Apprenticeships

APP 88

Written evidence submitted by Ixion

Ixion’s views are set out below in contribution to BIS’s request for written evidence in response to the BIS Select Committee Points of Reference and the BIS enquiry announcement.

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. NAS has contributed to narrowing the gap between BIS and DfE. We support collaborative efforts for a transparent, accountable and supportive attitude to Apprenticeship providers

2. We welcome further opportunities for communication between NAS and Apprenticeship providers: discussion forums, roundtables etc.

3. It is vital that NAS play an impartial role in defining policy and providing advice and feedback to Apprenticeship providers

4. NAS is still a young organisation and we support continued efforts to define NAS objectives and clarify its status as a promoter (in raising the profile of Apprenticeships) visa-versa its role as a regulatory body (monitoring and evaluation the quality of Apprenticeship delivery)

5. We welcome further clarification of the role of NAS in relation to SFA – a clear line should be drawn between the role of these two organisations to ensure that NAS’s role is distinct and complementary to the SFA’s role with regard to Apprenticeships

6. Currently NAS only access lead provider data held by SFA and this hampers a full understanding of delivery provision and mechanisms for delivery on the ground – this hides the role that providers such as Ixion play in supporting employers and day-to-day Apprenticeship delivery

7. There is a need for greater transparency, accountable and data-sharing between NAS and all parties involved in the facilitation, delivery and evaluation of Apprenticeships

Is the extra funding promised by the government necessary for apprenticeships? How can it best be spent?

8. Additional funding should involve Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs) and support the matching of Apprenticeships with local labour market needs defined through LEP regional priorities. The role of LEPs should not be underestimated – they play a key role in defining regional employment needs and can link effectively with local SMEs in addressing skills needs

9. Funding can usefully be spent on subsidising wages – current provision for SMEs with less than 50 employees should be extended to businesses that employ up to 250 employees – to support the provision of the on-the-job/workplace Apprenticeships. This is key in view of the current financial climate and the need to boost the economy

10. Extra funding will help providers maximise quality delivery of services and provide a value-added service to support apprentices and development of apprenticeships leading to sustainable work opportunities

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

11. Apprenticeships provide a high quality vocational route into employment – through competence based qualifications/units, basic skills (key/functional skills), technical, transferable and generic personal learning skills - that benefit apprentices and meet employer needs

12. In many sectors a level 2 Apprenticeship is the most appropriate level of qualification to meet the local labour market need. We therefore argue that the current balance of available Level 1, 2, 3 and 4 is satisfactory

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?

13. Apprenticeship bonuses will incentivise greater participation of SMEs - we know this through feedback from our Future Jobs Fund contract which provided evidence showing that 90% of apprentices subsequently sustained in-work post-completion for at least 26 weeks

14. Apprenticeship bonuses should target businesses delivering Apprenticeship to +19 age group to support continued progression

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

15. Current funding arrangements do not take into account the true costs of delivery nor additional expenses incurred by Apprenticeship providers. Real costs are underestimated e.g. costs relating to registration, certification of apprentices

16. In instances where providers cannot afford to pay the 50% cost for training 19-24 year old apprentices continued investment in this age group should be encouraged by allowing companies to claim back their investment in apprentices through corporate tax refunds (this will enable a lowering of the threshold for tax liability)

17. We suggest 75% funding for training of 19-24 year old apprentices with the additional 25% being paid on completion of each apprenticeship to incentivise Apprenticeship completion and reduce drop-out rates.

7 February 2012