Apprenticeships

APP 70

Written evidence submitted by The Institution of Engineering and Technology (IET)

About the IET

The IET is one of the world’s leading professional societies for the engineering and technology community, with more than 150,000 members in 127 countries and offices in Europe, North America and Asia-Pacific. The IET provides a global knowledge network to facilitate the exchange of ideas and promote the positive role of science, engineering and technology in the world.

In the UK, the IET supports science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education and training at all levels. At FE and HE level, the IET approves/accredits apprenticeships and degree programmes and also provides student bursaries. The IET is licensed by the Engineering Council to register engineers and technicians at Technician, Incorporated and Chartered levels.

Apprenticeships

Evidence to the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee from the Institution of Engineering and Technology (IET).

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)

1. The objectives of the National Apprenticeship Service (NAS) include increasing the number of Apprenticeship opportunities and providing a dedicated service for very large employers. At the IET we are primarily concerned with the apprenticeship opportunities in the engineering sector.

2. Considering engineering apprenticeships, we support the service that NAS provides for large employers but we feel that NAS involvement with small and medium employers (SME’s) and individual learners has been of questionable value. This is particularly relevant for engineering where the vast majority of employers within the Building Services Engineering (BSE) sector are SME’s. For this particular sector, the role of NAS would be most effective in supporting training providers who have a wealth of experience and have built trusted relationships engaging with appropriate employers.

3. Another area where the NAS has been weak is through matching potential apprentices with appropriate vacancies. The matching service the NAS provides has had minimal impact in the creation of employer placements and has forced additional bureaucracy onto training providers who have also had to cope with funding reductions.

4. On a more positive note the Skills Funding Agency (SFA) on behalf of providers provides a seamless service to training providers. Whilst the NAS may have had some part in this, we suggest that perhaps now is a pertinent time to fully amalgamate the NAS with the Skills Funding Agency both to simplify bureaucracy and to reduce costs.

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

5. Financial incentives are certainly needed to attract more employers. The extra funding for apprenticeships is welcomed but without the corresponding uptake from employers it may prove ineffective.

6. In our opinion, funding can best be spent on full-time employed-status Apprenticeships, led by successful training providers, underpinned by an effective FE College partnership. This method of delivery offers excellent value for money in both the short- and long-term for the economy.

7. However, there is the risk that the proposed funding may be misused by some training providers. Recently there has been considerable media attention on certain training providers who have allowed short-term poor quality placements to happen. This has an adverse effect on the reputation of apprenticeships and will dissuade uptake from both industry and students. In their capacity, training providers should take measures to ensure that unscrupulous employers are prevented from delivering poor quality apprenticeships.

8. Additionally, at a time of great financial constraints funding must not be directed to "potential work" in a sector where there is no realistic l ong-term relationship between an individual and a specific employer in that sector.

9. Having sustainable, industry-recognised qualifications such as Apprenticeships is vital for up-skilling young people with the crucial technical and practical skills required for a technology-based economy which the government is striving towards. This is particularly relevant in the current climate of record unemployment and economic difficulties.

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

10. It is more important than ever for the UK to have an appropriately skilled workforce in order to compete globally. Within the engineering sector, this must be industry-led to match employer demand, whilst also being robustly regulated.

11. There is potential threat to the Apprenticeship brand from training providers who offer poor quality short-term Apprenticeships which do not lead to employment. As suggested in paragraph 7, such placements undermine the overall reputation of apprenticeships and will lead to the de-valuation of the qualification in the minds of industry and students.

12. The UK is currently experiencing acute shortages in technician skills stemming from a serious shortage in Higher Technician/Level 4 supply. Increasing the number of Level 4 Apprenticeships, across appropriate occupational areas, would provide a good route to help alleviate the shortage of technicians.

13. To this end there should be more emphasis on Higher Level 4 Apprenticeships than there is currently. The framework for Level 4 Apprenticeships should be grant supported by Government, but not attract learner funding as there are clear business benefits for employers who are willing to participate at this level. The current low volume of individuals involved prevents anyone investing in the framework, thus the need for outside support.

14. We advocate that there should be an equal distribution of all apprenticeship levels, with special focus on the opportunities to further progress on to higher level qualifications. Up-skilling the nation should be a key priority for the government and so all apprenticeship schemes should encourage individuals to progress to higher levels from whichever point they start.

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?

15. Apprenticeship start bonuses can have a small impact on the take up of apprenticeships, however, experience from JTL (a training provider which offers Advanced Modern Apprenticeships in the building engineering services industry), shows that on-going wage subsidies, managed by training providers has been more successful. Completion bonuses have little impact on start numbers. JTL obtained this evidence though running their own Apprenticeship Grant Scheme in 2011.

16. What is more likely to assist small and medium sized business’s involvement in Apprenticeships is via a legal obligation to do so within the awarding of public sector procurement contracts. These should specify a specific number of intermediate and advanced apprentices, each contributing at least 35 hours per week, to the delivery of that contract, irrespective of whether or not they are employed by the main contractor or a sub-contractor. Furthermore, employers who do not employ apprentices should be excluded from public sector procurement. This would have just as much effect as apprenticeship bonuses, whilst also supporting the employers who train only to have their skilled staff ‘poached’ for their efforts.

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

17. In our opinion, it is illogical to have this funding discrimination against 19-24 year old apprentices when the training costs and wages involved are the same and employers/providers are expected to fund or absorb the difference. We advocate there should be a level playing field for training apprentices of all ages as they all will contribute to a skilled population.

18. 16-18 apprentices have great potential for progressing towards higher level apprentices and providing an up skilled workforce.  The 19+ cohort generally has a clearer plan for their career, meaning that for the provider, success rates are higher due to fewer leaving. Evidence for this comes again from JTL, from their everyday contact with the employers they work with. Their employers have reported that an increased uptake of 19-24 Apprenticeship starts which have been supported by additional funding from Government. It would appear logical for funding to mirror what employers want and an increased level of funding for 19+ age ranges could help to reduce the growing number of people not employed in education and or training (NEET) within this age range.

19. As a result of this insufficient 19+ funding, some providers subsidise their 19+ provision from their 16-18 provision, but this is becoming increasingly difficult as the requirements of the contracts (such as the Apprenticeship Vacancy Matching

20. Service) increase. Bridging the funding gap for 16-18 and 19+ would help to overcome this issue.

Paul Davies

Head of Policy

3 February 2012