Last week, I spoke to apprenticeships minister Robert Halfon about the government’s so-called funding U-turn and the apprenticeship levy. Part two of the interview takes in employer ownership, assessment organisations and subcontracting.

So, I asked, is employer ownership compatible with social justice? “Absolutely,” he told me. “If you don’t incentivise the employer you then don’t get the quality apprenticeships that you need.

“We’re doing everything possible to incentivise the employer. That includes levy payers, because if they fulfil their levy they get some money back and an immediate £15,000.”

However, he insisted that the shift to employer control wouldn’t affect those in the 16- to 18-year-old bracket, who make up 25 per cent of all apprentices.

“Not everyone is 16 to 18,” he said. “This is not about one particular group of people, and don’t forget many 16- to 18- year olds will choose to carry on in education, or do technical education, or whatever it may be.”

So even though roughly 150,000 people will be out of a ring-fenced budget from May 1, he believes employers will take the incentives keep taking young people on.
“If we want the apprentices we have to create an employer-led system,” he said.

Next question: Will the minister prevent apprentices from stating standards before they have an assessment organisation? His answer: “No.”

“We’re not going to slow it down because we’ve got roughly 400 standards with something like 3,800 apprentice starts,” he added. “We’re going to work incredibly hard to get this assessment situation sorted out.”

He did however acknowledge the situation as “a difficulty”, and promised “more clarity” and “more support”, adding: “there’ll be plenty of time to sort it out”.

On subcontracting, and the government’s change of heart, he admitted that it had been down to the responses to the consultations.

“We’ve actually listened,” he said. “We still want to do something on the subcontracting issue… and our decision is that to take stock and look at this issue in the round.”

And finally, he was bullish on the CBI’s concerns on the apprenticeship levy, and on its call to delay implementation, pointing to the TUC, the EEF and the various colleges which have spoken in support of the measure.

He said: “Of course [the CBI] is going to raise these issues – all businesses are going to ask – but we’re working incredibly hard to make sure it is ready, and it will be ready.

But if you go back to what the CBI originally said about our levy, you should recognise that while they have questions on the final implementation, they have welcomed the vast substance of what we’ve done.”

The apprenticeships and skills minister is “pretty sure” that no apprentices will get to the end of their course without an end-point assessment organisation in place.

Robert Halfon was grilled on the topic in speaking at a sub-committee on education, skills and the economy evidence session on apprenticeships today (November 2) in the Palace of Westminster, by co-chairs Neil Carmichael and Iain Wright, and Ian Mearns, MP for Gateshead.

While the government claims 60 per cent of standards have assessment organisations, many of these standards have no learners.

As previously reported in FE Week, of those standards with learners, 59% (33) have no assessment org and 42% (1,790) of apprentices are on the 33 standards with no assessment organisation.

Speaking to the sub-committee, Mr Halfon said: “Even where there isn’t an assessment organisation yet, we’re pretty sure that by the time they’ve finished their apprenticeship, which could be on year, two years, they will have the assessment organisation in place.

“Huge amounts of resources are being put in in terms of working with the providers; a lot of work is going on with the employers to make sure of that.”

He added: “I don’t think the picture is quite as bleak as it’s been painted in some areas.”

Mr Halfon’s words followed similar comments made yesterday by Peter Lauener, interim chief executive of the new Institute for Apprenticeships, and chief executive of the Skills Funding Agency and Education Funding Agency.

Mr Lauener told a packed audience at the Association of Employment and Learning Providers Autumn conference in Manchester that having no approved awarding organisations for over 40 per cent of learner starts on new standards is “not ideal” but the situation was “manageable”.

He added that he did not think “there’s a consensus” view that the situation was a serious problem or that apprentices should not start their courses without an end-point assessor in place.

However, when AELP chief executive Mark Dawe took a poll of the audience, not a single hand went up to say it was acceptable for an apprentice to be studying on a course that had no end-point assessment organisation assigned to it. 

In today’s debate Mr Halfon told the sub-committee that “60 per cent of standards have an assessment organisation in place” and “that figure goes up from 60 per cent to 94 per cent if you include assessment organisations either about to be registered or within 12 months of the gateway of the end of the apprenticeship”.

David Hill, director of apprenticeships at the Department for Education (pictured right), who accompanied Mr Halfon at the evidence hearing, added: “Looking specifically at apprentices expected to be ready for their end-point assessment in the next 12 months, our analysis is that of those 1737 (86 per cent) already have at least one end-point assessment organisation ready for selection.

“That leaves another 278 apprentices and we’ve gone through exactly the status of those apprentices on different standards”.

He highlighted that for three apprenticeship standards, covering 40 apprentices, “we have organisations very, very close to being approved and we’re working with those organisations to get them on the register”.

Mr Hill concluded: “We’ve looked hard at this we are confident that we have a plan in place to make sure that there will be full coverage.”

In an FE Week article on October 14, Dr Sue Pember, who stood down as the civil service head of further education and skills investment in February 2013, said it is “diabolical to let an apprentice start a programme, without explaining not only what the end test will contain, but where it will be, what shape it will take and who will be the organisation to oversee and manage the process”.

Mr Dawe, also commented on the topic in an FE Week expert piece, when he wrote: “Having appropriate standards and robust EPAs are vital to the success of the apprenticeship programme and the development of skills in the UK. 

“However feedback from AELP members suggests that while there are some excellent ones, this isn’t true for every standard developed and the damage that could be done to apprenticeships is far worse than the concerns around funding changes which we have had over the past weeks.”

The new apprenticeships reform policing body’s boss insisted a shortage of approved end-point assessors is not a serious problem – despite a roomful of Association of Employment and Learning Providers Autumn conference delegates disagreeing.

Peter Lauener, who is interim chief executive of the new Institute for Apprenticeships, as well as chief executive of the Skills Funding Agency and Education Funding Agency, told a packed audience that having no approved awarding organisations for over 40 per cent of learner starts on new standards is “not ideal” but the situation was “manageable”.

He added that he did not think “there’s a consensus” view that the situation was a serious problem or that apprentices should not start their courses without an end-point assessor in place.

However, when AELP chief executive Mark Dawe took a poll of the audience, not a single hand went up to say it was acceptable for an apprentice to be studying on a course that had no end-point assessment organisation assigned to it. 

Mr Lauener responded by commenting: “Well, I did say I didn’t think it wasn’t ideal.”

He added: “There are 4,200 starts on standards, and there are 800,000 apprentices, so come on, let’s get this in proportion.”

Mr Lauener disputed the comments of Dr Sue Pember, who stood down as the civil service head of further education and skills investment in February 2013, in a previous FE Week article on October 14, in which she said it is “diabolical to let an apprentice start a programme, without explaining not only what the end test will contain, but where it will be, what shape it will take and who will be the organisation to oversee and manage the process”.

He said: “We don’t expect any of the apprentices that are in training at the moment to reach their end-point assessment without having an end-point assessor provider rightly in place.”

“That’s what I would regard as a disgrace, if we were to get anywhere near that – we’re not in position, we don’t think we will get to that position as of the changes we’re making.”

Mr Lauener concluded by saying that it would be “an even bigger mistake” t0 “sacrifice quality in end-point assessment for speed.”

Mr Dawe responded by saying that AELP was willing to work with Mr Lauener in addressing the problem, highlighting that his organisation is involved in a new programme targeted at tackling the shortage of end-point assessors in apprenticeships, but added that “there is a concern I think still during this interim period about the gap”.

Update: Reaction to Peter Lauener comments from Dr Sue Pember, former top civil servant responsible for apprenticeships 

Dr Pember told FE Week: “Whether it is 4,000 or 100,000 it needs to be sorted. The young people involved will never be able to recapture these years again and they need to have a secure transparent route to success. I agree with Peter the end test must ensure good quality. However, there are certain management actions that could be taken now that would resolve the matter:

1. Stop registering apprentices onto new apprenticeship standards where there is no apprenticeship assessment organisation (AAO) appointed.    
2. Urgently work with employers and other organisations to appoint AAOs to the current approved standards that do not have an AAO.
3. Ensure potential AAOs are engaged early on in the process for developing new standards, before agreeing to the standard being developed.
4. Reintroduce parity of esteem and protect apprentices’ interests by ensuring they all end up with a vocational sector qualification as part of the programme and not just those on a level 4
5. Rethink the implementation process bearing in mind that there could eventually be some 2,000 apprenticeship standards. At the current rate of progress it could be around 100 years before the changes are implemented. This is unsustainable, a radically rethink of the implementation processes is needed whilst retaining policy intent the Government is rightly trying to achieve.”

The Association of Colleges has agreed to a settlement before the first judicial review against the government in more than a decade – meaning a small sixth form will now not go ahead.

The AoC joined with Havering Sixth Form College to launch a high court challenge against the Department for Education’s decision to fund a new sixth form at Abbs Cross Academy and Arts College, in Hornchurch, Essex.

The AoC claims that Tim Coulson, regional schools commissioner for the East of England and North East London, failed to follow the government’s own rules after approving the request from the Loxford School Trust, which took over the school in February.

The rules state, for example, that sixth forms should only be created in schools which expect to enrol 200 students or more.

However the court hearing, scheduled for today at the Royal Courts for Justice, was cancelled at the last minute.

A court clerk told FE Week that a settlement had been agreed between the parties.

The application for the new school sixth form has now been withdrawn by the Loxford School Trust and as a result, the Government has also withdrawn its decision to approve the new sixth form.   

A Department for Education spokesperson said: “The Loxford Trust asked the department to reverse its decision to allow the establishment of a sixth form at Abbs Cross Academy and Arts College.

“The Trust recognised its consultation with the local authority was not adequately conducted.”

Responding to the news, David Hughes (pictured right), chief executive at the AoC, told FE Week: “I’m really pleased because we set out to achieve two things.

“Firstly, to challenge permission for new sixth form which didn’t meet criteria nor in interest of young people who want a good quality and breath of offer.

“Secondly, we wanted a proper open review of the guidance, including how the criteria is used, how the evidence is scrutinised and more generally the decision making procedure. And we achieve both of those. Ultimately, we were seeking much more transparency.

“We are looking forward to working with the DfE on the review, and to engage colleges in that process. We want to get the detail so that future decisions are properly substantiated and understood locally.”

Abbs Cross fell from a ‘good’ Ofsted rating to ‘inadequate’ in its last full inspection in June 2015.

Since then, it has been subject to three section eight special measures monitoring inspections, the latest of which was published last month.

The report said leaders and managers are taking effective action towards the removal of special measures.

It advised that the academy should not seek to appoint any further newly qualified teachers.

The AoC had suggested that the outcome of the judicial review could have a bearing on the way the government approves new selective schools, and could even establish the status of guidance to the regional schools commissioners.

Correction: FE Week had originally reported the findings of the school’s second monitoring inspection report as being its latest inspection. We were informed this was incorrect, on November 2, and have amended the article to state a third inspection had since been published.

Apprenticeships minister Robert Halfon (pictured above) has been accused of “trying to hoodwink the house” over apprenticeship funding cuts during a heated clash in parliament this morning.

The accusation was made by David Lammy, MP for Tottenham, at the end of a Westminster Hall debate – over planned apprenticeships funding cuts for younger and disadvantaged learners exposed by FE Week.

He said that Mr Halfon had not responded to key questions on the issue of framework funding, and had instead focused on new standards – despite their low take-up.

“Over 99 per cent [of starts] are on the frameworks, which is the matter of the debate, and the minister has not addressed it at all,” Mr Lammy said.

“He’s trying to hoodwink the house.”

Mr Halfon did not respond to the cuts during his comments today, despite them being raised by a number of speakers including Mr Lammy and Gordon Marsden, shadow skills minister.

But he did say: “To use some frameworks as a way to say the government is not helping the poorest is entirely wrong.”

Mr Lammy’s frustration at Mr Halfon’s lack of response was evident, and he had to be called to order in his closing remarks, during which he said: “It is disappointing that the minister has said nothing about funding rate cuts in this country.

“He’s been reliant on the £2.5bn extra he’s said is coming in. He’s robbing Peter to pay Paul.”

This morning’s debate was called by Mr Lammy in response to FE Week’s analysis of apprenticeship funding rates proposed by the Department for Education in August.

As revealed by FE Week, these new rates would see funding slashed for 16 to 18-year-olds in the most deprived areas by up to 50 per cent for some of the most popular frameworks.

Following a successful #SaveOurApprenticeships campaign by FE Week, the government has now announced a partial u-turn on the worst of the cuts.

The DfE announced on Tuesday it would now pay an extra 20 per cent on the funding band limit for 16-18 year-olds, and £60 million “additional support in areas of disadvantage”.

However, further FE Week analysis into the impact of this u-turn found that while the cuts now aren’t set to be quite as high as before, most frameworks will still feel cuts of 20 per cent or more.