Apprenticeships

APP 34

Written submission submitted the Royal Aeronautical Society

Introduction

1. The Royal Aeronautical Society (RAeS) is the world’s only professional body dedicated to the entire aerospace and aviation community. Established in 1866, the society has 16,000 members in over 100 countries (including 3,500 classified as young members), and is a leader and provider of foresight within the aerospace community.

2. Apprenticeships are the life blood of the aerospace and aviation sectors. They provide the fundamental training and work experience in one of the most technically demanding of industries. This encompasses the development and production of aerospace products as well as the maintenance and repair (MRO) of aircraft and engines once in service. From a recipient’s perspective, the award of an apprenticeship from one of the leading UK aerospace companies can be one of life’s prizes. In some cases, this will lead naturally to degree level study and beyond.

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

3. The problem is currently the lack of understanding about engineering apprenticeship requirements, particularly in a field such as aircraft maintenance, among FE colleges. These institutions are often more familiar with apprentice trainees who undertake 6-8 week courses in less technical vocational fields that may tend to devalue perceptions of apprenticeships in general. Conversely, aerospace construction and aircraft maintenance requires high-level training over four years. In the case of an airline such as Monarch, it may have to be tailored to the needs of the workplace. Aircraft maintenance training is also governed by international safety standards set by the FAA, CAA and EASA which can be difficult for colleges and SEMTA to understand.

4. It should be made easier for employers to claim funding directly from the Government without the need for an intermediary or with much of the funding diverted to a college when workplace training costs to the employer can be very high. Funding seems to be a minefield and the role of SEMTA needs to be clarified. Having someone in the relevant ministries to whom employers could speak to directly and who is available in particular for SMEs would be an important step towards improving company access to funding.

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

5. Most companies follow the definable, measurable regulations already in place and use City and Guilds, which they feel offer a good set of standards to follow; for example, NVQ 2675-04  is mapped to follow the A Licence route needed for aircraft maintenance. Due to stringent safety requirement, airlines prefer to ‘over-skill’ their apprentices as they want the absolute best for the workplace. They need people with excellent hand skills, or manual dexterity and would in general prefer more control over MRO training. They are particularly concerned about the numbers being steered into Higher Education for degrees in aircraft maintenance which do not provide the appropriate practical hand skills required for aircraft maintenance and make graduates ineligible for apprenticeship funding. Many graduates often struggle to get appropriate work experience for the regulatory requirements.

6. Another concern is that organisations like City and Guilds may try and simplify routes and obtain exemptions for aircraft maintenance trainees. This would be a backward step for standards. However, the CAA does have the ultimate say in ensuring that qualifications match the skills set by safety regulations. The concern is that the Government does not seem to recognise the A Licence and consequently, companies may have to focus on lower level training in order to be eligible for Government funding while the higher level training costs have to be borne by the company.

7. The Government does not understand MRO training needs or the A Licence and its legal requirements. Proper training support for MROs is available in other countries, particularly Eastern Europe. The UK faces losing business when the high quality standards and skill levels of the UK are well-established. Lack of training support here is the key reason that the number of MRO businesses are in decline.

8. The larger companies have an established reputation for training, which enables them to attract and to retain apprentices. However, there are many smaller business organisations that cannot self-fund to the same extent and lack an existing training infrastructure but nevertheless could offer excellent apprenticeship opportunities combined with long-term skilled employment. Larger companies may be able and willing to act as a training supplier to smaller firms if they were able to obtain some Government support.

9. Another fundamental concern regards the basic English and Maths skills of candidates, which, even if they appear to have the same grades in GCSE, have fallen markedly over the years. A good understanding of Maths is crucial to working in the engineering disciplines. The recent Government emphasis on acquiring "functional skills" may help in the future.

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?

10. There is some confusion about what the bonuses are, and how companies could claim them. Smaller companies appear to assume that if their turnover exceeds £70m turnover they are ineligible. However, there is a perception that many large companies are receiving more support due to loopholes in the regulations where larger companies can claim on a site or subsidiary basis. Greater clarity and a different assessment method of a company’s needs (such as the sums required to train the apprentices rather than simple business turnover) is required.

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

11. Some companies do not impose age restrictions on applicants or usually ask their age in the selection process (possibly due to an interpretation of the Age Discrimination Act) and therefore simply look for the best candidates. Given the Government’s emphasis on staying in education until 18 it is actually harder to attract 16 year-olds to apply so companies tend to recruit on the basis of the best candidates available, not age. There is no different in cost if an apprentice is 16, 18, 25 or 32 – the training, materials etc. they receive are the same – and the best prepared candidates are often older. In this respect, age restrictions or phased funding for different age bands are unnecessary.

2 February 2012