Does the Commons Education Select Committee’s report on apprenticeships mean that we have finally turned a corner on the programme’s reforms?  Of course, many a select committee report has been ignored by the government of the day, and the current administration is under no obligation to accept the recommendations that result from the MPs’ chief concerns over training quality and social justice.

Yet ignoring this one will be difficult in the light of the chancellor of the exchequer using the Conservative Party Conference platform to order a review into why the levy reforms aren’t working for business.  Without wishing to sound vainglorious (a lovely old-fashioned word which appears in the report), it is really encouraging to see that the seven key recommendations in the Association of Employment and Learning Providers’ (AELP) submission to the inquiry have been adopted by the committee as part of its own blueprint for much-needed change.  No longer can our representations simply be dismissed by policymakers as those of vested interests.  Instead, a cross-party group of MPs, led by the indefatigable Robert Halfon, has arrived at the same conclusions on what needs to be done to sort out the levy’s sorry start.

Plain common sense

The striking thing about reading the report is how plain common sense permeates off every page.  For example, the MPs explain why a more flexible approach is needed to off-the-job training and they quite rightly advocate a standard-by-standard solution instead of the “one size fits all rule” which we have now.  Against the background of months of sharply falling start numbers, the committee has also tackled head on the barriers thrown up by the co-investment requirement for smaller businesses employing young apprentices. 

We all understand the employer “skin in the game” arguments for co-investment, but the committee rightly considers that there are bigger issues at stake here and social justice means restoring the apprenticeship opportunities for young people at levels 2 and 3 which have been taken away from them.  The statutory schooling system has left many of them disadvantaged and a well-functioning apprenticeship programme means ditching co-investment for them and putting them on the ladder of opportunity. 

Last week, the BBC’s evening news ran a report from Bournemouth featuring care homes and small hotels saying that they would have to close if Brexit meant that they could no longer hire EU nationals because British people won’t take the jobs.  These jobs might become more attractive to homegrown talent if the MPs’ recommendations on apprenticeships and progression were accepted.  They will be even more attractive if we get rid of the apprentice minimum wage which both the committee and AELP have called for. 

Apprenticeships: anything but second rate

Furthermore, anyone sitting listening to the truly inspiring apprentices at the party conference fringes was reminded how far we still have to go on making school pupils aware of the benefits of apprenticeships as a post-16 or post-18 choice, because hardly any of them had been informed about them or they were told that apprenticeships were second-rate.  I know that skills minister Anne Milton is already on the case on this issue, but the committee’s get-tough message on compliance with the Baker Clause must be taken on board quickly.

The committee might be accused of going for an easy headline this morning on the quality of providers, and AELP has pointed out that the chief inspector has said that four out of five apprentices are currently receiving good or outstanding training, even if that is 20 per cent short of what should be an entitlement for every apprentice.  The MPs have correctly pinpointed that the government must take its share of responsibility by opening up the apprenticeship market to such an extent that a third of the providers on its register have no experience of delivering the programme.  This is why we will be emphasising in the levy review that the register should involve thoroughly testing the competency and capacity of new main providers and taking into account any appropriate previous track record and readiness to deliver.

Quality comes at a price

Two other recommendations in the report are music to our ears.  At the Conservative conference, Robert Halfon referred to doing something about “whacking management fees” associated with subcontracting and the committee has echoed the recommendations of AELP, Collab Group and Holex that they shouldn’t exceed 20 per cent and, in most cases, should be less.  Even better is its observation that value for money has become a synonym for cheaper.  Good quality training comes at a price and the MPs are right to warn that setting funding bands of standards too low can reduce quality and dissuade employers from further recruitment.

In summary, the education committee has provided the government with excellent terms of reference for the review that the chancellor has commissioned.  But our key message is that ministers mustn’t wait for the review to conclude before acting on the MPs’ recommendations.  They need to act now.

Mark Dawe is chief executive of the Association of Employment and Learning Providers