having same ownership “While the practice appears to be widespread, we do not believe that it is desirable for training providers and awarding bodies to be owned by the same group or individuals.

  2. NAS criticised by DBIS Select Committee for not engaging with schools
    Given the widely held view that NAS should have more involvement with learners through schools, we were disappointed by the Chief Executive’s apparent lack of enthusiasm, citing the Education Act 2011 and telling us that NAS was not statutorily responsible. The National Apprenticeship Service should be a familiarname, known to all students and teachers as an authoritative source of information about apprenticeships. We recommend that NAS is given statutory responsibility forraising awareness of apprenticeships for students within schools. This should include some quantifiable measure of success with which to gauge the student awareness of apprenticeships.

  3. Scott Upton

    A very comprehensive and wide-ranging report. There’s a lot I agree with but also a fw points I don’t.

    Agree: Schools to have reponsibility for raising awareness, checks on value for money , quantity over quality etc.

    Disagree with: Employers having to publish their contribution, providers having to publish their contributions. Sounds good in theory but it is unwarranted and unnecessary bureaucracy that we can all do without.

    If NAS are focussed on publicising the programme, on engaging with schools and ensuring quality that would be great. The money for this extra work could be found from scrapping the apprenticeship vacancy online portal which exists solely to provide nice statistics for the Minister but which few providers value.

    Scott Upton, Sandwell College.

  4. There discussions on various aspects of this report in all sorts of places. Careers Guidance forums are digesting the implications of the concerns over poor IAG, training providers are arguing over is this good or bad for them, awarding bodies who are owned by, or own training organisations, are digesting the implications of a very clear recommendation. But what about the areas the report didn’t discuss — even when asking the questions at the beginning e.g. the tetchy relationship between BIS and DfE, or what about the Apprenticeship Vacancy Matching Service and NAS’s role in schools

    My own view is that NAS is ill-equipped to take the apprenticeship message into schools. Wrong mind-set, wrong skill-set.

    And did anyone notice the spelling error — poor Geoff Russell became a Goeff. Goeff but not forgotten!!

  5. A really good report – but will it be acted upon or will it suffer the same fate as other reports, cherry picking recommendations?

    A couple of observations:

    1. Para 126 – a survey by the FMB showing that an incentive of £3000-£4999 would be the point at which SMEs would take on an Apprentice. I think this demonstrates the true cost of training someone to be even begin to be commercially productive to a small company. How does this then square with the Recommendation para 29 which demands that cash contributions be made to training providers and this be audited? If SMEs can’t afford to take on and train apprentices how are they supposed to be able to pay cash to training providers?

    2. Recommendation para 31 suggests that only training providers with Ofsted scores of 1 or 2 get first shout on funding – what happens when a large College, who dominates provision in a County, don’t get those scores? They wouldn’t even be able to sub-contract provision to what may be really good smaller providers. What happens to local would-be Apprentices?