Apprenticeships

Background

Centrica welcomes the opportunity to respond to BIS consultation on Apprenticeships.

As one of the UK’s largest employers of highly skilled service, installation and smart meter engineers, the National Apprenticeship Service has historically delivered significant assistance in enabling British Gas to recruit and employ Apprentices.

Our creation of thousands of high quality, full time employment opportunities for young people in turn drives economic activity and growth and this has contributed significantly to economic activity both regionally and nationally

Since 2003, British Gas has trained 3500 apprentices. We are committed to providing the best quality training for all our teams to meet the current and future needs of the business.

The economic downturn has impacted our recruitment plans as households adjust their expenditure decisions. Going forward, the evolving nature of our business in delivering more diversified energy management and savings solutions will alter the nature of the skills we require. The Apprenticeships programme will require flexibility in order to respond to these changes.

More broadly, investment in green skills development is important if the UK is serious about achieving and maintaining a lead in the emerging green skills sector.

· Question 1 How successful has the National Apprenticeship Service been since it was created in April 2009? Has it helped bridge the gap between the two funding Departments? (BIS and Department for Education)

No comment

Question 2 Is the extra funding promised by the Coalition Government necessary for apprenticeships? How can this funding best be spent?

We welcome the extra funding promised by the Coalition Government and view it as being intrinsic to the future success of the economy.

We firmly believe that investment in skills is key to cementing the path to recovery. While we expect funding to be directed into priority sectors such as advanced engineering, we would ask that consideration also be applied to areas such as renewable technologies in which the UK has an opportunity to establish itself as a global leader.

However, we continue to have concerns relating to the way in which extra funding is directed and accessed.

Firstly, it is not always clear to private sector providers what their access points for funding are or indeed what requirement is being addressed through its provision. As an example, we have yet to establish categorically whether employer organisations such as British Gas are eligible for the additional £230 million recently announced by dBIS.

Secondly, we believe there are lessons to be learned in how Sector Skills councils interface with private providers.

Thirdly, there is a potential disconnect between policy intentions and outcomes. On one hand, the objective appears to be the maximisation of funding drawn and placements delivered. On the other, businesses are unable to enrol apprentices with the correct core skills and aptitudes or worse, businesses become engaged in box ticking exercises for apprenticeships which deliver little or no value.

Government has a role to play in setting certain key ‘baseline’ objectives for Apprenticeships to prevent allocation of funding into schemes which are either too low level or designed to provide accreditation for existing skills. Apprenticeships should be measured around outcomes, skills attained and quality, not necessarily according to their duration. For example, British Gas can deliver Smart Metering apprenticeships in 6-9 months where key outcomes and skills are at a high standard and much needed by employers.

Training must mean acquisition of skills and any funding channels or schemes which do not deliver these outcomes should be discontinued.

Question 3

Are apprenticeships of a high enough quality to benefit apprentices and their employers? Should there be more Level 3 apprenticeships?

We believe that an efficient allocation of resource results from a detailed understanding of the requirement which is being fulfilled.

It is a perfectly laudable ambition to train the highest possible number of level 3 apprentices. However, it may be the case that a Level 2 apprenticeship is sufficient to meet the requirement of the role (clearly we are not advocating that apprentices have a ceiling of attainment or ambition).

From a business perspective, we need to consider also whether there is a return on investment to our provision of extra training. In summary, we need to make sure that there is a horses for courses criteria applied to the level of training and skills required, without ruling out the possibility of progression and further acquisition of skills in future

Furthermore, the quality of provision should be considered. A level 3 apprentice could have identical skills to another on paper; however there are other drivers which determine the overall quality and breadth of skills an apprentice may acquire. Ultimately it is competition between providers in a particular sector which, allied to the definition of the skills being taught, play a key role in ensuring continuous assessment and improvement.

The modular approach is something which we support.

This works because it mirrors closely the development model many employers adopt in developing their people. In a rapidly evolving market place, we believe that the modular approach needs to be developed in helping ‘construct’ various levels of Apprentice qualifications.

Question 4

Apprenticeship bonuses – how should they function? Will they encourage the involvement of more small and medium sized businesses to take on apprentices? If not what will?

We fully acknowledge the Government’s rationale for targeting the SME sector.

The great majority of businesses are indeed SMEs and face huge challenges in ensuring they are able to succeed during difficult economic times.

However, as with any bonus scheme, it must be a reflection of performance and outcomes – irrespective of sector and business size.

We would therefore harbour reservations about any permanent incentivisation scheme which is not directly related to outputs. If this is tantamount to an additional subsidy, then it should be called a subsidy.

It might be beneficial to re-examine some of the Government’s targets for apprenticeships now being delivered by larger employers. Many of these schemes deliver poor value for money and are not actually of benefit to the employer.

We would contend it would be better to reallocate subsidy to identified SMEs within specific sectors

· Question 5 Is the current funding arrangement for training of apprentices of 100% for 16-18 year olds and 50% for 19-24 year olds appropriate?

We acknowledge the rationale for providing extra funding for younger apprentices given the statistics on young people who are not in school, training or employment of any description.

However, purely from the point of view of a business provider and employer, we do not believe the gradation of funding is appropriate.

The investment British Gas makes in individuals is consistent irrespective of their age. We would therefore like to see a level playing field where there is consistent funding for apprentices of all ages.

Further we believe that there is a requirement to ensure that Apprenticeship funding evolves to take account of:

a) short term goals to kick-start the economy

b) Longer term goals to provide the UK with the skills base it requires to compete successfully.

In the current climate we believe that there is a requirement for greater scrutiny of providers, especially where funding is being drawn down by brokers to farm out low quality, short term opportunities which do not provide employers with additional value in terms of their employees skills base.

British Gas understand the Governments plans are under review and would urge the Government to take action to root out those schemes which succeed only in accrediting pre-existing skills or providing entry level skills which are of little value to the employer.