If you relied on mainstream press and broadcasting media, you’d be forgiven for thinking that apprenticeships were something from the past, says Professor John Field

What a mess we’ve made of apprentice- ships. The Select Committee on Business, Industry and Skills found that a sizeable minority of apprentices receive no training whatsoever; the system is riddled with conflicts of interest, often unreported and largely unresolved; profit levels appear to be inflated by government grants; some employers simply badge existing training as an apprenticeship to claim funding; the system involves de facto age discrimination, with no apparent rationale, as well as gender discrimination in some trades. Worse, the uneven quality of training has damaged public perceptions of apprenticeship schemes in general.

None of this will come as a surprise to anyone who has followed online debate. But if you relied on mainstream press and broadcast- ing media, you’d be forgiven for thinking that apprenticeships were something from the past, inherited from the medieval craft guilds, and unsuited to a modern economy.

And it is true that the apprenticeship system that operated until the 1980s was flawed. Lads followed dads, excluding many women and immigrants; whether a particular craft was included or not was often a matter of historical accident (and workforce gendering); and craft status often became a pawn in collective bargaining, bedding rigidities into a system that should indeed have been modernised as industry and skills requirements changed.

But instead of modernising apprenticeships, the Thatcher government chose to smash them. In place of backward-looking, time-served, tripartite apprenticeships it promoted the go- ahead standards-based competency model of the National Vocational Qualifications system. Apprenticeship systems survived in small pockets, but for the most part they vanished as employers replaced them with short, cheap training schemes.

By contrast, a number of other European countries opted to modernise their apprentice- ship systems. They retained the principle of social partnership, seeking to work out the problems of modernisation through consulta- tion and negotiation. And they tried to match the new, flexible forms of work practices needed for European industry to survive.

The result was by no means perfect. Gender segregation often survived, with young women dominating apprenticeships in traditional female areas and males in engineering and IT.

Flexibility was sometimes insufficiently developed, as shown most notably in Germany’s attempt to impose a (western) model of apprenticeship on the very different labour market of the former East Germany. It is still far too difficult for adults to upskill or reskill.

But these were and are seen as reasons for reforming a high quality pathway to highly skilled labour. Hilary Steedman’s report for the International Labour Organisation identifies a number of features of successful apprentice- ship schemes that, she shows, have helped to reduce youth unemployment and maintain labour quality.

But what interests me particularly is that none of this is new. Campaigners and research- ers have blogged repeatedly on the topic, and there has been sustained coverage in the redoubtable FE Week. Academics such as Lorna Unwin and Alison Fuller have written and spoken about the policy flaws. Think tanks and the National Audit Office got involved. And while trade unions have generally been quiet, individuals such as Tom Wilson of UnionLearn have raised tough questions about the treat- ment of this vulnerable group of workers.

Yet the mainstream press has had little to say about another sorry chapter in the long story of Britain’s problem with vocational skills. Hats off, then, to the handful of stubborn geeky buggers who have worked hard to raise concern over what is an important issue, but not sexy, fashionable or high status enough.

Now we move on to the much tougher task of building an apprenticeship system that is fit for purpose. The Select Committee’s recom- mendations cover eight pages. So far the Skills Minister, Matthew Hancock, has issued a bland statement affirming the value of apprentice- ships and promising to look at improvements. FE Week will no doubt be watching.

It is fair to say that the past few years have been turbulent for everyone, especially businesses, employees and young people.

It is perhaps timely, then, that in the month when some green shoots of economic growth appear from what has been a long double-dip recession, my committee is publishing a report outlining how, through the apprentice- ship programme, government can help this country up-skill its way through economic recovery.

A highly-skilled workforce is essential to maintaining and enhancing our global competitiveness. Apprenticeships can help create such a workforce, boosting economic growth, employment, education standards and social mobility.

We have made a significant number of recommendations, on how apprenticeships should be improved”

Apprenticeships outdate all of the political parties — they are too important to be used as a political tool. Action, reform and prioriti- sation are needed and I am pleased to see that apprenticeships are, rightfully, high on the government’s agenda.

Skills are what matter, and finding the best way of delivering them is at the heart of my committee’s inquiry.

Our committee spent almost a year inves- tigating what reforms are needed in order to create an apprenticeship programme that is fit for purpose. We considered more than 130 pieces of written evidence, spoke to more than 40 experts, visited several companies and trainers of apprentices and also spoke to apprentices themselves.

We were consistently impressed by the pas- sion and focus shown by all those involved, particularly on the importance of getting this programme right.

We have made a significant number of recommendations, on how the apprenticeship programme should be improved. It is now the government’s job to respond to this report.

Overall, we support the significant increase in apprenticeships, but this has not always been matched by an increase in quality — the purpose of an apprenticeship has been lost.

The government needs to better articulate its strategy for apprenticeships and a good place to start would be by providing a clear definition of what an apprenticeship is. While we welcome the expansion in apprenticeship starts, the success of the apprenticeship programme should not be judged by numbers alone.

At present, the National Apprenticeship Service’s objectives are too heavily weighted on numbers. In the future, the quality of the programme should be seen as an equal priority, and should be assessed rigorously.

One of the most striking moments in our inquiry came when we spoke to an apprentice in Sheffield who told us that, when he decided to turn down his university offers and take up an apprenticeship, his school didn’t even invite him to the school’s awards ceremony. Not going to university was seen as a failure. Sadly this was not a lone example.

Time and again, we found that the underly- ing assumption was that vocational training is only for those unable to take an academic route. This is wrong and must be changed. That is why we recommended that both routes should be given equal prominence in careers advice and that this should be imple- mented in law.

Whenever the government invests, it has to demonstrate that it has achieved value for money. Up to now, the government’s perfor- mance in this regard has been patchy at best.

We have heard of specific examples where training providers claim to have trained ap- prentices for only 50 per cent of the required funding, to undercut their competitors.

We have also heard that some training providers have made a fortune because the government didn’t understand what it was paying for.

The Department has acknowledged that there is insufficient data and we say that this needs to be addressed as a matter of urgency. The Select Committee backs the govern- ment in its drive to increase the number of apprenticeships. Enhancing skills and boost- ing employment is not only a good thing for a government to do, it is vital.

By implementing the recommendations made by our committee, the government’s apprenticeship programme will be defined by transparency, quality and success. Only then, can apprenticeships play their full role in securing our country’s place in the global economy for years to come.