Education, Children and Young People Committee
Scottish Building Federation follow up information from December 2021 Skills session
Follow up information from the Scottish Building Federation on the Skills alignment with business needs session
Scottish Building Federation
Briefing Note
Please find below further written evidence for the Education, Children and Young People Committee following oral evidence provided by Paul Mitchell, Scottish Building Federation, on Wednesday 8 December 2021 in relation to aligning the skills agenda with business needs. Additional information can be provided on request.
Importance of Apprenticeship Registration Bodies
Prior to 2017, it was mandatory that craft apprentices in the construction industry had to be registered with the Scottish Building Apprenticeship and Training Council (SBATC), an independent industry body comprising equal representation from employers/federations and trade unions. The key functions of the registration body included;• Collectively bargained terms and conditions of apprenticeship – implementing the fundamental principles of Fair Work to ensure that all construction craft apprentices were protected and engaged through standardised employment provisions including agreed industry rates of pay. Legal support and pastoral services were also offered to both employers and apprentices who experienced difficulties during the registered apprenticeship.
• Formal industry platform to determine apprenticeship arrangements – allowing the industry to take ownership and responsibility for our apprenticeships, the registration body was recognised by all stakeholders as the group with authority to discuss and agree all facets of craft apprenticeships including time-served periods, skills tests, qualification content and levels and delivery models.
• Independent oversight of qualifications – as the joint awarding partner, the registration body played a key role in approving, verifying and certificating the apprenticeship qualification.
For example, the registration body appointed independent industry assessors for skills test and validate time-served periods.
• Monitoring apprenticeship recruitment, retention and completion trends and levels and identifying skills gaps.
Unfortunately, registration is no longer mandatory which has created the conditions to facilitate an unprecedented deterioration in construction craft apprenticeships in recent years - previously considered the gold standard across the UK and recognised around the world.
Lack of Engagement with Industry on Apprenticeships
A variety of stakeholders including CITB, SQA and SDS have made decisions which fail to recognise the preferences and priorities of industry and which detrimentally impact on construction apprenticeships. Examples include;
• Registration bodies – CITB decoupled the link between registration and eligibility for grant funding despite industry protestations and SQA unilaterally discontinued the joint awarding arrangement with industry. CITB and SQA then approved an apprenticeship framework which did not include a requirement for registration in spite of widespread industry objections. As a result, the industry registration body has become disempowered and registering an apprentice is now voluntary. Consequently, Unite the Union recently intimated that 80% of craft apprentices are paid the National Minimum Wage rather than being engaged through collectively bargained terms.
• Portfolios of evidence – employers rejected the introduction of portfolios of evidence into SCQF level 6 craft qualifications but SQA and CITB pressed ahead regardless with SQA insisting that ‘no candidate would be disadvantaged’. However, 70% of the first cohort to approach completion of the new qualification in 2021 had issues and consequently over 600 apprentices have not achieved in a timely manner due to non-completion of the portfolio, most of whom have endured months of delay and uncertainty. The industry supported ‘simulation’ to resolve this impasse yet SQA unilaterally decided that colleges must apply on a case by case, unit by unit basis causing further unnecessary delay.
• Qualifications – SQA still offer SCQF level 5 qualifications in construction craft occupations, despite the industry explicitly asking for these to be withdrawn due to the detrimental effect that this will have, reducing and diminishing base level skill sets. In addition, SCQF level 6 craft qualifications can now be accessed by candidates out with apprenticeships against the wishes of industry as it undermines the apprenticeship offering.
• Skills testing – the assessment strategy introduced by CITB and SQA in 2017 did not include provision for industry to independently appoint skills test assessors against the wishes of the sector. In many instances, colleges are now struggling to appoint assessors and this has led to delays and tests being marked remotely (by industry based assessors) or by lecturers.
• Managing Agencies – CITB encouraged colleges to enter the managing agency market in Scotland in 2017. This has led to confusion amongst employers, irregular approaches to delivery and complications for employers in accessing CITB grant funding.
• Start dates – without consulting industry, Skills Development Scotland has unilaterally made the decision that a candidate will not be considered to be an apprentice unless they are registered on SDS’s Funding Information and Processing System (FIPS). Essentially, SDS now determine the start and end dates of construction apprenticeships rather than the employer and apprentice.
The cumulative effect of this disjointed decision making has been to substantially undermine the industry’s voice which has been deliberately neutered and marginalised. It is believed that industry no longer has control over it’s apprenticeships and the preferences and priorities of external stakeholders are now imposed above industry considerations which has caused significant detriment to the stakeholder relationship and in turn distancing the apprenticeships from the needs of the industry sector.
Importantly, it is believed that this situation is not irretrievable and could be resolved if the industry’s voice is again afforded a formal platform from which to take ownership of construction apprenticeship arrangements.
Proposed Apprenticeship Levy Improvements
In Scotland the Apprenticeship Levy does not directly fund the delivery of apprenticeships which can cause of level of confusion and misunderstanding. Instead, the Apprenticeship Levy supports the Flexible Workforce Development Fund (FWDF) which promotes up-skilling and re-skilling opportunities, predominately through the local college network. There are two suggested policy amendments which could improve the impact and effectiveness of the Apprenticeship Levy;
• Connecting the Apprenticeship Levy to apprenticeship delivery through targeted support – the recent success of the Apprenticeship Employer Grant (AEG) demonstrates that employers can be positively influenced to recruit apprentices through the provision of appropriate financial incentives – employers recruited 3,853 apprentices through the AEG (77% of this intake were new recruits and 78% were aged 24 and under). In construction, the CITB recruited 488 craft apprentices through the AEG which operated during the traditionally quieter months of the industry’s recruitment cycle (December – April).
Taking cognisance of this evidence, the Apprenticeship Levy could be amended to ensure that whilst maintaining the up-skilling focus, a proportion of the available funds are allocated to incentivise the recruitment of apprentices, targeted to address identified skills gaps in specific occupations (such as bricklaying in construction) or to improve participation from under-represented groups within some apprenticeship frameworks.
• Widening the participation of independent training providers in the FWDF – this could be achieved by increasing the budget allocated to independent training providers (currently only £2 million of the £20 million FWDF budget is allocated to private training providers). Furthermore, allowing employers to engage with independent training providers in the first instance rather than the current arrangements whereby the local college must be unable to fulfil specific training needs before an employer can approach private providers would also be of benefit. This methodology would increase competition, promote best practice and enhance value for money if appropriately governed.