Agenda item

(1)       The Chairman welcomed Jon Thorn to the meeting and invited him to give his presentation and answer questions from Members.

 

(2)       Jon provided some background about the NAS. The NAS is a Government Agency which works closely with the SFA who manage the apprenticeship funding on NAS’ behalf. The NAS has 320 staff nationally and operates through 4 divisions. Within the division the functions are organised into two main strands; Business Development and Employer Accounts team to support employers to take on apprenticeships. In addition there is a dedicated team of experts to support small employers which support all divisions. The organisation also offers a web-based apprenticeship vacancy system which advertises all new apprenticeship vacancies. The system allows for applications to be made directly for the vacancies contained within.

 

(3)       Jon confirmed that all new apprenticeships should go onto the NAS website unless the employers specifically state otherwise.

 

Q – Is there a link to the KCC Apprenticeships website on the NAS website?

 

(4)       Jon replied that KCC had a separate website for vacancies but it linked to the vacancies posted on the NAS website.  Vacancies could be advertised in more than one place but NAS wanted to make sure that publicly funded apprenticeship opportunities are advertised on their site as far as possible.

 

Q – Further education colleges have their own recruitment system would they be expect to have their vacancies on this website?

 

(5)       Jon stated that he would expect to see these vacancies on the NAS website.  He explained that any employers who made contact via the NAS website would be party to a conversation on business needs and how this could be supported by an apprentice, the scale of the opportunity would also be explored e.g. whether there could be more than one apprentice. Impartial advice would also be give to the employer on training providers.  Where an employer was recruiting to a new post the training provider would manage the vacancy on behalf of the employer.

 

In a nutshell the journey can be seen as a 5 step process. NAS’ dedicated employer team, including SME specialists, will guide employers through a simple five-step process to hiring an apprentice:

1.      Define an employer’s requirements with an expert Apprenticeship adviser.

2.      Discuss the right training provider, Apprenticeship programme and confirm funding.

3.      Determine the number of apprentice(s) an employer requires.

4.      Drive recruitment applications through the free Apprenticeship vacancies service.

5.      Decide on the right person and the apprentice starts

 

Q – What level of contact do you have with SME’s?

 

(6)       NAS has a dedicated Small Business Team in each division that works directly with SME’s. The team has a growing contact with small employers but  it is important that NAS added value and did not duplicate the work of others in this area. Overall 8% of active SME’s in Kent, currently employ an Apprentice.

 

Presentation

 

(7)       The Chairman invited Jon to give his presentation (copy attached) and to answer questions on it.

 

(8)       The first slide set out the requirements of the apprenticeship framework.  All apprentices were required to have a contract of employment.  There may be other quality programmes run by businesses and providers which call themselves apprenticeships but are not recognised as government funded apprenticeships.   Employers were crucial to successful apprenticeships, the design of apprenticeships flowed from input from each sector with the job role defined by employers and national standards.  The purpose of an apprenticeship was to gain real and relevant experience in the job and also acquire the associated theoretical knowledge.  An apprentice must be able to undertake a full range of duties in a confident and competent manner.  There were 250 apprenticeship frameworks that covered over 1,400 job roles.

 

The Chair commented that the Richard Review had suggested that there are too many frameworks

 

(9)       In relation to the graph illustrating Kent Apprenticeship success rates by District, Jon explained that the information was based on the residency of the apprentice not where there were employed or trained.

 

Q – Is it possible to see where these three things overlap (residency, employment, training)?

 

(10)     Jon stated that Tony Allen, who was meeting with the Committee the following day, would be able to tell them more about this.  He stated that the number of Training Providers who supported Kent residents in apprenticeships ran to 300.  Although he understood that the home location of the Training Provider was important to the Committee, what was important to the NAS was that the training was the best available for the Employer and apprentice. He pointed out that there was some niche training for certain apprenticeships which might be undertaken at a residential centre outside of Kent.

 

(11)     Jon referred to the slides and stated that success rates were one measure available of the quality of apprenticeships.  Back in 2001/02 at least a quarter of apprentices completed all parts of their apprenticeship. The latest public data available for 2010/11 indicated that over three quarters of apprentices completed their apprenticeship successfully.  This success was mirrored in Kent. In 2008/09 the number of Kent residents being successful in their apprenticeship was above the national average.  However, this had fallen slightly below the national average in 2010/11.  The success rates were consistent across Kent Districts, the differences were more by sector or employer.

 

(12)     Jon explained that employers who have had a bad experience with apprenticeships previously needed to be re-engaged.  It was important to get the message across to them that the apprenticeship programme today is different to the one 10 years ago.

 

Q – What has changed to turn this around in 10 years?

 

(13)     Jon explained that there had been a number of changes that had improved the success rate for apprentices.  NAS and the Skills Funding Agency did not exist in 2001, there was now more rigour about who they contracted with and funded.  Also the quality and inspection regime had changed over the 10 year period.

 

Q – If an apprentice successful completes a level 2 qualification is there the opportunity for them to progress to a level 3 qualification?

 

(14)     Jon stated there was a drive to increase the number of young people and adults getting qualifications at Level 3 or higher.  The apprenticeship training related to the job, the apprentice had to have the opportunity to develop to the appropriate level.  Level 3 was technical based or supervisory which was more appropriate as the young person/adult moves up though an organisation.   The NAS were working to encourage employers to move their employees through to Level 3, which benefited the individual and the employers business. Jon referred to the slide which set out some of the benefits of having an apprentice which had been reported to NAS by employers these included a reduction in staff turnover, savings in recruitment costs, talent management and a cost effect way to grow their business.

 

(15)     Regarding the benefits of an apprenticeship to individuals, the key point was obtaining employment after completing an apprenticeship, 85% of apprentices who had successfully completed their apprenticeship remained in employment (a further 4% move into self employment) and of the remainder some went onto further or higher education with a small number returning to the ranks of the unemployed.

 

(16)     Jon stated that the NAS encouraged employers to give apprentices permanent contracts the same as other members of their workforce.  This was the starting point of NAS’s discussions with employers. If employers were not able to offer permanent contracts, it was possible for them to offer fixed term contracts and on the completion of the apprenticeship NAS hoped that the apprentice was taken onto the permanent staff. NAS promoted employers treating apprentices as equal to other employees. 

 

(17)     Jon explained that the National Audit Office had audited apprenticeships and had found that for every £1 invested a return of £19 was generated, which demonstrated that apprenticeships were good value for money.    Apprenticeships had expanded across all age groups.  The training was inspected by Ofsted who confirmed that the learning was of a good quality.

 

Q – Are apprentices predominately young people?

 

(18)     Jon agreed to provide figures on this – of the 10,868 apprentice starts in 2011/12 (Provisional Data):

 

                                    Just less than 2696 were 16 – 18 year olds

                                                            3385 were 19 -24 year olds

                                                            4787 were 25+ year olds.

 

Putting this in context – the number of 16 -18 year olds in Kent in apprenticeships had grown from 2010/11 to 2011/12 by 15%;which represented 357 individuals.  This was a large percentage growth and bucked the national trend.

 

(19)     Referring to the slide “The continuous improving journey” Jon stated that from January 2011 the Specification of Apprenticeships Standards for England (SASE) set out the requirements for an apprenticeship including guidelines on learning hours, which had to be away from the pressures of the job but could be in the workplace.  From April 2011 all apprentices had to be employed. From August 2012 apprenticeships for 16 – 18 year olds had to be of a minimum duration of 12 months.

 

(20)     Jon set out the key drivers for the next 12 months which were:

 

·        To ensure that employers were at the heart of the apprenticeship programme.

·        Wider changes regarding how funding flowed for apprenticeships.

·        The Richard Review recommendations – seismic shift in the way that employers own the system over the next 5 years.

 

(21)     Jon referred to the apprenticeship grant for 16 -18 year olds introduced in April 2012.  Employers who had not had an apprentice over the past 12 months were eligible for a grant of £1,500 in addition to the funding available towards training.   Apprentices at the end of their apprenticeship should have developed English and maths skills to the level required in the apprenticeship framework with a ambition that Apprentices have the option of achieving level 2 function skills.  Overall Providers had greater flexibility as to how they operated, It should not be a prescriptive system but should be employer led and market driven.  One of the other key drivers was the possible outcomes of the Heseltine Review ”No stone left unturned” and the impact of this on apprenticeships. There was also the Richards Review and the response to the BIS Select Committee.   A discussion paper was being published this month on Traineeships, to give young people pre apprenticeship training, including the delivery of functional skills for the workplace. 

 

Chairman – the reports by Wolf, Holt, Richard, Heseltine were very recent.  We want to try to look to the future, what do you think apprenticeships will look like in 5 years time?

 

(22)     Jon reminded the Committee that NAS was a government agency and in relation to Richard Review there was a lot that the Government welcomed in it but that no formal response would be made until the Spring..  In relation to the broad policy direction for the apprenticeship programme, there was a drive for greater employer ownership of the programme. Richard said that there are too many apprenticeship frameworks and questioned whether some of these had been created for the benefit   of employers.  In 5 years time I would anticipate employers remaining at the heart of apprenticeships. Regarding training the Government will be considering the way that the funding flows regarding the tax system.  Currently Employers could own the system in a number of ways, they could become contracted agents with the same requirements in relation to the framework, as Training providers  We have a contract with 65 national companies for example BT who manage their own programme and draw down funding for it.  Key drivers:

 

• Move towards higher level qualifications which provide an economic return for the individual and the employer.   Over the last year £25m had been invested in the development of new frameworks at Level 4 and above.  Prior to the fund there were 8 occupational areas that had frameworks at Level 4 or above.
• NAS was now is a position to work with employers and professional bodies to develop 30 new frameworks. It was anticipated that 20,000 higher apprenticeships would be delivered through the initial pilots, which would mean that employers and young people in Kent were able to access apprenticeships in sectors and job roles not available before, for example, taxation, audit, Public Relations, Human Resources, Project Management, Engineering etc.
• A challenge is the growing demand for apprentices by employers in the Kent area and the capacity of the provider base to deliver these new opportunities.  There was a need for employers, candidates and training providers at that level.
• Information, Advice and Guidance (IAG) – the statutory change in the provision of IAG placing the duty on schools.  NAS has never had statutory responsibility for IAG but it is important to us in relation to raising awareness, aspirations and ultimately growing apprenticeships.  NAS supported KATO to establish the Apprenticeships Ambassadors Network, where organisations can go into schools to give advice on apprenticeships opportunities a service any school could draw upon to provide information to young people.

 

Q – Do you also use ex apprentices to raise awareness of apprenticeships?

 

(23)     Jon confirmed that the best advocates of apprenticeships were ex apprentices and real life employer case studies to encourage others.  The Director of NAS had written to all schools in Kent to set out the resources that were available including the Apprenticeship Ambassadors Network.  Apprenticeships were operating in a market place and there were vested interests in that market.  Jon stated that he would like KCC to use it influence with schools.  The raising of the participation age could be a risk but also an opportunity. There was anecdotal evidence of RPA being referred to as raising school leaving age and that apprenticeships (and other vocational routes) not being promoted within schools, when in fact apprenticeships should be part of the solution for young people.  NAS took any opportunity to talk to Head Teachers and had recently done (November 2012).  Jon undertook to supply a copy of the talk that had been given to Head Teachers last year.

 

Q – Is there a need for a recommendation to Ofsted.

 

(24)     Jon replied that the new IAG requirements would form part of the inspection for schools from this year onwards.  It was also one of the Ofsted thematic reviews for 2013. Ofsted were one key driver in ensuring that IAG was delivered by schools impartially.

 

Chairman – Increasing role of employers, difficult to identify a group for us to talk to. Employers need IAG as they are expected to lead on apprenticeships.

 

(25)     Jon confirmed that the majority of NAS staff were focused on employer engagement. As an agency of Government, NAS had obtained the approval of the Cabinet Office for marketing to employers in 2011/12.  In Kent over the next year we plan to contact 9400 SMEs not currently engaged in Apprenticeships via direct mail and telemarketing.  In addition we are also targeting those employers jointly identified by KCC and NAS as having potential to engage or grow further their existing apprenticeship programme.. These businesses are being targeted through a joint letter from Paul Carter and Vic Grimes, to encourage engagement and to explain how the NAS and KCC could support them via apprenticeships to grow their business.  This work is alongside the work of Sue Dunn and her colleagues.  The focus is to engage businesses on the economic benefits for their business of supporting an apprenticeship as well as the social responsibility element alongside it.

 

Q – What are the funding arrangements via the apprenticeship package?

 

(26)     Jon explained that nationally there was funding for training of £1.5b this year, the focus was on fully funding 16 – 18 year olds with a contribution for 19 -24 year olds of 50% and a further reduction for over 25 year olds, Training Providers working with Employers with more than 1,000 employees, were subjected to an additional reduction of 25%, if the Apprentice was over the age of 19. .   The flow of money was from the government to the Education Funding Agency and Skills Funding Agency directed by NAS to training providers and colleges, this was not paid until employment had started.  75% was paid during the course with the remaining 25% paid on achievement of the course. The 75% was paid on a monthly basis, i.e. for an apprenticeship of 18 months there would be 18 monthly payments. The employer was responsible for paying the apprentices’ wages which averaged around £200 a week, the national minimum wage for apprentices was £2.65 an hour, but NAS encouraged employers to pay the going rate to get the best people. Eligible Employers were paid a grant of £1,500 per apprentice which was paid after 13 weeks after they started employment, the employers could use this grant in different ways, this had been extended until March 2014. 

 

Q – What can the KCC team do to improve apprenticeships?

 

(27)     Jon stated there was work to be undertaken to grow apprenticeships within the procurement and supply chain. Some work had already taken place with Schools and Highways contracts but KCC buys £850m of services on an annual basis, for every £1m KCC should expect one apprenticeship.  NAS can work closely with KCC on the engagement of new employers with over 100 employees.  Also there is work to be done to ensure that Economic Development/ inward investment intelligence is shared with training providers are aware of inward investment opportunities so that they can be confident and invest their money in growing their capability to deliver the skills and training these new businesses require..  Training providers are relatively risk adverse, and tend to deliver the ‘generic options’.  Jon stated that in order to generate higher level apprenticeships there was a need to encourage training providers to invest in order to support business such as those needed in the science parks. Although the jobs may not be there now there was still a need to make sure that there were the training providers ready on the ground who could respond.

 

Q – The thrust of NAS work seems to be with the private rather than the public sector is that the case?

 

(28)     Jon explained that historically the public sector has lagged in terms of the numbers of Apprentices but that NAS and partners had put a lot of resources in to encouraging apprenticeships across the public and  third sector.

 

Chairman – I would welcome a “Chatham house” rules exchange with you

 

(29)     Jon stated that he believed that he had given a fair reflection of his views.  He would be happy to particulate in another session with the Committee particularly in helping shape any recommendations to ensure they could take account and build upon existing activity where appropriate.  

 

(30)     The Chairman thanked Jon for his presentation and for helping the Committee with its work.