Policymakers in Whitehall might do well to lift their gaze and consider a quiet irony: much of the Palladian grandeur of their surroundings was designed by an older, career-hopping apprentice.
Inigo Jones was in his thirties when he started to apprentice under Renaissance masters in architectural principles. He had already switched careers several times, working as a clothmaker, a joiner, and a theatrical set designer. He was thirty-five years old when he produced his first architectural design, practically ancient by seventeenth century standards.
During these times of seismic reforms in the apprenticeship system, I find it useful to recall the ‘first principles’ of an apprenticeship. Contrary to Alan Milburn’s insistence that an apprenticeship should be “an entry opportunity for young people, not in-work training for older people”, the early guild system did not view apprenticeships as a one-off teenage intervention. It was a structured pathway into mastery often stretching well into adulthood. Apprenticing was occupationally anchored and deeply embedded in real economic activity.
Notions of a modern apprenticeship have shifted expectations, but the dual principles of developing mastery and economic capability should remain intact.
That’s why calls for restrictions on higher-level and older-age apprenticeships are historically illiterate, economically short-sighted and strategically dangerous. The political re-imagining of the apprenticeship ‘brand’, with shorter durations, apprenticeship units, and foundation apprenticeships, already risks dilution of the first principles, but “streamlining” the apprenticeship offer towards young people and lower-level training, and away from higher-level apprenticeships being taken-up by older workers risks degrading the apprenticeship brand even further, diminishing true career utility and effectively introducing a form of labour market warehousing where young people are “stored” in low-level training schemes to keep them off the unemployment statistics, without any intent to build their long-term value.
The proposals are an understandable political instinct as NEET (not in employment, education or training) figures for 16-24 year olds soar to decade-high levels.
But apprenticeships are fundamentally a tool for professional development, not a social policy safety net. Lately, I’ve talked to employer partners across hospitality, retail, and care sectors who agree. These sectors are struggling with era-defining pressures of labour shortages, razor-thin margins, soaring national insurance costs and policy-induced hiring paralysis, and right now they are desperate for one thing – workforce stability. This means their priority is not just attracting new workers into service industry jobs but holding onto them, and nurturing them into experts and leaders. In normal times, that responsibility may fall squarely on employers’ own budgets. But these are not normal times, and after all, the levy is employer-funded, and employers want to use it to meet the real skills needs of their businesses, not to compensate for policy failings elsewhere.
By focusing policy on the starting line of employment, the government may be heading towards a catastrophic failure of foresight which prioritises volume over value; a system which creates what economists like to call the ‘progression paradox’. The paradox being that the more government policy obsesses over “getting people in,” the more it structurally prevents them from “getting on,” turning what should be an escalator of opportunity into a low-wage, low-skill economy.
Admittedly the crash in under-25 starts is concerning. But I’ve heard no evidence that restricting older learners will automatically increase youth starts. If higher-level pathways are removed, employers are unlikely to magically redirect funds and efforts to recruiting and training more 16 – 18-year-olds; for one, there is a finite pool and a workforce that is aging demographically. Instead, employers may simply underinvest in training or return funds unused. The risk is that the system shrinks rather than rebalances.
The increase in apprentices aged 25 plus reflects structural shifts in the complexion of the labour market. Approximately four million people in the UK have changed careers since the pandemic, with research from recruitment company Michael Page consistently identifying thirty-one as the most common age for a complete career pivot. Covid triggered a mass exodus of workers aged 50-64. But by 2025, the cost of living crisis forced many to return to the workforce in entirely new roles, with many bringing experience beyond ‘entry level’.
Ultimately, by stripping away the opportunity for these older workers to reinvent themselves and for younger workers to rise into leadership, we aren’t solving a crisis; we are merely capping our nation’s potential.
An older apprentice built the original palace of Whitehall. We should be building a system that rewards aspiration at every age.
Your thoughts