Thirty companies who failed to pay apprentices at least the minimum wage were included in a list of 75 employers named and shamed for underpaying workers by the government today.

Between them, the 75 companies owe more than £153,000 in unpaid wages to a total of 199 employees, although it has not been revealed how many of these were apprentices who got less than the £2.73 an hour minimum.

The 75 companies, spanning sectors such as hairdressing, fashion, publishing, hospitality, health and fitness, automotive, social care, and retail, were also fined a total of more than £79,000.

The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) further declined to identify which of the named companies had been shamed for underpaying apprentices.

In the last apprentice pay survey, published in December, it was revealed that 14 per cent of apprentices of all ages and at all levels were paid less than the apprentice minimum wage — then £2.68. And for apprentices aged 16 to 18 studying at levels two and three, the figure rose to 24 per cent.

Skills Minister Nick Boles said: “As a one nation government on the side of working people we are determined that everyone who is entitled to the National Minimum Wage receives it.”

It is the seventh round of naming and shaming of employers who do not pay the NMW since the scheme was started in October 2013.

In total, 285 employers have been outed, and 112 of those cases have involved underpaying apprentices.

Between them, shamed employers owed more than £788,000 and have so far racked up a bill of £325,000 in penalties.

The rate paid to apprentices is set to rise 20 per cent to £3.30 in October, as the adult national minimum wage rises from £6.50 to £6.70.

Any businesses or employees with concerns or questions about the NMW can call Acas on 0300 123 1100 or visit www.gov.uk.

The 75 employers named today were:

• Lime Tree Holiday Park Ltd, Buxton, neglected to pay £12,774.88 to two workers
• Mytton and Mermaid Ltd, Shrewsbury, neglected to pay £9,252.68 to nine workers
• Individual Specialist Cars Ltd, Birmingham, neglected to pay £9,067.12 to one worker
• David Lord, Lancaster, neglected to pay £7,554.55 to one worker
• Bibas Hair & Beauty Ltd, London, neglected to pay £7,204.79 to two workers
• Rolfe East (Letting and Management) Ltd, London, neglected to pay £7,107.43 to 20 workers
• Choi Yiu Joe Ng t/a Hush Hair and Beauty, Birmingham, neglected to pay £6,783.78 to two workers
• Clinton and Elaine Dailly t/a Clinton Dailly Hair Design, Dundee, neglected to pay £6,128.73 to two workers
• Shapes Hair Ltd, Newport, neglected to pay £5,771.54 to one worker
• Simply Hair & Beauty Ltd, Troon, neglected to pay £5,235.14 to one worker
• The 9th Duke of Rutland Will Trust, Belvoir Estate Trust, t/a Belvoir Castle, Grantham, neglected to pay £4,070.25 to 57 workers
• The Vinyl Corporation Ltd t/a Decalcraft Signs, Nottingham, neglected to pay £3,892.07 to three workers
• KAE Marketing Intelligence Ltd, London, neglected to pay £3,757.64 to five workers
• Ally Bally Bee Childcare Ltd, Blantyre, neglected to pay £3,537.06 to two workers
• 3McC Ltd, Glasgow, neglected to pay £3,435.08 to one worker
• Alan Matthews t/a Cutz Both Wayz, Waltham Abbey, neglected to pay £3,049.31 to two workers
• Philip A Warren t/a Cherry Tree Autos, Treharris, neglected to pay £3,006.63 to one worker
• Craymere Ltd t/a Topknot Hair & Beauty, Nottingham, neglected to pay £2,486.19 to two workers
• Brady Insurance Services Ltd, Enniskillen, neglected to pay £2,482.81 to one worker
• JRM Motor Engineers Ltd, Hartlepool, neglected to pay £2,412.83 to two workers
• Crayford & Abbs Ltd, Holt, neglected to pay £2,317.33 to one worker
• Holly Spring Ltd t/a Spring Lodge Residential Home, Worthing, neglected to pay £2,274.66 to 22 workers
• The Ultimate Dental Laboratory Ltd, Liverpool, neglected to pay £2,156.95 to four workers
• More Than Conquerors Limited t/a Abba Nursery, Bolton, neglected to pay £2,015.08 to six workers
• Quantum Pursuits (UK) Ltd t/a Veqtor, Brook, neglected to pay £1,808.62 to one worker
• Carboclass Ltd t/a Lords Builders Merchants, London, neglected to pay £1,762.27 to two workers
• Vivienne O’Connor t/a MD’s Hair and Beauty Studio, Colwyn Bay, neglected to pay £1,752.96 to one worker
• Rage Motorsport Ltd, Luton, neglected to pay £1,622.41 to one worker
• WY (Rookery Hall) Ltd t/a Rookery Hall Hotel & Spa, Nantwich, neglected to pay £1,588.56 to one worker
• Susan Isaacs Nursery School on behalf of Bolton Council, Bolton, neglected to pay £1,587.38 to three workers
• OM (Services) Ltd t/a OM Hair Salon, Taunton, neglected to pay £1,568.89 to three workers
• Ashwood Taverns Ltd t/a Craven Heifer, Darwen, neglected to pay £1,419.99 to one worker
• Julie Shields t/a The Beauty Tree, Castleford, neglected to pay £1,391.65 to one worker
• Pro-Force Ltd, Canterbury, neglected to pay £1,280.99 to 25 workers
• Our Aim Appeals, Birmingham, neglected to pay £1,278.60 to one worker
• Ebony Joiners Ltd, Reddingmuirhead, neglected to pay £1,169.10 to one worker
• Denton & Nickels Ltd, Doncaster, neglected to pay £1,162.30 to three workers
• Medina Chemists Ltd, Nottingham, neglected to pay £1,123.23 to one worker
• Versatile Mobiles t/a Elite Contact Ltd, Manchester, neglected to pay £985.77 to four workers
• Linda Glennon t/a Hair Matters, Wrexham, neglected to pay £807.58 to two workers
• Acorn Care Services Ltd, Sandown, neglected to pay £784.38 to eight workers
• Darron Tool & Engineering (Sheffield) Ltd, Rotherham, neglected to pay £749.44 to one worker
• Diamond Cabs Ltd, Gainsborough, neglected to pay £722.87 to one worker
• Activkids South East Ltd, London, neglected to pay £719.62 to one worker
• The Blindz Store Ltd, Bury, neglected to pay £703.71 to two workers
• Paramount Security Services PS Ltd, Nottingham, neglected to pay £694.10 to one worker
• Vape (Worksop) Ltd, Worksop, neglected to pay £692.55 to one worker
• Patricia Mayhew t/a The Stitch Academy, Taunton, neglected to pay £645.28 to one worker
• The Garden Sandwich Bar Ltd, London, neglected to pay £600.41 to one worker
• Energy & Compliance Technology Ltd t/a Compliance 365, Wakefield, neglected to pay £595.36 to two workers
• Paul Nyman Ltd, Wakefield, neglected to pay £531.04 to one worker
• Moon & Benney Ltd  t/a Group Travel Bodmin, neglected to pay £523.34 to one worker
• Spice Venue Dudley Ltd t/a The Venue, Birmingham, neglected to pay £465.71 to one worker
• Worldflair Ltd t/a Krazy Kingdom, Blackpool, neglected to pay £443.07 to six workers
• Jonathan Law t/a Saks, Edinburgh, neglected to pay £413.13 to one worker
• Chi Wah Ken Cheung t/a Golden Oryza, Bournemouth, neglected to pay £410.48 to one worker
• Fernandez Enterprises Ltd  t/a Gourmet Coffee, Liverpool, neglected to pay £367.20 to one worker
• J Frederick, B Frederick & P C Frederick t/a as Fredericks of Chesterfield, Chesterfield, neglected to pay £348.38 to one worker
• On Your Bike (Recycle) Ltd, Taunton, neglected to pay £317.61 to one worker
• R Thomson (Electrical Contractors) Ltd, Warrington, neglected to pay £302.11 to one worker
• Zaheer Azam & Rehana Azam t/a Ziggy’s Schoolwear, Oldham, neglected to pay £291.07 to one worker
• Cleantec Ltd, Watford, neglected to pay £284.30 to 43 workers
• Clare  Robinson t/a Jeselle, Doncaster, neglected to pay £268.03 to one worker
• Dhanjaye Damhar, Dhanjaye Ravi Damhar, Nisha Damhar t/a Beechey House Care Home (ceased trading), Bournemouth, neglected to pay £251.87 to one worker
• Amaretto (Ashington) Ltd, Ashington, neglected to pay £251.52 to one worker
• Airwaves Design Ltd, Altrincham, neglected to pay £250.98 to one worker
• Phil Pickford t/a Surecare (Bristol), Bristol, neglected to pay £236.60 to one worker
• Lift Source (UK) Ltd, Rugeley, neglected to pay £160.92 to one worker
• Rayman and Thomas Ltd, London, neglected to pay £149.50 to one worker
• Amore (Scotland) Ltd, Aberdeen, neglected to pay £126.30 to two workers
• Bomoco Ltd t/a Romford Mazda, Romford, neglected to pay £126.13 to one worker
• Alistair Donaldson t/a Donaldson Plastering, Swansea, neglected to pay £123.79 to one worker
• Waterman Infrastructure and Environment Ltd, London, neglected to pay £114.01 to one worker
• Obsession Salon & Spas Ltd, Lichfield, neglected to pay £113.20 to one worker
• Joomla Balti House Ltd, Market Rasen, neglected to pay £101.97 to one worker

Employers have escaped the reach of a government clampdown on “misuse” of the word apprenticeship, it has emerged.

Companies who run their own unfunded courses and label them ‘apprenticeships’ will continue to be able to deliver such programmes in less than a year without fear of a proposed Magistrates’ Court prosecution and fine.

Even firms that run internal ‘apprenticeship’ programmes with government funding not specifically for the official scheme will remain free from strict rules that apply to BIS-funded apprenticeship provision — such as the 12-month minimum duration.

However, colleges and independent learning providers would be subject to the legislation put forward in a Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) consultation launched yesterday, prompting a warning that the employers’ exemption could place the interests of learners at risk.

A BIS spokesperson, who said the “vast majority” of training providers were “successful in delivering excellent training,” defended the exemption for employers. He said: “The aim of this legislation is to affect the behaviour of some providers at the margins who detract from the overall positive picture.”

The three-week consultation ends on August 19 and aims to outlaw providers using the term ‘apprenticeship’ or ‘apprentice’ for any course or training in England other than a government-funded apprenticeship.

It is hoped the results of the consultation, which asks for examples of poor apprenticeship practice among providers not funded for the programme, will add to the government’s case to give apprenticeships the same legal protection as a degree in the Enterprise Bill — due to come before Parliament in the autumn.

But exempting employers could endanger the interests of apprentices, warned a spokesperson for the Association of Employment and Learning Providers.

“If this means that without fear of sanction an employer could pass off training as an apprenticeship, which didn’t follow the official guidelines of an apprenticeship, then the term could remain not fully protected,” he said.

“The danger with exempting employers is that it might cause confusion when a prime concern should be protecting the interests of the apprentice.”

However, Maritime Skills Alliance secretary and former 14-year college governor Iain Mackinnon (pictured right) welcomed the employer exemption.

“It focuses the legal penalty where it matters most, on rogue training providers,” he said.  “I can think of one very large international employer which runs its own ‘apprenticeship’, to a high standard, but with no Skills Funding Agency subsidy.

“Why should government get in their way, or increase costs to the taxpayer by forcing it into the government system for no benefit, or waste time having a scrap about it, when the real problem is rogue providers?”

He added: “Some of the detail of the proposal needs work, because it looks like some employers can call their programme an apprenticeship but the training provider working with them can’t, but overall this looks a neat way forward.”

BIS has previously given examples of poor provision labelled an apprenticeship despite not being publicly-funded as such. These included where the provider never even visited the learner’s workplace or where the provider refused to hand over candidate applications to employers when they tried to look for an alternative provider.

“Government’s high profile commitment to achieve 3m more apprenticeship starts in the Parliament will continue to increase the status and focus on apprenticeships, and the quality that they offer,” it says in the consultation document.

“However, this also increases the risk that a small number of training providers could use the term ‘apprenticeship’ to refer to a course of learning which does not meet these strict quality measures.

“Employers, parents and prospective apprentices could therefore be misled into thinking they were being offered a high quality government-funded apprenticeship, when this is not the case.

“Further, the rights and reputations of training providers who do offer statutory apprenticeships could be undermined.”

 

The UK FE and skills sector is represented in a four-day trade delegation to Singapore and Malaysia led by Prime Minister David Cameron.

The Association of Colleges (AoC), Newcastle-based Awarding organisation NCFE and provider Learning Curve have got representatives involved in the trip, organised by UK Trade & Investment North West (UKTI).

Business Secretary Sajid Javid is also part of the Northern Powerhouse delegation that includes 62 companies exploring business opportunities in South East Asia.

Mr Cameron said: “The government is committed to ensuring the UK’s northern regions play their part in rebalancing our economy.

“With so much untapped potential, I’m delighted to be part of this first Northern Powerhouse trade mission – the first of what I hope will be many.”

The Northern Powerhouse initiative supports sector-based trade and investment missions for companies across the North of England. And South East Asia has been identified as a region with strong opportunities for UK business.

The current mission focuses on infrastructure (sports), manufacturing, business and professional business services, education and value added sectors.

Martin Doel (pictured right), AoC chief executive, is on the trip, as is Gail Rochester, NCFE senior business development manager.

“It’s been a privilege to have been a part of the Northern Powerhouse delegation with civic leaders including the interim Mayor of Greater Manchester and businesses of all sizes from the North,” Mr Doel told FE Week.

“It has also been good to see Mr Javid in his role promoting British exports from the North of England in concert with the Prime Minister’s visit to the region.

“As well as following up on contacts in the region with whom the AoC and colleges have been working, we have also been able to form stronger links with the Northern businesses, almost all of whom have relationships with their local colleges who deliver their apprenticeships and other training.”

David Grailey, NCFE chief executive, said: “We are delighted to be part of this prestigious UKTI business mission, which is an important step in the ongoing work to help the North of England reach its potential as a driving force in the UK economy.

“Working with like-minded local companies to make a bigger impact on the economy is something we feel passionate about so we were very keen to get involved.

“Undertaking this type of overseas visit presents an exciting opportunity to experience a different business culture and build valuable relationships — especially in South East Asia which is such a vibrant and fast-growing region.

“As we are in the process of expanding our reach across a number of international markets, we’re looking forward to hearing all about Gail’s experiences in Singapore and Malaysia and most importantly, taking on board her insights and learnings from the mission to inform the work we’re doing now and in the future.”

The delegation includes receptions, networking sessions and events arranged by the British High Commission.

Justine Crozier, Learning Curve Group’s international development director, is also on the trip and said: “It is incredibly important to us to be part of a trade mission that is opening doors for British business in South East Asia.

“We believe there is huge untapped potential for our UK market-leading training and education products and services in this part of the world, and this is the best possible opportunity for us to enjoy the highest level of support that will allow us to explore that.

“The support and presence of the Prime Minister and Business Secretary gives this trade mission an unparalleled profile and one that will help to open doors to the people and organisations with whom we want to meet and do business.

“The Northern Powerhouse mission is an invaluable initiative and one which can bring only positives to our business and those of other UK companies. I am delighted to be part of this exciting visit.”

Pic: Dave Rose, Flickr

The Liberal Democrats have appointed their new spokespeople for education and business.

Southport MP John Pugh will provide the party’s opposition to Education Secretary Nicky Morgan, while Lorely Burt — one of 48 Lib Dem MPs to have lost their seat in May’s General Election — will cover Business Secretary Sajid Javid’s brief.

Just eight Lib Dem MPs held their seats at the election and the appointment of former Solihull MP Ms Burt, along with that of former Hornsey and Wood Green MP Lynne Featherstone to energy and climate change spokesperson, has triggered speculation they could be set for places in the House of Lords.

Former religious studies teacher Mr Pugh went to Prescot Grammar School and Maidstone Grammar School and studied philosophy at Durham University. Former assistant prison governor Ms Burt went Dudley’s High Arcal Grammar School and Dudley Technical College before doing an economics degree at Swansea’s University College, and then an Open University MBA.

Their appointments today were among 19 others, with the party’s leadership having been won by Westmorland and Lonsdale MP Tim Farron a fortnight ago.

He said: “I am delighted to be able to announce my team of party spokespeople.  The team I am announcing today is the Liberal voice that Britain desperately needs.

“It features some of the best campaigners that the party has, balanced with the experience and economic credibility that our party has developed over the last five years in government.

“It was important to me to be able to call on the advice and experience of people at all levels of our party and I believe we have an excellent team to lead the Lib Dem fight back.

“Together, we will take our ideas, our values and our liberal messages to every corner of Britain. We will make the case for housing, immigration, Europe, environmentalism and human rights.”

The full Lib Dem spokesperson team is:

Leader: Tim Farron MP

Economics: Baroness Susan Kramer

Foreign Affairs/Chief Whip/Leader of the house: Tom Brake MP

Defence: Baroness Judith Jolly

Home Affairs: Alistair Carmichael MP

Health: Norman Lamb MP

Education: John Pugh MP

Work and Pensions: Baroness Zahida Manzoor

Business: Lorely Burt

Energy and Climate Change: Lynne Featherstone

Local Government: Mayor of Watford, Cllr Dorothy Thornhill

Transport: Baroness Jenny Randerson

Environment and Rural Affairs: Baroness Kate Parminter

International Development: Baroness Lindsay Northover

Culture Media and Sport: Baroness Jane Bonham-Carter

Equalities: Baroness Meral Hussein-Ece

Justice/Attorney General: Lord Jonathan Marks

Northern Ireland: Lord John Alderdice

Scotland: Willie Rennie MSP, Leader of the Scottish Liberal Democrats

Wales: Kirsty Williams AM, Leader of the Welsh Liberal Democrats

Campaigns Chair: Greg Mullholland MP

Grassroots Campaigns: Coun Tim Pickstone, chief executive of the Association of Liberal Democrat Councillors

The shame of an appearance at the local Magistrates’ Court along with a fine would be the future for ‘apprenticeship’ providers who do not have the official seal of approval, under government proposals revealed today.

The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) has launched its three-week consultation aimed at outlawing use of the term ‘apprenticeship’ or ‘apprentice’ for any course or training in England other than a government-funded apprenticeship.

And the consultation’s accompanying 13-page document (see below right) outlines how punishment for using the term outside of a government-funded apprenticeship was still up for discussion, but it states: “The government expects that the overwhelming majority of training providers will want to comply with new legislation and thus we envisage a light touch approach to enforcement activity.

“However, a deterrent is necessary in case of non-compliance. We propose that the maximum penalty would be a fine following prosecution in the Magistrates’ Court.”

The consultation has already been welcomed within the FE and skills sector by the likes of the Association of Colleges and the Association of Employment and Learning Providers, where a spokesperson said: “The consultation will be welcome and worthwhile if it leads to improvements in the quality of non-regulated provision.”

Courses can currently be marketed as apprenticeships despite either not being funded by the government, or being government-funded under a different programme. Such courses do not have to meet strict rules that apply to government-funded apprenticeships, like a 12-month minimum duration — but the government wants to put an end to this.

BIS has previously given examples of poor provision labelled an apprenticeship despite not being publicly-funded as such. These included where the provider never even visited the learner’s workplace or where the provider refused to hand over candidate applications to employers when they tried to look for an alternative provider.

It is hoped the results of the consultation, which asks for examples of poor fake apprenticeship practice and ends on August 19, will add to the government’s case to give apprenticeships the same legal protection as a degree in the Enterprise Bill — due to come before Parliament in the autumn.

“Government’s high profile commitment to achieve 3m more apprenticeship starts in the Parliament will continue to increase the status and focus on apprenticeships, and the quality that they offer,” it says in the consultation document.

“However, this also increases the risk that a small number of training providers could use the term ‘apprenticeship’ to refer to a course of learning which does not meet these strict quality measures.

“Employers, parents and prospective apprentices could therefore be misled into thinking they were being offered a high quality government-funded apprenticeship, when this is not the case.

“Further, the rights and reputations of training providers who do offer statutory apprenticeships could be undermined.”

The consultation document, entitled Consultation on preventing misuse of the term ‘apprenticeships’ in relation to unauthorised training, goes on to pose four key questions, in addition to providing a further comments section.

The questions are, firstly, are you aware of any instances of the term ‘apprenticeship’ being used to advertise courses other than apprenticeships eligible for government funding? and secondly, if ‘yes’, please provide any additional detail of such instances that might be relevant, particularly if it can help to indicate the scale of the issue.

The third question asks whether there any unintended consequences that may arise as a result of the proposal, while the fourth asks if ‘yes’, please provide details of what unintended consequences there may be.

A government response to the consultation is due within three months of it closing, on August 19. Click here to take part or for more details email apprenticeshipslegislation@bis.gsi.gov.uk or phone 0207 215 1777.

UPDATE: 8.17AM Wednesday, July 29 (see foot of story)

The Skills Funding Agency (SFA) said it has “no timescale” for the return of its monthly provider payment system which this morning remained shut following the end of a planned five-day closure.

The Hub closed on Thursday (July 23) and was due to reopen at 9am today, while the system switched to a new supplier.

But the online data uploading system, which allows providers to submit their Individualised Learner Record data to the Skills Funding Agency (SFA) in order to process payment, was still down this morning as the August 6 deadline for the twelfth monthly data return (RO12) for 2014/15 move ever nearer.

An SFA spokesperson said there were “no timescales yet” as to when the Hub was likely to be up and running again, but that it would post updates on the @sfadata Twitter account and on the SFA-run FE Connect forum.

Normally, providers would have 10 working days to submit their data, but with the closure for maintenance they were due to have seven days.

However, an update posted on FE Connect help forum for providers at 8.09am today revealed plans had been derailed.

The post said: “Following essential maintenance work this weekend, we have been working hard to get all systems back online.”

But, it added, the data collections facility on the Hub, as well as the contracts and finance section and the apprenticeship vacancy website were “currently unavailable” — and the SFA’s data Twitter account @sfadata, revealed the delay was due to testing.

The FE Connect post said: “The testing teams have prioritised data collections so as to minimise the effect on providers, and we still expect this to be the first system to be made live.”The Hub’s closure has already created problems for providers offering the new employer-designed Trailblazer apprenticeships, which had to return their data for the earlier deadline of July 27 — when the Hub was due to be closed, effectively bringing the deadline forward by four days.

---

 

*UPDATE: 8.17AM Wednesday, July 29

A Skills Funding Agency official posted on FE Connect (see below) that the data collections facility in the Hub was operational and that ILR R12 data could therefore be submitted.

The contracts and finance tab and also the apprenticeship vacancies system remain down, however, with still “no ETA,” he later posted, for their return.

“We prioritised the data collections system so as to minimise impact on providers,” wrote the official.

“We are still working on the contracts and finance tab on the Hub and also on the apprenticeship vacancies system.”

At around the same time @sfadata posted a similar message on Twitter (see below), while on the Hub itself an additional message read: “CDS will be also emailing any updated funding statements for 2015 to 2016 to those providers affected”.