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.

Amid the talk of certain apprenticeships not being “appropriate” for government funding, it’s time to be honest about a problem hiding in plain sight. One that needs to be addressed before the axe comes down on funding for operations manager, team leader or any other apprenticeships.

It is likely that many of the so-called “apprenticeships” delivered to adults and funded by the levy are not actually apprenticeships at all.

Had they not been funded, the number of true adult apprentices would not have increased by anything like as much, freeing up money for more apprenticeships for younger people and genuine adult apprentices, including up to level 7 where funding has now ceased for the over 21s.

It’s not too late to fix the problem, but time is short.

It’s worth reminding ourselves of the rules.

• All government-funded apprentices have a right to receive the amount of off-the-job training they need to reach occupational competence. Every apprenticeship has a minimum requirement but there’s but no maximum. In most cases the minimum is set at roughly six hours a week. So, just less than a working day each week.
• Off-the-job-training (all of it – not just the minimum required) must happen during the apprentice’s normal paid working hours. If, by exception, training takes place outside these hours then, a bit like paid overtime, the apprentice must agree and must be paid. It makes no difference how the training is delivered.
• If there is insufficient off-the-job training, or training takes place outside paid working hours, the apprenticeship is not compliant or fundable.
• The agreed off-the-job training requirement serves as proxy for the size of the apprentice’s skills needs. The absolute minimum is 187 hours of training over 8 months –  most apprentices need significantly more. This means someone with modest skills needs (a few discrete management topics, say, or they want to learn how to use AI tools to help them in their role) is unlikely to be eligible.

So, for an employer, a genuine apprenticeship is a huge investment, regardless of government funding for the actual training.

Take an operations manager on £50,000 a year, or £25 per hour. The employer, manager and training provider review their skills needs and agree they need 418 hours of training (the usual minimum for the operations manager apprenticeship).

This means the employer has to make an investment just in salary (excluding NI and other costs) of £10,450 (418 x £25). True investment is more because of lost productivity during the training period and the need to cover the apprentice’s work.

The level 6 chartered manager apprenticeship has a minimum requirement of 926 hours and, at this level, the apprentice will be paid more. Do the maths.

No sensible employer makes this kind of investment unless they have a colleague with great potential but a significant skills shortfall. I’m pleased to know many employers who regularly make such investments, and the returns to their organisations and colleagues are huge.

However, I fear this is not the case across the sector. I suspect that, too often, the skills gap is narrow or significant off-the-job training is taking place outside normal paid hours. 

I bet I’m not the only person who has come across degree apprentices who get six hours a week of study time at work but also need to study at the weekend (and not just on an occasional basis). I’m sorry but they are not apprentices.

To free up money for more apprenticeships for young people and for older people with significant skills needs, the government needs to ask:

• How many apprentices are doing significant amounts of study in their own, unpaid time?
• How many apprentices are not actually undertaking the minimum required amount of off-the-job study (regardless of what might be recorded)?

This is fiddly work. It means having honest conversations with employers, apprentices and providers. It may cause some pain, even embarrassment. And it’s harder than simply drawing a line through “inappropriate” apprenticeships or putting in place more age restrictions.

But it’s the right thing to do.

Age restrictions and de-funding would capture some ineligible apprentices but also harm eligible apprentices from disadvantaged backgrounds, those with “squiggly” careers and later-life career changers. It would be unfair on the many fantastic employers already investing more than the minimum and following the rules.

And so, if we are to ensure access to great apprenticeships for those who need them, and maximise the impact of apprenticeships on our economy, it is work that needs to be done.