National Assembly for Wales

I'd like to welcome Members to committee this morning. Item un: we have no apologies, and if there are any declarations of interest, please do say so now. 

In that case, item dau: we have a number of papers to note, and 2.1 is a letter from the Minister for Economy, Transport and North Wales to the UK Government with regard to regional air connectivity. Item 2.2 is the letter, the model that we requested from Cardiff Airport to be made public with regard to comparisons of carbon footprint and item 2.3 is a response from Transport for Wales to that model, and 2.4 is a letter from the First Minister to the Prime Minister regarding HS2. Are Members happy to note those papers, none of which need immediate action? Thank you.

In that case, item tri: we move to the first of a number of sessions with regard to a new piece of work, an inquiry that we're conducting with regard to degree apprenticeships. This morning, we have a panel before us. We're very grateful for your advanced papers and for your time this morning. We're very grateful that you're here for the opening session, if you like. But perhaps I could ask you to introduce yourselves for the public record before we go into questions. Perhaps I'll start from my left.

David Blaney, chief executive, HEFCW.

Julie Lydon, vice-chancellor, University of South Wales and also chair of Universities Wales.

Kieron Rees, head of external affairs, Universities Wales.

Lovely, thank you. And I appreciate we've got a lot to get through and we've got quite a large panel as well, so I don't expect each of you will answer and address every point, but perhaps you could discuss between you who is going to address what area. Can I start by asking the first question? How do you take the approach that you do—or why do you take the approach that you do, I should perhaps say, with regard to approving providers to deliver degree apprenticeships? So why do you take the approach that you do?

Perhaps we should kick off on that one and a bit of contextual background that will be helpful, I think. It's important to recognise that the degree apprenticeship system that we've got at the moment is a pilot, and it has been set up explicitly to test the demand for degree apprenticeships and also test the delivery systems. It was a pilot that, in the end, was implemented at quite a pace, even though it took quite a long while to get there, and you reckon that you've squared that circle, but actually, a large part of the time we had was taken waiting for clarity on the funding and on the policy context within which we were operating. And once those became clear, we then had to really get our skates on and the providers had to get their skates on to get provision up, ready for the academic year start that we wanted to target.

In Wales, it's been quite a limited, measured approach, in terms of the range and scope of degree apprenticeships, so in England, by contrast: lots of different subject areas, lots of different mechanisms for developing frameworks, and actually, not an awful lot of control. Here, it's much more contained, but actually, we recognise that there is much broader demand and that's something that we might wish to talk about later on.

We required in Wales that the providers—. Let's face it, these are degree apprenticeships, so there's a degree being offered and that has to be awarded by a degree awarding body, so that's the universities in Wales. But we required the universities to come in on a regional basis, working with other providers, FE colleges in particular, unless there was a very good reason not to. So, we were quite clear from the outset that we wanted this to be collaborative between HE and FE, to build where possible upon the existing apprenticeship provision, and to make sense within regions.

So, that was, in a sense, the sort of broader frame within which we were operating. Bethan can put a bit more detail onto some of that.

Yes. I won't go into the detail about the process that we submitted—

Yes, because I don't want to stray into areas that others may ask questions on later, but I'm just interested in the process and why you've taken that particular approach.

I think the other bit about—these are degrees, and we have existing processes for the institutions that we fund and regulate. So, we restricted this provision to those regulated and funded providers, but working in collaboration with the colleges, and what that means is that all these providers are subject to our quality assurance, oversight, financial monitoring, and management and governance monitoring, and that's a key reason why the degree funding should come through ourselves.

We did initially propose that we could use our current funding method for other provision to put the funding through, but Government officials were keen for this to be a distinct offer, so therefore, for the pilot, we've agreed that we would fund it via a bidding process, which is what we've done, with proposals submitted and assessed, and clear objectives and targets. And we've used similar approaches in the past to pilots, prior to mainstreaming it then.

So you've taken this bidding process approach, but as degree apprenticeships expand, if that's going to happen, does that process then need to change?

Yes. I think we would like to bring this process more into our mainstream processes. I think the current arrangements, in a sense, reflect the traditions that Welsh Government have used in a procurement approach for procuring lower level apprenticeships on their system. And we don't do procurement when we fund; we fund, and then if institutions don't deliver what we've funded them for, we take the money back afterwards. We have well-established monitoring and audit machinery to do that, and that's a lot more cost-effective than a procurement process that has a massive administrative overhead. So, we would rather not do that. This bidding process was kind of halfway between the two, but if we were going to do this in a more expanded way then we would want to mainstream into our normal processes, which is much more efficient.

Okay. And is there any negative consequence of doing it that way that perhaps could be envisaged?

I don't think so. The argument that I've heard from Government officials about procurement is that it gives them the opportunity to control what they buy. I don't think you need to procure to be able to determine what it is that you're actually putting public money into; you can do that through funding. So, then, we can sort out any issues after the event perfectly easily.

When it comes to putting those bids together, the way I understand it, you need to have specialists to help put those bids together, if you like. Is there an issue with obtaining the right level of external knowledge to help put those bids together?

I'll invite the sector to answer that.

Clearly, we are in a pilot phase, and there's relatively limited experience of this particular programme. But, of course, the universities, for a long time, have worked on work-based learning programmes that lead to degree-level qualifications. I think the time frames were challenging—we'd have to say that. So, we're working in a dynamic market. This is, in effect, led by business as much as anything because, clearly, why would we put on programmes, the degree apprenticeships, if actually the employers are not looking for that sort of talent? So, aligning that up, I think, was the—. There was a bit of trickiness around the timing, but the process seemed to have worked well.

The collaborative working between employers, between educational providers, whether it be work-based learning, FE and HE—and as HE is, if you like, ultimately accountable, because they're degrees that we're working to—I think, has been good. We'll talk, as we go through this process, I'm sure, a lot more about the evidence of this early phase of development. I think the frustration for all of us is that we want to do more and we want it to be wider, and we'll come back to that point, I'm sure, as we go through the discussion.

So, I'm just trying to understand, the bidding process you've got is potentially moving to a mainstream process, but you don't think that there's any gap in either process in terms of having the right expertise.

No. We're a mature higher education sector, university sector, we are used to having different ways that you start around a pilot, an experimentation and testing phase—I suppose a reassurance to public bodies that, actually, it remains a good investment and it's a good strategy. We're very used to that. I'm not hearing any questions about that. I think probably just a slight frustration, as I say, from employers and from us about a very limited range and the time frames.

Okay. And in terms of the funding process, do you think that there is another way—. When you were thinking about funding, did you think about using that funding and how you deliver that funding to nudge, perhaps, businesses and SMEs in a particular direction? So, using that funding to direct businesses or SMEs in a certain way.

Yes, we did think about it. Again, the point that Julie makes about the timing is an issue here, because the pace at which universities and FE college partners had to establish this provision with employers meant that, in the main, those employers were working with people who were already employed. So, in things like widening access and other characteristics, they're actually dealing with the employment base rather than new students coming in.

And in terms of accessing SMEs, there were quite a few SMEs, actually, in this initial pilot phase, but again it's much harder for them, typically, unless there's already a relationship between the providers and the SME. It's much harder for SMEs to get up to speed in a very short time frame. So, if we were able to mainstream this and have longer term certainty about the funding for this sort of provision, I think it would be easier to be able to get at SMEs.

If I can go back to my earlier question in terms of that specialist knowledge again, just to be clear, is there enough specialisation, if you like, in terms of writing the apprenticeship frameworks?

The process of constructing the frameworks, I think, was quite difficult this time around, because of the sector skills councils and the capacity that they had to be able to respond. As I understand it, the legislative and regulatory machinery of Welsh Government required that the sector skills councils were involved. Welsh Government are now looking to make that more flexible, because if you've got one person who's hardwired into the regulations, who actually can't respond for other reasons, then it becomes quite tricky. But I think Julie is right, universities in particular are well used to working with employers and working out what the skills needs are in particular curricula and being able to construct that onto frameworks. So, I don't see that being a problem; the problem was a regulatory problem.

Right. Hefin David wanted to come in with a question—Hefin.

Just a broad question about levels 1 to 8: the degree apprenticeships are in two very specific areas, is there a definable learning pathway from level 1 to level 8? I'm sure there isn't after level 6, but is there for level 1 to level 6? Or do you think that there's a series of apprenticeships at levels 1, 2 and 3, and then when you get to 4, 5 and 6 it goes off in a different subject area direction? Is that an issue?

I think all of us would expect there to be, if you like, a ladder, so actually everyone understands the ways in which you can move around in terms of your own personal development, and employers can understand where they'd like to go. I'd just like to bring us back to: we're in pilot phase. So, clearly, the pilot phase restricted the subjects and it was a very short time frame. Most employers—we were working with employers who were saying, 'I've got this demand. I've got existing workforces. I've got people I know I'm going to be bringing in. This is their previous background. This is what we're expecting.' So, I think it was less, probably, formally mapped out, but—

That latter issue you mentioned was more of an issue than continuity from level 3.

I don't think there's any question about difficulties with continuity. Again, I just bring us back to: with the greatest of respect, you've got universities that have had, collectively, hundreds of years of experience of working with individuals and organisations to assess their prior learning, formalised learning as well as unformalised learning—what they've learnt in the workplace that isn't certified—so we can assess whether individuals can benefit from that programme of study. As you go through your evidence collection, I think you're going to hear very powerful stories about how relevant it was, that it was relatively seamless. I don't think—

I'm not questioning that, I'm just wondering about that continuity, though.

Maybe I can just add here: I think it's one of the ways that we've tried to differentiate from England—learn from their mistakes. So, actually, in England, I think there's been a lot more hit and miss about this and potentially some misselling: people thinking they were on degrees and then finding it wasn't a degree.

In England?

In England. That's what, clearly, we're avoiding, and we'd want to continue avoiding.

I've just got one question, sorry, before I move to Helen Mary. Does somebody want to come in? I could hear somebody—go on, Kieron.

I was just going to say on that point, it's interesting because with the degree apprenticeship you can join it if you've attended level 3 or if you've attended level 4 or 5 elsewhere. You can come on part way and your prior learning will be recognised. So, you won't be duplicating anything. And then—

But is there prior learning available? Is there any form of continuity at all that is accreditable?

I think there is. The difficulty, actually, is the opposite: it's where we've got degree apprenticeships available in very few subjects now, and there's a large pent-up demand from people who have already gone through lower-level apprenticeships who have got nowhere to go at the moment. That's what we're hearing.

Okay, so there is that pool.

Eighty-seven per cent of those currently studying level 4 and 5 apprenticeships in Wales are studying either health and social care or business and management. So, for 87 per cent of current higher apprentices, there's nowhere to go.

Just a quick question from me, because I appreciate we've got to move on to some specific areas. I'm aware that the Welsh Government has consulted on making itself the issuing authority for apprenticeship frameworks. Does this raise into question concerns about academic freedom at all?

Again, I'll come back to: we'll probably find a way of making anything work. I think there's a much more fundamental question about: what is the role of Government? With the greatest of respect, I think the role of Government is to set the expectations. I'm not sure the role of Government is to be involved in delivery. 

Okay, that's clear.

At the end of the day, we want this to work for Wales, so we would find a way of making it work.

Okay, that's fine.

But again, if we come back to—. Can I? Just one. As opposed to the procurement model, and as opposed to the current arrangements around higher-level apprenticeships, in the 18 months we've been operating degree apprenticeships, we have twice as many people undertaking degree-level apprenticeships: 740 undertaking degree apprenticeships. In the similar disciplines, there are only 420 taking higher-level apprenticeships, which have been around for a very long time. So, we mustn't do anything that damages meeting that demand and ensuring that Welsh companies of all shapes and sizes are able to grow their businesses and sustain their businesses. Because if we do that, I think we will have failed.

Okay, thank you. Sorry, we have to move on—[Inaudible.]—very, very briefly.

Very briefly, just because Welsh Government might be the issuing authority doesn't mean they're the ones that necessarily develop the frameworks. It might be that other providers and employers working together can develop frameworks that the Welsh Government then issues. The question then—and this is for apprenticeships more broadly—is whether Welsh Government has the sufficient expertise to approve those frameworks.

Okay. I apologise in advance if I have to interrupt you in full flow, it's just to get through everything. Helen Mary Jones. 

Thank you. My first set of questions builds a little bit on the issues you've just been touching on with the Chair. Universities Wales, to begin with, you suggest in your evidence that providers and universities should be able to write the frameworks together to respond to employer demand. Can you say a little bit more about that and how you'd see that working?

Universities in Wales are very experienced at working with employers and developing programmes. There were lots of examples of it happening before degree apprenticeships. It is possible to see a system where employers and universities identify demand, develop a framework or a programme, and then submit that for approval for funding. What we're talking about is not the English system whereby, like David said earlier, people can go off and develop whatever they want. There's still some sense of decision from a national level on what is funded, but you're giving employers and universities the opportunity to develop the frameworks themselves.

Okay. And to both of you, briefly, what would need to change to make that able to happen?

It comes down to what Welsh Government would be willing to fund. 

And the conditions under which they move it from a concept to making it happen, I guess. So, at the moment, the frameworks are being held by Government. I'm back to the point we've already raised, I suppose: we want this to work. I think we all have—and FE colleges too—a huge amount of experience of working with employers and working with professional bodies, which are often part of this dynamic too. I think collectively, subject to approval, we could probably get a more appropriate, speedier, just-in-time type of response that maintains the quality. 

Okay. Did you want to add anything to that?

I think I'd just agree with that, actually.

That's great. Moving on to look at some of the widening-access issues. This question, to begin with, is to HEFCW. Can you expand on your written evidence where you caution against having specific commitments to recruiting under-represented groups included in agreements with providers? You make the point in your written evidence that existing employees may not declare their disability, for example—that may be invisible. You could also argue that might be potentially the same with other protected characteristics, like sexuality. But in terms of the sex of a person, that is fairly easy to see. You don't need them to self-declare that. So, I think you can gather from the tone of my question that I think things that get measured tend to happen. I'm interested to hear more of your thoughts about why we shouldn't, at this stage, be recommending specific targets on recruiting groups that are currently under-represented.

I think this comes back to the point we're at in terms of the development of this whole programme. So, we are still in the pilot stage. There was quite a rush to get these things up to speed in terms of meeting the start of an academic cycle, and I think the capacity to respond to every priority in that context was limited. I don't for one moment think we shouldn't be monitoring this—and we are. So, on your comment that 'things that get measured tend to happen', absolutely, we are collecting those data, and we will be looking at it.

I think with a longer-term perspective on this, if we could have a more secure policy position, with a sense that this is forever rather than a three-year pilot, and if we could mainstream into our existing systems, then we could also look at applying funding incentives. We have that in our core funding for widening access, Welsh-medium disciplines—all these characteristics are incentivised in our mainstream funding. They just weren't incentivised in this because this was a pilot and it wasn't possible to do it. But we're certainly not taking our eye off this ball; it's obviously very important, and we are monitoring. 

That's helpful to know. The current degree apprenticeship frameworks are arguably pretty structurally biased toward male participants. To what extent do you think that sex equality should be a consideration in what frameworks should be developed next? I think you touched on some of the areas where there aren't frameworks at the moment. That's to both or either of you. 

Having come back from nearly a week at the National Digital Exploitation Centre in Ebbw Vale, which if you get a chance to, go and see it, I would highly commend you doing so, I recognise absolutely the question you're raising. I think this is part of our generalised collective work about how we increase diversity in all its forms in the education that we provide. We are obviously working with employers to do that, and the evidence I think we have to date is that, in effect, we're no worse or no better than long-established educational programmes in terms of diversity. It's disappointing, we'd like to—

Yes, but arguably, if you're starting something new, you've got a better chance of getting it right. 

Yes, but I don't want to keep—. It's like a broken record here. Clearly, we were working under considerable pressure. Having said that, if you look at—there are examples, and I'm sure you'll meet them. The number of females is relatively better than the apprenticeship track record to date. I think that's positive. That probably reflects that we're further ahead on women in science, technology, engineering and mathematics, so I think that's been a longer running programme. But we'd absolutely agree with you. And certainly, those coming from ethnic minority backgrounds is pretty similar to the current degree apprenticeship programmes. Kieron, did you want to add something? 

I was just going to say that I think there are two things. The first is that, obviously, the Welsh Government's decision to fund two areas that historically have high male participation does mean that gender balance in degree apprenticeships at the moment is going to be challenging. And taking into account some of those other subjects areas we mentioned that currently don't have a path to a degree apprenticeship that historically have had female participation, such as health and social care and business and management, would potentially address that. 

It is also worth noting, though, that degree apprenticeships in digital, it's almost nearly double the participation of women as a traditional undergraduate degree. So, in that sense, something about how these programmes are structured is reaching a wider diversity of people, and our understanding is that the data from Scotland is very similar. So, something about the digital degree apprenticeship is getting more women into that subject area. 

That's helpful. This might be more of a question for HEFCW, you mentioned that you measure Welsh language participation, Welsh speakers, what does that look like in the current degree apprenticeship framework? 

We monitor the number of Welsh speakers at the moment, again, because this is a pilot. It's still relatively low—19 to 20 per cent; it's in the data we've provided. But I think that's another area. So, as well as looking at expanding frameworks so that there is more opportunity for expanding equality and the gender [correction: gender mix], I think we also need to look at expanding frameworks for increasing opportunities for Welsh language apprenticeship. I think there are submissions that show that there's a lot of work being done at lower level for areas of Welsh language [correction: for Welsh language provision] and, again, it's the areas that these degree apprenticeships are in, widening those areas, both to expand Welsh language and gender, and also to public services [correction: to support public services]. There are opportunities there.  

That's helpful. Finally, a slightly broad question from me, for now. Are there any recommendations that you'd like to see this committee make to Government to meet the challenges about widening access to degree apprenticeships, once we move on to the next phase? 

Well—go on.

No, you go ahead.

I love to see people jumping in on equalities stuff. It cheers me up no end. 

It's probably worth saying first of all that higher education in Wales as a sector has a good track record on widening access, relative to the rest of the UK. There's always more to do—always—but we start from a good place in that the sector manifestly gets this and works hard at it, and has the results to show that.

I think from the HEFCW perspective, again, clarity on the longer term sustainability of this programme would help providers plan better, would help employers to actually work harder at this because they would just have a longer run at it. And don't forget here that the decisions about who goes on are employer decisions. They are employing these people. So, it's not just as in normal university provision, where the university is the gatekeeper. It's more complex than that. Broadening the range of pathways, as we've discussed already, and mainstreaming.

There's another piece for me in all of this, which is about independent advice and guidance. So, the whole issue about gender equality and, actually, other characteristics, goes way back into schools, as you'll all know. So, the issue is a constant theme for us at the moment, and playing into the developments in the post-compulsory structures with the establishment of a new commission. We have to get the independent advice and guidance machinery in Wales properly resourced and able to do this. They have been under a lot of pressure, and I think that it shows, because that intervention at an early age is really what makes the difference.

I've got nothing to add.

Oscar Asghar.

Thank you very, Chair, and good morning to the panel here and thank you very much. My question is to Julie, the wonderful vice-chancellor of Cardiff University once, with your experience. Actually, my question is about the impact that degree apprenticeships have had on higher apprenticeships. How can we ensure that the higher apprenticeship offer and the degree apprenticeship offer work together coherently in the future? Is any fundamental change needed? Are there any recommendations that you would like to see the committee make on this point?

Coming back to the last point that you raised, advice and guidance would need to be really clear about questions that you raised about progression routes and equivalence and where you go and what it means for you. So, I think that that's quite critical. Again, there's evidence from England that it's pretty confusing for individuals. Some people think that they're doing degrees and they're not. So, we would want to be absolutely clear on what we are talking about. So, that would be the first thing that I think we'd want to do as we move into an expanded era.

But, I think that there is an awful lot of work to do. So, as far as I'm concerned, there's space for us to have significant higher degree-level work sitting alongside the current higher level apprenticeships, and them complementing each other and working together. I don't want to sound again, but I think that opening up the routes is really important. All Welsh universities have substantial relationships with partners of various forms—sometimes FE colleges, sometimes work-based providers, and obviously always employers. So, I think that working collaboratively—I don't see an issue in that working, providing that we are ensuring that learners understand the routes that they are on and where it can take them.

I think that that's absolutely right. Providing greater coherence between what's available at, say, levels 3 and 4 and what you can go on to do and the degree apprenticeship would help join things up. I think that there could probably be greater cross-promotion of degree apprenticeships alongside existing apprenticeships, particularly because I think—. What we could potentially see in the coming years is, for those who are considering an apprenticeship—and we've well-rehearsed the tensions between perspectives on vocational versus academic routes—when people at school are considering an apprenticeship or A-levels, perhaps the fact that, if they do their level 3 apprenticeship or their level 4 apprenticeship, they can go on to a degree might help address some of those parity of esteem questions, as well.

And in our experience of—. I've now worked in higher education for far too long. Actually, we need to keep routes open and flexible, because people's lives change. I think that this point about degree apprenticeships and apprenticeships—you have to be employed. Actually, you might find that, through personal circumstances or through that experience, you decide that's not a field that you want to work in. So, people being able to say, 'I'm going to move from a degree apprenticeship into another form of studying a degree', for example, is something that we need to make sure is possible—or, saying, 'Actually, I don't like working for this employer, and I want to move to another employer'. So, those sorts of things are all things that—putting the learner at the heart of this really what we've got to do.

Thank you very much indeed.

Can I just add that another factor would be looking at the alignment and the linkages between the funding processes for the different apprenticeships? Bringing those closer together, I think, would make progression much easier.

But there is another element that is concerning me here. Some stakeholders argue that this represents a choice for students to study a higher apprenticeship at college and then just do the last year at a university, covering level 6 to top up their degree. But, others argue that it would create competition, as universities start to compete for learners who might have otherwise studied a higher apprenticeship or vice versa.

I'll come back to the point I made. I think we've got a huge amount of work still to do in Wales to enable all our citizens to fulfil their potential. So, personally, I think there's a lot to do, and I think giving people informed choice is where we should be. I don't think we're hearing any universities talking about competition. I think we're saying that we just can't meet the demand at the moment. So, I'm sorry, I don't really subscribe to that view.

Okay.

One of the reasons that we asked the providers to work sensibly within regions with the other providers within that region was precisely to address that issue. We didn't want degree apprenticeships to be another source of friction between FE and HE providers—we wanted them to work together. So, that's why we built it into our requirements. But I think Julie's right: there's massive demand out there. So, at the moment, this is not a large range of providers chasing a small pot; there's plenty there if we can get an established mainstreamed approach to it.

The majority of universities are delivering degree apprenticeships in partnership with FE already.

Okay, thank you. And my question, the next one, is to Bethan and David now. Your figures show that 60 apprentices started at level 5 and some stakeholders have expressed concerns that higher apprentices have been targeted by universities. Do you know if any of these 60 apprentices came from the first year of a higher apprenticeship?

We're not aware of those particular concerns, and we can't confirm where those level 5 have come from—whether they've come from higher apprenticeships. I think it's just making the point again that it's employers who decide what level of apprenticeships best meets their requirements. And again, going back to what I said earlier, a factor could be that this has funding implications for the provider. The two different funding processes doesn't help in making sure that the employer and the learner are getting what they need, but there are implications for providers. Taking that into account and aligning processes, I think, would help an awful lot.

So, just to unpack that a little bit, if it were the case that, for example, for perfectly good reasons for the individual learner, they'd moved from a higher apprenticeship to a degree apprenticeship, it makes perfect sense for them and their employment context—you'd want to be sure that they're then not treated as a non-completion in the funding regime for the lower level apprenticeship. That sort of unintended consequence of having different funding regimes can become quite a problem for providers. There's a risk if you're not very careful, that people will try and dissuade people from pursing a learner journey that works for them because, actually, the systems that fund it are not flexible enough.

Okay, that's good. Hefin David.

How are degree apprenticeships different from a professional chartered part-time degree?

In that they're employed. Sorry. So, the biggest difference, bluntly, is that we can't bring people—. We can't offer degree apprenticeships unless the employer has employed that individual and is part of it. People can engage in professional chartered study beyond and outwith their employer if they so choose to do.

Okay. And is that employment angle built into the definitive programme documents and in the module specifications?

Yes. Sorry. Well—.

Yes. Although, degree apprenticeships have to adhere to the frameworks that have been developed for them, and those frameworks have to adhere to the same specification and standards as all other apprenticeships.

Okay. The reason I ask is because Estyn have provided evidence to us that they've raised concerns that there's a lack of work-based activity included in degree apprenticeships.

I'm really struggling—. Sorry, I'd like to see the evidence, because if I look at the nature of the degree apprenticeships that my colleagues and I offer, and the examples of some of the wonderful experiences that those individuals are having, it's completely integrated. The students really value, if you like, that they've got a work environment in which they're treated as a fellow employee and they've got this scope alongside it for learning; the models of a day a week in college or university, undertaking the formalised elements of study and how you bring that together. I have absolutely no evidence of that. So, I'm sorry, I'm struggling to answer it, really, because the experience of degree apprenticeships today—

You just think Estyn are wrong in what they've said.

Well, I can't say—. Clearly, they're the body that's raised it, but I'd like to see the evidence, because it's not coming back from employers—

The evidence that they've supplied us is publicly available in our pack.

But the degree apprenticeships, all have been co-designed with employers. So, actually, those students are working alongside study, and the whole point of this is that you're getting the benefit of those work experiences putting, if you like, the theoretical into practice and vice versa: testing the practice against the theory and understanding what it's about. So if you're saying to me that there isn't a formalised element here that's identical to work-based learning, that might be technically right, because actually, the way the programmes are designed is that it's all work-based learning, in effect.

Are the definitive programme documents available publicly?

Yes. They're on our website.

The full documents are available, are they?

I don't know what you mean by full documents, but the programme outlines and—

The programme documents that designed the degree.

Yes.

Okay.

You can imagine a situation where somebody on a degree apprenticeship needs a bit of practical skills development in something that is not part of that degree apprenticeship. You can imagine that. It could be quite low-level stuff that they just need to be able to get sorted in order to do the job, but it's not part of the degree apprenticeship. It might be that that the employers are reflecting anecdotally to Estyn, but systematically, no, that's not going to be an issue, because these are designed as work-based learning.

I mean, the view Estyn's expressed is that there must not be a reliance on existing degree courses, and degree courses used in degree apprenticeships must be bespoke, and you're telling us that that's exactly what happens.

This is exactly what's happened. We couldn't just say, 'Oh, by the way, we've already got that degree,' because it wouldn't have met the—you know.

So, how are you evidencing the on-the-job training that is happening within degree apprenticeship?

That's built into the programme. So, with the employers, and obviously, meeting the framework requirements. When we designed the programmes, we had to articulate how and in what way, first of all, that learning would be developed and how it would be assessed, so it's very explicit.

They'll all include, for example—there have to be a certain number of regular visits to the employer from the institution to validate the learning on site. And in practical terms, if that work-based learning wasn't taking place, you wouldn't be able to deliver the degree in the time frame that it's being delivered just with the 20 per cent formal study.

Okay. And the employers are involved at the validation stage of the degree.

They are part of the design and delivery of the programme. I can't honestly answer whether they all sat in the room when we actually validated the programmes, I'm sorry.

Okay. I think the validation process is quite a significant process. If you're going to validate a document, and it has a degree of in-work learning in it, you need to have specialists in the room who have that experience.

Yes. I'm just being careful in my answer, because I can't give you 100 per cent assurance about that. I know from my own personal experience, and I'm at a high level of confidence, that you would have had the employers or representatives of the employers in the room as we were going through the quality-assurance processes to make sure that those degrees were appropriate and to standard.

I'd be amazed if that wasn't standard practice.

So would I, but I haven't got—. I'm being honest with you. I can't say 100 per cent that that's the case.

Yes. I'm asking questions—I know you're getting quite heated. I'm asking questions; I wouldn't shoot the messenger.

Yes.

There's also some work that we would do after a few years of these. So, we've commissioned a developmental review of degree apprenticeships from the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education, and they'll work with Estyn on that as well. And that will be one of the things that's tested in that review.

Can I ask a speculative question with regard to the culture of how we do degree validations? And also how we do moderation as well, as the course is running. The traditional way is to have peer reviews from other institutions to come and engage with the validation process and also then, external examiners from other institutions engaging in that. How do you ensure that the externals and the validaters have that experience of degree-level apprenticeships through that process?

As we would for everything, on the appointment of colleagues who are going to help us assure the quality of what we're doing, we need to make sure that they've got an appropriate skill set to be able to do that.

So my challenge is, you know, this is a new thing.

It is new, but it isn't, on the other hand. All of us have had decades of experience of doing work-based learning. It may not have been called apprenticeships, but that's what we have. Programmes that are co-designed with employers: we've all got experience of that at postgraduate as well as undergraduate level. So, I think we can easily supply evidence as to the mechanics as to how we do that.

It would be interesting to see underneath the bonnet.

Yes, no, I understand what you're saying, and this co-working, because that's what we're really talking about here—co-ownership, co-working—it's not endemic; it's not everywhere in higher education, but by and large, it's a substantial part of the way that we work and us making sure the way that we work works for the employers. Because if I said to them, 'By the way, the validation of it is x date,' and, actually, that clashes with something major in their diaries, then we have to make sure that it works for them.

Yes.

And the developmental review will touch on all of that. So, the appointment of external examiners to this type of programme and the basis on which they've been appointed will be tested via the QAA in their usual way.

Yes, of course.

And just a final point on that, the degrees that institutions develop for these programmes have to be added on to the framework by a subject expert. So, it's not just a matter of the universities developing and validating their own degrees, those degrees then have to be approved to be added on to the framework. So, there's a third party that goes through what process has been run and what's included in that programme before it's able to be delivered.

Okay. And as a committee, we're looking to help, really, in this area and make recommendations that are going to be helpful to you with regard to enhancing the work-based element and the whole work-based ethos of degree apprenticeships. Are there any specific recommendations you might consider that we should think of when preparing a report?

I think we've raised some of them already, so, clearly the expansion of the areas of the degrees. Ensuring that the frameworks—we would like to see the frameworks co-developed because I think that means, actually, we're bringing the employers and partners into that much more closely, and continue to do that.

And then, the final one I think I would ask is that we don't overly make this too bureaucratic. So, actually, it needs to be fit for purpose, and as David's raised several points about making sure there aren't unintended consequences.

And when we say 'expansion', it's not just subject areas, but we also register significant employer demand for Master's level as well, which is available in Scotland and England.

Yes. We're nowhere near Master's level yet.

We haven't got any, and it's—they're going elsewhere to get that support.

But we could.

Yes, quite easily. It was just a policy choice.

And we'd add to that list the earlier point about alignment of funding across all the levels, and terms and conditions, the funding being mainstreamed with other provision. Apprenticeship is one form of provision for HE and FE providers, and more mainstreaming [correction: and needs more mainstreaming]. And then, all providers submit to either existing regulatory oversight or some form of monitoring of the provider, and if—. A sustainable model is unlikely to be provided by limited funding and a procurement fixed-price model.

Okay, thank you.

Joyce Watson.

A fair bit of what I was going to ask has already been asked, but I do want to ask about the quality assurance. Because we've had claims by Estyn, and they've remarked particularly on the importance of coaching and mentoring in apprenticeships, and they've commented that higher education has expertise in that design and delivery of degree courses, but less experience on monitoring the employers. So, that's the evidence they've given us. We would like your comments.

Maybe I'll let the regulator answer first and then I'll follow up on this.

It's to the regulator, mostly.

I don't agree with Estyn on this, to be honest. I think, as Julie has said, all of the HE providers in Wales have long established traditions of provisions being put on, collaboratively with employers and, also, actually, with FE providers as well. But the sorts of things that you have to take into account when you're developing a work-based learning version of provision is exactly that, and higher education will have been doing that for a very long while. They haven't been doing it in a particular badge of degree apprenticeships, but work-based learning and degrees through work-based learning are not new to HE.

Estyn have very limited engagement with the higher education system in Wales. So, initial teacher training is in their patch, and a couple of other bits, but very, very limited. It could just be that they haven't seen the broader range of activity that is undertaken.

What they also go on to say is that the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education offers assurance approximately once every six years and that universities' own quality assurance and external peer review machinery is working as it should. But it doesn't inspect or observe the teaching like Estyn does.

This is true that Estyn inspections, which themselves are equally infrequent, look at teaching; QAA looks at the systems. And the reason for that is that if you do a sample inspection of teaching on a particular day over a period of years, you will see a very small sub-set of what is actually being delivered. And we take the view that, actually, what's more important is that the systems that assure that the quality of provision is good across the piece are good, rather than just looking at what's going on in particular classrooms. So, they're just different ways of doing these things. The HE way is an audit approach of systems, the inspection approach that Estyn do is looking at individual bits of classroom activity, and they give you different pictures.

My view is, actually, just looking at bits of classroom activity is not enough, but Estyn have their way of doing things and QAA have their way of doing things. I would reject any assertion that the machinery that's used in higher education across the UK, which is compatible with European expectations as well, I'd reject any suggestion that that's inadequate.

Okay. When you decide who's going to deliver your apprenticeship, you have a clear criterion—that they have to meet the objectives that are set by HEFCW. So, are you content that the oversight of meeting those is adequate and that the delivery of all those different elements—and I think it's 10 points—are being met?

So, I think we are. It's only the [correction: In the] process by which proposals came in to us were [correction: they were] subject to fairly detailed scrutiny. We convened a panel with externals involved as well, and so, the way in which these things have been designed is compatible with the expectations.

Testing whether or not they've been delivered in a way that is compatible with those expectations is something that we have commissioned the QAA to look at—to specifically look at the delivery of degree apprenticeships. It's clearly not worth doing that within the first year because, actually, you just need to let these things run a bit against a richer picture. But we have commissioned that to assure ourselves that, in reality, the delivery meets up with the design expectations.

But I suppose the one point—and they do make it in their papers, so I'm going to ask you it—that they're particularly focusing on is the mentoring and coaching on-job training, and I suppose, ultimately, that's what this is all about.

But I think they have not fully understood the degree to which the programmes are co-designed and co-delivered. Again, we have a lot of experience, and we've brought that to bear in applying it to these new frameworks, and how we need to do it against the new frameworks, of people who are not in my employ; not in the employ of the university, being involved in supporting student learning. So, how do we quality assure that? And, again, the practice to do that. So, I think, with the greatest respect, I think we maybe need to have a separate conversation with them so that they have a clearer understanding, a better understanding, perhaps, of the ways in which it works. Because, I think, as David said, they have very, very limited experience of understanding how higher education works, and that's not being disrespectful. These are legitimate questions to ask, but I think if, perhaps, they have a better understanding of what we're doing, then they would certainly be asking those questions from a more informed viewpoint.

And finally from me, I want to test Coleg Cambria's statement, where they say that they have concerns around the competence element of the degree apprenticeship in engineering. Do you have anything further to say on that?

I think what they're talking about is the inclusion of that on the framework, and the framework and the process for getting qualifications onto the framework is one that was owned and run by Welsh Government. So, it's Welsh Government you really need to ask about that. But these frameworks were developed, as Julie has said, with input from employers; they're listed in the frameworks. We know that the consultant who was employed by Welsh Government to do this work worked with the universities but also worked with employers to make sure that the general specifications were appropriate. And we make sure before we fund anything that the relevant qualification is on the framework. So, we're not aware of there being any fundamental problems here, but, actually, that process of getting frameworks up, it's a Welsh Government process. So, you might wish to check that with them.

So, our question should be to Government.

Yes.

Hefin, you wanted to come in briefly.

I just wanted to be absolutely clear that what you're saying is Estyn has no role in the inspection of this.

Well, we've stated our position very clearly about needing to remain part of a UK-wide recognised, globally recognised quality assurance system. We just operate slightly differently.

And Estyn don't need to be involved, do they?

Well, to be fair, FE are already involved in the delivery of degrees, and they have been for a long time. In the case of my university—I can talk personally here—we have extensive franchise arrangements. They therefore have exposure to the QAA. They are not raising any questions, saying, 'Oh, the way you're doing it is a lot poorer quality than the way we do it for our Estyn-related provision.' I think it is different. David's alluded to the difference. It reflects, I guess, just different approaches to things that are not necessarily poorer, but they are different.

I mean, this is not to say that we don't think Estyn have a legitimate handle on it—the questions that need to be asked in respect of apprenticeships generally. And we are, in the work we've commissioned from the QAA, asking to work with Estyn in that regard. But Estyn's exposure to the totality of what goes on in HE is pretty limited. It's not their job.

Okay.

For example, to raise issues of mentoring and coaching on the job, there are a number of programmes at every university in Wales that would include on-the-job mentoring and coaching. There are the obvious ones such as nursing and other subjects that are aligned to medicine and teaching, but then there are also specific engineering courses and a range of other ones as well.

Thank you. Vikki Howells.

Thank you, Chair. I've first got some questions around the cost of degree apprenticeships. So, firstly, could you explain the methodology that's used to cost the degree apprenticeships and how the flat £27,000 funding level was arrived at?

So, again, this was a pilot phase, so it started with Welsh Government giving an indication of the total budget available, and the suggestion of the £27,000 came from Welsh Government. And looking at the rationale for that, we agreed to work on that basis, given it was equivalent to the amount available for a three-year undergraduate course and equivalent to the maximum amount in England at the time as well.

We also took into account that this is a pilot programme and there are, and have been, developmental costs to be funded. So, this is a pilot and all those set-up costs needed to be part of that. The two frameworks in the pilot are in relatively high-cost areas. So, costing information for other undergraduate provision indicates that there are areas that, even in the undergraduate normal degree portfolio, now cost more than £9,000 per annum to teach. And that's without taking account of the employer engagement and the additional work that's required for a degree apprenticeship. A recent report by the Engineering Employers' Federation stated that funding bands in England for STEM frameworks don't cover all the costs of provision. So, taking all of that into account for a pilot phase, the £27,000 flat fee seemed appropriate.

Okay, thanks. I guess where I'm going, really, is to see whether you all believe that there's value for money there, because I understand there's some difference of opinion with other bodies, and in England, the system is different, as you alluded to there, with them being banded by costs. So, in Wales, for example, you could be doing a different range of degree apprenticeships with perhaps different costs involved, but the flat rate applied. But given your answer there, Bethan, you still believe that this is the right way to do it and it does deliver value for money.

It was certainly the right way to do it for the pilot programme and because of the set-up costs. I think if you're looking at a longer term sustainable model—I mentioned earlier looking at aligning funding processes across the apprenticeships—a longer term model could and probably should look at a banding approach. But you'd need to have a very sound basis for costing, and you'll probably need to do that across the board, and you may well end up with some areas in degree apprenticeships that will be more expensive than £27,000, but the principle of looking at banding would be the right one for a long-term sustainable model.

Can I make one other point? So, I think—. We know that in Wales, the employers are not able to use the levy to support training costs—they are doing it in England. So, whilst the public level of investment, and I think, to be fair, the £27,000 has broad comparability with the level of public investment at an average in England, and certainly around some of the engineering—. You've got, in addition to that, employers putting their levy money into supporting the training costs, and employers in Wales have not got that opportunity.

That's an interest point, thank you.

I think the only thing that I'd add is that, when you look at the frameworks we had in Wales and the comparable ones in England—so the digital framework in Wales is funded at £27,000; the digital professional framework, which has the equivalent pathways in the English system, is funded at £25,000 over 36 months, whereas the Welsh one is typically 42 to 48 months, so, actually, they're broadly comparable. We understand that the pro-rata funding for the engineering, for example, degree apprenticeship, is roughly equivalent to the higher apprenticeship at level 4 and 5.

Okay, thank you. And one final question then, to you all, really: what do you think a funding model, a sustainable funding model, for degree apprenticeships would look like, eventually, here in Wales, considering that they are one of four types of apprenticeship currently on offer?

I think I covered a bit of this in an earlier—. I think a sustainable model—it would have clear progression routes, which we've touched on, between all the four types of apprenticeships, and alignment of the funding basis and the terms and conditions. We touched on unintended consequences of flexibility and being able to move from one to the other. If you have a consistent basis, that shouldn't happen—progression shouldn't be seen as a failure in a funding system. The funding should be mainstreamed and part [correction: as part] of a portfolio, and demand-led, and then there should be oversight of the providers to understand their—.

Anybody got anything to add to that or are you all in agreement?

I think we'd agree. 

Okay, thank you. 

Thank you. Is there anything else that either of you would like to make as a closing comment, which perhaps has not been drawn out through questions at all? No. In that case—

We're fine, thanks.

Thank you. In that case, thank you all for your time with us this morning. By all means, I appreciate that you're the first set of witnesses, but if you hear other evidence that comes to us during the course of our work, then, by all means, contact us. We're happy to receive additional information from you. So, thank you for your time this morning. Diolch yn fawr.

We'll take a 10-minute break. We'll be back in at 10.45 a.m.

I move to item 4. This is our first week, but our second session in our piece of work on degree apprenticeships, and I'd like to welcome our witnesses for our next session to committee this morning. Bore da. Good morning. Perhaps you could just introduce yourselves for the public record. If I start from Jeff—[Interruption.] Sorry—

Bore da. Matt Williams. I'm executive director for work-based learning at Bridgend College. 

Morning, all. Bore da, bawb. Jeff Protheroe, director of operations for the National Training Federation for Wales, representing independent training providers. 

Thank you for being with us. I've got a series of questions from Members this morning. If I could kick off—have there been issues with specialist sector knowledge writing the apprenticeship frameworks?

Diolch, Gadeirydd. Yes, I think that's a common feature that's not limited just to this particular area of inquiry. The UK had quite a detailed and fairly well-structured mechanism for developing frameworks or qualifications, or ensuring particularly very specialist vocational knowledge is included in learning programmes and qualifications. I think it's fair to say that, over the 10, 15 years or so, has deteriorated, or has been eroded, by design or by default in some instances. So, I think, yes, that would be the case for degree apprenticeships, but equally would be the case here in Wales for other forms of vocational learning.

In fairness to bodies like Qualifications Wales, they're doing a sterling job at the moment around the technical and vocational requirements in the sector reviews that they've undertaken, but that is limited, of course, to the qualification, which sits within a framework or indeed within a learning programme within further education.

I think, just to support Iestyn as well, certainly where we were looking to develop both the digital and the engineering and manufacturing degree apprenticeships, it was relatively easy to get the digital up and running, but there was a little bit more difficulty with the engineering and getting the right calibre of person to lead on that, and the employers to feed into that process as well. But, yes, I absolutely support what Iestyn says; it's not unique to degree apprenticeships. As you know, there's a limited employer base within Wales and, clearly, all apprenticeship programmes, regardless of levels, need to have that employer input. There is an infrastructure in place within Wales to support that through the mechanisms of the regional skills partnerships, through the mechanisms of the Wales apprenticeship advisory board, but Qualifications Wales has done some great work with regards to sector reviews, and it's making sure that employers of all sizes are brought into that process to influence the content of that framework and the qualifications therein.  

Did you want to come in? 

Just very briefly. I wonder if I can ask Iestyn Davies a bit more about the deterioration that you've described. Why has that happened? 

I think there's been a view—. We've lost institutions such as UKCES, the UK Commission for Employment and Skills, which was a very, very valuable asset, I think, across the UK. I think, particularly in England, the value of the national commissioning standards was questioned some time ago. That was an issue that Qualifications Wales, in particular, had to deal with as it was being established. I think that kind of deterioration, that erosion over time, often under the guise of, 'Let's put employers in charge', has been the dominant frame.

But when you look at other international best practice on how you establish what is the current competency and what level, what techniques—. You've been speaking this week, obviously, in Plenary about the modern manufacturing in construction, for instance. When you're trying to deal with those changes, you actually need quite a strong infrastructure of knowledge, understanding and capacity to be able to deliver that. So, if you compare that to what happens in, say, Germany where they have an institution whose job it is to do that, we've seen in the UK and in Wales as a result—the same in Scotland and Northern Ireland—that we've lost that capacity. So, we are relying often on people to do it in their spare time and, quite simply, if a few employers decided that individuals were no longer going to be involved, say, in engineering—or health and social care is a good example, for instance—in the qualifications review, if individual employers took those individual employees out, we would be really at a loss as we rely on goodwill. As Jeff has pointed out, in an SME or micro-orientated business economy, it's even more difficult to establish. 

That's really helpful. Thank you. 

Thank you. Why should the commissioning and delivery of degree apprenticeships be aligned with the contracting arrangements of other work-based learning? 

When I consulted with our members ahead of this session and for our written submission, some of the feedback, in fact, most of the feedback I was getting was around maybe fairness, that the existing work-based learning network need to go through quite a rigorous and robust procurement exercise. And also as well, having secured the ability to be able to deliver Welsh Government-funded apprenticeships, they are heavily contract managed, quite rightly so, and there's a great deal of requirements and expectations placed on that network across a whole range of things. When the degree apprenticeships were brought into play, it was clear that it was a light-touch process in terms of the commissioning of that sort of programme.

And I think the main thing from an NTFW perspective, and certainly from a personal perspective, is that the apprenticeship programme in Wales, all four levels, needs to be a continuum, and it needs to be a consistent offer for both the employer and for the individual, and the expectations of that programme should be the same as well. So, listening to the last session as well, I think it's fair to say that HEFCW would like some form of consistency across the various levels of apprenticeship provision because, ultimately, apprenticeships, as I say, are a continuum of learning, and it's a programme and method of delivery and it's not unique for each individual level.

Okay. In your evidence, Jeff, you say that,

'There needs to be a level-playing field in relation to the contractual requirements between the contracted WBL providers and the Degree Apprenticeships programme'.

Can you just expand on that?

So, a couple of areas, and there's quite a lot to go through, I guess, but one specifically, for example: in a higher apprenticeship—you're probably looking at level 4, level 5—that is determined by something called a specification of apprenticeship standards for Wales. That outlines the exact requirements that need to be delivered as part of that apprenticeship programme. That may include essential skills and qualifications; it may include both a knowledge and competence qualification, and there is a requirement on the existing work-based learning provider network to deliver that framework in its entirety, in order for that individual to achieve that apprenticeship framework. If you look at what is within a degree apprenticeship framework, it is quite simply a qualification, and just that qualification, although there are clearly elements of work-based learning within that as well.

And if we are operating in a competitive market, which apprenticeships are, the way that apprenticeships are procured within Wales, then it's only right that all apprenticeship providers, regardless of what type of provision they have, have a level playing field. Now, whether or not that is the existing network moving up, or whether or not that is the degree apprenticeship network meeting with our network as well. But apprenticeships is a market-driven thing; it's an employer-led programme and it's only fair that all providers of apprenticeships have the opportunity to operate on a level playing field.

I think, Chair, Matt will be able to give you an example of how this proliferation of models of delivering, of procuring, commissioning or funding or marketising, how that causes real issues for the institutions or for the private training provider, but ultimately, it creates a degree of complexity for the learner or for the student and for the employer. So, 'I want to be an engineer; I want to do—I don't know—some form of work in the automotive.' So what is the best route to achieve that for the individual? So it causes complexity there. And if degree apprenticeships are supposed to be around trying to create new pathways for those learners and students who are often under-represented, then complexity doesn't help that. All it does is help middle-class kids in nice middle-class neighbourhoods with switched-on parents and access to the internet to find out what the answer is. So it doesn't help there.

I don't think either it actually helps encourage collaboration between the three very important kinds of providers we have when it comes to vocational education in Wales. There is clearly a role for universities in this space. No-one's doubting that for a minute. It's a very important role because of the often very specialist expertise private trainers providers have: companies like Educate, for instance, who are very, very important in provision.

But also, ultimately, we need to recognise that particularly in times of famine, if you like, FE-led lower level vocational provision is where learners will receive their support in education, particularly when you get to economic turbulence, and that's an international paradigm, so you have to have a system that can work together for the collaboration. Having different forms of provisioning means you will get nugatory competition, and the only people who lose out there ultimately are not the institutions and probably not the large employers who can navigate; our concern is that it is the individual learner and apprentice who will lose out in that kind of structure.

Yes. So—. Sorry, Chair.

I was going to say: Hefin, is your question related to this? 

I have got a question in relation to the evidence that was just given to us from universities.

Okay. Do you want to ask your question now and then perhaps Matthew can also address that as well? 

And I also want to address that continuity as well. Just with regards to that, the previous panel were very clear that there isn't—. You're not fishing in the same pool of students here. They were absolutely categorical about that. There's a group of students who are appropriate for degree-level apprenticeships and there's a group of students who are appropriate for other apprenticeships. It couldn't have been clearer.

Well, I guess from a provider perspective, we'd disagree with that, and actually, we've seen some evidence on the ground of that already happening, because we've already got a product in Wales, already had a product in Wales, as Jeff said, of higher apprenticeships up to level 5, which—. Those apprenticeships would include HNC and HND qualifications within them. Through the work that we've done, the collaborative work that we've done with HEIs on degree apprenticeships, pretty much the first year of a degree apprenticeship would mirror the HNC and HND element that ordinarily would have been delivered outside of a degree apprenticeship, and we've actually seen from our institution evidence of learners that might have gone through a higher apprenticeship pathway now going on to a degree apprenticeship instead.

But isn't choice a good thing?

Sorry?

Isn't choice a good thing?

Choice is a good thing, but I guess arbitrary competition isn't a good thing. And I suppose coming back to the point we've just made around us having two networks of providers now delivering apprenticeships at different levels means: are we making the right decisions? Are the learners getting the right advice and guidance on what choice is best for them? Particularly at levels four and five, I guess, is where the potential competition sits here, based on the fact that there isn't natural collaboration happening through all degree apprenticeship programmes. So, yes, I think choice is a good thing, but what we're seeing on the ground is not necessarily—. The danger you've got, you see, with somebody who might go straight onto a degree apprenticeship programme who might have been perhaps better to go through the higher apprenticeship ladder is that there's no natural exit point for that person if they don't go the full way to a degree apprenticeship, for example. 

Which brings me to the other point I was going to make earlier, which is that the previous panel as well were clear that there is a progression and there is a way of accrediting prior learning from level 1, 2 and 3 into 4, 5 and 6 at degree level. So, there isn't a problem. Jeff Protheroe said there was an issue of continuity: there is continuity through accreditation of prior learning.

I think my point around continuity is the ideal scenario is that you have an apprenticeship programme and an individual is able to step onto that programme and exit that programme at a level that is right for them. That can only really be achieved if you have a network that is working consistently, and I think the other thing to consider as well—and I take your point about student choice—the other thing that is in the DNA of any existing apprenticeship provider is that you need to consider the employers within this as well. The benefit of having a network that is working consistently, one network, along that apprenticeship continuum, is that it doesn't create differences in approach. 

If you look at the research to date, HEFCW and, obviously, Welsh Government will be evaluating this now, which is only proper. What we are seeing from HEFCW in the evidence that we've submitted to you from their research is that there is already displacement. Anecdotally, when you speak to employers, they are reporting displacement from one programme to the other, and we can't see it yet, but there's evidence that this is opening up higher level learning to a cohort of learners or apprentices or students who would not ordinarily be well served by existing programmes.

There's not evidence.

There's not. What we're seeing in the submission that we've given is actually we are getting the same learners, the same students, the same apprentices. I hate the words 'gaming the system'. You can't blame an individual, a young person, for doing it, or a parent, they're trying to get the best results—

But it's not gaming the system from a customer's point of view. They're making choices as to what is best available to them at the best cost. 

Yes. I suppose I do have a particular reticence, for perhaps personal as well as organisational reasons, around the over-marketisation of education. I don't think we would tolerate similar ways of thinking about things in terms of health, for instance. So, I think these are essential public services that we are looking to be delivered and we're trying to bring opportunities for learners, I believe, through this programme, who are under-represented, who require a different route into higher level learning, and having three what are potentially competing models and three delivery mechanisms does not, I believe, in our assessment from ColegauCymru, deliver the public benefit and public policy outcome I would imagine that all individuals and parties would share.

Thank you. Helen Mary Jones. 

Some of my questions are about that widening access element that you've been talking about, actually, Iestyn. We've received evidence that widening access for degree apprenticeships is difficult because the demand is employer-led. How do you tackle the widening access issues within the existing—the conventional, if you like—apprenticeship contractors? How do you deal with that?

I'll leverage in my colleagues on that, as well. We reckon this is difficult across the piece. This is not just a degree level challenge. 

You're absolutely right, and the evidence that's been submitted is right: apprenticeships are employer led. That's what makes apprenticeships different to any other form of education provision. Where you have a situation where you are delivering an apprenticeship, at any level, to an existing workforce, you can only deliver to the workforce that's in that employer at that time. It could be said, with the existing work-based learning network, that we could argue the same point: 'Well, that's what employers want; if there's no need, we can't deliver it.' However, that said, the existing work-based learning network is part of Welsh Government's approach to taking Wales forward and dealing with a whole range of agendas as well.

Within the apprenticeship skills policy plan, clearly there's a desire to ensure that individuals from all walks of life have the same level of opportunity to access an apprenticeship programme, which are deemed to be really good for the individual to progress. So, there are robust targets. There is a great deal of initiative and activity around engaging with diverse workforces, engaging with individuals with a disabled background—be that physical or mental—and Welsh Government is ultimately using the lever of funding to try and work with the provider network to work with the employers to deal with those issues that are inherent within the employer network.

So, we can't simply think as the existing network, 'Well, employers aren't asking for it, so we're not going to deliver it', we have to proactively try to change those minds. What we've seen with regard to disability, for example, is that, three or four years ago, disabled individuals on an apprenticeship were at about 1.3 per cent, but with a whole range of initiatives and a whole range of effort we're up now to 5.6 per cent. There's still a long way to go, but the network is working proactively. Matt and his colleagues will be working proactively to challenge employers to say, 'Look, this is around social benefit as opposed to just you as an employer.' So, the network is doing it. It's only right, on this continuum, that everybody does the same thing as well.

Yes. From a provider's perspective, I would echo everything that Jeff has said. We've got rigorous targets as work-based learning providers around widening access. The other thing I would say is, obviously, from a provider's perspective and an FE provider's perspective of delivering apprenticeships at all levels, in terms of the influence on employers, clearly, we're involved with employers at the stage of recruiting apprentices at lower levels as well, so we can have a heavy influence on their recruitment policies and practices around widening access as well, which is ultimately the time at which that person is taking the role in their business.

And of course, the regulator of that activity is the Welsh Government; the regulator of degree apprenticeships, as we've heard today, is HEFCW. So, again, there's that dual system, if you like. I don't mean dual system as we normally refer to in apprenticeships—you're looking at me quite strangely there—I mean the two models of regulation make it easier to have those different kinds of outcomes.

It is fairly clear, when we speak to FE-led apprenticeship providers and when Jeff speaks to his private training providers, it is clear that there are issues that need to be addressed around ethnicity, diversity and Welsh language. Also, for those FE providers, for instance, they are obliged to comply with the Additional Learning Needs and Education Tribunal (Wales) Act 2018.

So, I think there's a much more rigorous approach to dealing with this, rather than simply saying, 'Well, it's an employer's problem. Let the market decide.' Again, we do not believe as an organisation that that is an appropriate response for something that is trying to act in the public interest.

That's helpful, thank you. It's been put to us—and arguably I think one would agree—that the current frameworks for degree apprenticeships are structurally biased to promote more male participation. To what extent do you believe that sex equality should be a consideration in what frameworks should be delivered next? I suppose the concern for me is—at the moment, you've got frameworks where the majority of the participants in the workforce are already male; there are other frameworks that you could create where the majority of the participants were already female—I'm not quite seeing how you break that down just by creating new frameworks for, let's say, health and social care, where the majority of participants would be female. Is there something more that needs to be done?

I think there is, and I think each of us would say that we would not be happy with, if you like, an overall aggregate increase in diversity simply by changing the frameworks. That's not the public policy benefit, and I don't think our members, our networks, our providers or the institutions would want that. So, I think if you're going to address gender bias or gender stereotyping within professions, you have to do that way, way upstream.

The work that was referred to in Plenary this week that Bridgend College is doing is part of that. So, if you're doing that within the FE environment, where you have a degree of more control, you can have recruitment policies and procedures, but you need to do it at school level as well. I think when the draft Bill is presented—presumably to this committee—it will be interesting to see the extent to which the regulation of post-16 education will allow for outcome agreements and an approach to delivering better outcomes in the post-16 and post-compulsory space. But it actually means you have to intervene and engage with what will be a brand new curriculum at that point in time in schools. So, I think that's the complexity. 

That really has nothing to do with whether it's a HEFCW-funded project, a regulated project, or it is FE—that's noise, and that's the nugatory competition. The big query I think we have as an organisation over degree apprenticeships is: what are they for? What is the problem that Welsh Government is trying to address? Is it simply trying to put more money back into higher education? Is it trying to at least counterbalance some of the policy initiatives that are taking place in England around degree apprenticeships? Or is it trying to direct its own course and say, 'There are some specifics that we want to achieve in terms of public policy here in Wales', which we'd all accept, across parties, across the Chamber and in civic society, and therefore construct a system based on that?

That's useful, thank you. Are there any specific recommendations that you'd like to see us as a committee make to help address some of those challenges in widening access to degree apprenticeships? You touched on it a bit by talking about it being further down the supply the chain, where you need to be asking the questions about what kind of routes girls and boys might take differently—those sorts of things—but is there something that the work-based learning providers and colleges could do to help break down some of the structural biases that are there? 

Absolutely. When I first heard and when we were first involved with the concept of degree apprenticeships—at that time, there were aspirations for Welsh language, diversity, gender, et cetera—I assumed that it would be relatively easy to achieve within degree apprenticeships because of the concept of recruitment in. And as Matt said, if you are working with employers from the outset as part of their recruitment strategies you can at least influence the employers' view; you can present candidates to try and change employer perception. And my expectation was that degree apprenticeships would have involved a great deal of recruitment in. What we've seen, ultimately, is a great deal of upskilling. So, we haven't changed that model.

To be fair, within the existing network, again, quite a lot of stuff is delivered for upskilling purposes, and that's not a bad thing; that's just the nature of employer demand. However, as we see the Welsh Government's apprenticeship policy and skills plan come to fruition, we are now seeing that transition from an upskilling programme more towards a recruitment-in programme. I've spoken to this committee many times around the apprenticeship programme in its entirety and how we can improve it, and some of it has always come back to impartial, professional careers information advice and guidance at schools. 

Now, I have an aspiration for a degree-apprenticeship programme that would see a 14/15-year-old decide to do a degree via an apprenticeship as opposed to going to university, so there's a proactive choice to do that. Whether or not that's in construction, whether or not that's in engineering, or whether or not that's in health and social care—it's that learner choice.

Where degree apprenticeships can learn from the existing network is we have a very robust, rigorous, work-based learning programme specification. NTFW would be happy to engage with any degree-apprenticeship provider to talk them through the processes, the targets, the approaches that we've been taking—to at least offer some of the great work that we've done. So, we're happy to do that. Certainly, our submission was around, 'Will degree-apprenticeship providers need to engage with the whole work-based learning network to learn from what we've done over the last 10 to 15 years?' Because at the moment it just seems like a bit of a bolt-on.

We're really getting a bit pressed for time, but Matt.

Just on an operational basis, some examples of that would be—born from the robust specification within the work-based learning standards—things like: have-a-go days in schools, which work-based learning providers would be well versed in delivering; and, from a disability perspective, supported internships, which our college has been involved in with local large employers, which has really helped the transition of those learners with additional learning needs or disabilities into the world of work at that kind of entry level of recruitment, really.

Joyce—sorry, did you want to?

No, that's fine. 

Just briefly, Joyce. 

On this, going back—I think Jeff mentioned it and Matthew's mentioned it as well—it has to start very early on if you're directing people. So, there has been work with the Construction Industry Training Board and the Institute of Civil Engineers in trying to widen access for females particularly into the construction and engineering spheres in schools at a very, very early age. So, I suppose my question is that, when we're talking about higher-level degrees, which is what this is about, have you got any evidence where they're actually actively engaging with encouraging—? I know they're adding value at the other end, but in order to do that you've got to have a cohort coming through. Have you seen any evidence where that engagement is happening at all? Or is it not happening? 

It'll have to be a very brief answer. 

To be honest with you, I haven't seen it. I don't think we've seen it elsewhere. 

Okay, thank you. 

Okay. Oscar Asghar. 

Thank you very much, Chair, and good morning to the panel here. My question is the impact that degree apprenticeships have had on higher apprenticeships in Wales. So, have there been negative impacts from the two different networks of providers both offering level 4 and 5 apprenticeships? If 'yes', what are they?

I touched on this earlier on. We have a higher-apprenticeship offer in engineering at level 4 and level 5. Level 4 encompasses a HNC qualification, level 5 a HND, and learners can progress from one to the other. Since the introduction of degree apprenticeships, we have seen, particularly from our larger employers, cohorts of learners that perhaps would have historically progressed through the higher-apprenticeship ladder go direct on to a degree apprenticeship.

I accept the choice element, but the issue for me there is—. Given that there isn't a huge amount of collaboration that we're seeing yet from the degree-apprenticeship providers with FE, at that level 4 and 5 decision-making point, whether it's for learners or employers, the danger that we're seeing there is that it's a competitive marketplace now between two networks of apprenticeship providers.

Where, really, what we would like to see is a consistent continuum, as Jeff mentioned earlier, of collaboration at all levels of apprenticeship delivery to make sure that that decision for that learner is the right one at that time, and that they'd have that exit pathway at level 4, 5 or eventually 6 at the degree level.

Oscar.

Thank you, Chair. The thing I've come across in a typical case in my constituency office is a student who had his higher-education apprenticeship done, but he wanted to go for another—high-class car manufacturing—and he could not get a grant because the people wanted an extra £16,000 per year for his apprenticeship in that company. So, where is the help for those students who have gone into their pockets for lower education and higher education, but when they want to go for an apprenticeship there is no assistance available?

It's a very complicated landscape at the moment. There's no clear pathway. You still have instances where individuals are paying for it personally. Some programmes have Government assistance. I don't think we're ever going to get the perfect policy answer, but it does seem at the moment, Oscar, that things are overly complicated. And as I've said previously, that then mitigates against those who are less able to navigate those complexities.

We are not advocating—I don't think any of us—that this should be 'one provider should do everything' or 'other versus other'. What we're trying to create is an ecology in which various providers can coexist and collaborate, and that does happen at the moment. I think it was a bit disappointing that some of the earlier opportunities for collaboration didn't transpire in actual reality into delivery of projects. At the early doors of this programme, HEFCW and ColegauCymru did work together to try to bring HE and FE together, and private training providers, but I think the reality of the overly competitive nature, obviously, of the current structures often precludes and stops that happening. It sends people into their silos and looking after their interests.

So, Government at least should ensure it takes steps, after learning the lessons of the pilot, to hopefully remove these unhelpful barriers and stop this unnecessary competition taking place. We were expecting them to say that more widely across the piece for post-16 delivery, but this has been demonstrated quite uniquely, I think, in degree-level apprenticeships.

Thank you very much. How can the degree-apprenticeship offer and the higher-apprenticeship offer be made to work together without introducing potentially damaging competition? We've just touched on that a bit.

I think a lot will depend on getting the infrastructure right, particularly in the new regulatory funding and quality assurance body that's being proposed. There are many opinions over the proposed commission on tertiary education and research, which will, again, be coming your way soon through the draft Bill. Whilst we might have concerns and question marks over that, I think the intent that we see and the vision that we would probably share for that body is it helps actually bring about a much more ecological approach; where whatever quality assurance mechanisms are used—be it Estyn, QAA, self-reflection, Qualifications Wales, whatever is decided—that they're driven by a strong purpose.

I think our concern at the moment would be that we are very much concerned about the mechanics of these things rather than actually what we are trying to achieve. Professor Ellen Hazelkorn, in the early, early days of trying to establish a future for answering these complex questions of post-16 provision of vocational and academic, and in research, clearly pointed out that there has to be continuity and a purpose-driven approach. And Professor Harvey Weingarten also said that quality assurance mechanisms have to be appropriate to the kind of learning that's being undertaken. So, that does not necessarily mean one size fits all, but whatever we use has to be appropriate for the task that we set it.

Thank you, Iestyn. And my final—.

We might have to write on some of these points, because we're a bit pressed for time. Is that all right, Oscar?

Okay. The next, I think, is answered.

Joyce Watson.

I'm going to discuss about the quality of degree apprenticeships and how that's assured, so it's leading on. So can you tell us how quality assurance and inspection work now for higher apprenticeships that involve a university sub-contractor?

If I can talk about the quality assurance processes that are applied to the existing work-based learning network, clearly, Estyn have a significant role to play in the quality of assurance of all the levels of apprenticeships, level 2 to level 4. I guess, to make a distinction in terms of what Estyn delivers and does as opposed to QAA: again, to be fair, limited knowledge; I would imagine that QAA is very much about the delivery of the qualification within the environment within which that qualification is delivered, where Estyn will look at the whole learning programme and will look at the apprenticeship in its entirety, and I guess, qualifications are just an element of an apprenticeship programme. And what Estyn will look at, far more rounded, is around learner well-being, leadership and management of that sort of programme, employer engagement, et cetera, et cetera. So, it's much more rounded than what a QAA quality assurance process would look at.

Also as well, wrapped around the quality assurance of the learning provision, apprenticeship providers are subjected to a whole range of quality assurance processes by Welsh Government, by their own self-assessments. Apprenticeship programme, as we know within this committee, has had a great deal of scrutiny over the last few years, around the big 'Q'—quality. Is it meeting the purpose of what it's intended to do? So, there's a considerable amount of quality assurance and a considerable amount of scrutiny. And all that leads to a raising of standards and quality, and I don't think—maybe I'm wrong—I don't think a QAA process would look at a programme in its entirety.

Okay.

And as an Estyn peer inspector, I can talk about the process, but I haven't recently been out on an inspection. As Jeff said, really, the teaching and learning of the actual qualifications is one inspection area of Estyn, amongst a full common inspection framework, really, which would include everything from standards, success rates of learners, right through to the equality of access of learners onto the programmes, their ability to learn or develop their Welsh language or cultural skills, the relationship between the provider and the employer, and the mentors within the employer. So, it's very rigorous and actually encompasses all elements of what you'd expect an apprentice to receive as part of the Welsh Government apprenticeship programme.

I wouldn't want you getting the impression that we think everything is perfect with the way Estyn inspects work-based learning across the entirety, or for that matter that it's perfect in how it inspects FEIs. But I think they have years of experience and a particular approach to quality assurance that needs to be recognised. Does it need to be improved, enhanced and strengthened? Well, clearly, yes. I'm sure their chief inspector would agree with that as well. So we're not trying to say here that there's nothing to see here, it's perfect over here, and then we need them to back down. It's a bit more complicated than that.

Joyce.

So, do you think, then, that there's scope here—because we've heard two sides to the coin here this morning, quite clearly—that there's scope for learning from the university degree apprenticeship, from what's already happened, and the sharing maybe of some best practice and information? And if you do agree with that, have there been any approaches to secure that end?

Absolutely. There is a great deal of good practice to be learned from the existing apprenticeship provider network, be that in terms of delivery models, employer engagement or quality assurance processes. I think why we can offer that is because we have the understanding that an apprenticeship is not just the delivery of a qualification. It is a programme, and the network over the years has learnt a great deal of good practice in the delivery of that, and we've worked collaboratively with Estyn and other organisations as well to develop their understanding. I guess it goes back to my point around an apprenticeship being a continuum, and it's only fair that everybody is subjected to the same quality assurance, rigour and scrutiny. 

Very briefly, Chair, it takes us back to your opening question around establishing the frameworks for the technical competency. You have the quality assurance of awarding, you have the quality assurance of delivery, and that has to be from cradle to grave—it's a much wider experience of learning through apprenticeships. But you also have to make sure that what's being taught and what's being learned is of current relevance and salience to the employer and the profession. I don't think that triangle is equally balanced at the moment, and again, the committee might want to consider how to improve each aspect. Each has its place. This is not about QAA and universities versus Estyn. It's more complicated than that, and I'm sure the committee will not be drawn into that kind of silo thinking. 

So, what would the recommendation be?

I think it's a recommendation going forward. We can look back, can't we, at what's happened in the pilot, and I think the committee needs to be considering what recommendations, and whether or not the future statutory basis for the regulation of post-16 education will allow this much more complex and richer regulatory and quality assurance environment. We are coming to the end of a particular kind of era, aren't we, in the way we currently govern and deliver post-16 education. A new day is dawning. Whether it will be a bright day or a dark day, I don't know—opinion is divided—but let's make sure that that Bill and that institution has the capacity to do the job well and is rooted in a vision of what we want to achieve in Wales. 

And at whatever level, there's consistency. Whichever way we go with this, the apprenticeship brand has consistency from entry level right through to degree level.

Hefin David.

Would you concede that universities have a historic level of knowledge and experience that makes them ideal providers for on-the-job training at a level 6 level that brings higher esteem? 

I wouldn't only concede it, I'd welcome it, and I think it's something we need to celebrate in Wales. Many of our universities, and my alma mater, started off as a specific engineering college—Swansea University comes from that vocational background. Wherever you go on the continuum of learning, there has to be a strong vocational element. I think the danger is that the current situation around funding drives us, and the pots of funding, the procurement and provision, drives us into this unhelpful conversation around taking ground, conceding ground and allowing opportunities. That's not the vision I think that we have for education post 16 in Wales, and I think the current structures have actually helped create that kind of competitive environment. 

Because Estyn gave us evidence that they had concerns that there was a lack of work-based activity, including degree apprenticeships, provided by the universities, and having interrogated this in a previous session, I can't see any evidence for that. 

I'm sure they have a basis themselves, and I wouldn't want to question their judgments. What I'm saying is that if we continue to have an unhelpful binary around 'Is it this or is it that?' we will always fall into these problems. There's clearly a form of forming judgments, a kind of objective subjectivity that Estyn brings to the situation that is different to the HE-led QAA.

So Estyn are making judgments about something they don't understand. 

Quite possibly. I think what we need to do is look at how we can ensure, through their common inspection framework, through engaging with people like Matt and peer inspectors, but also this missing third that I mentioned earlier on—how do we ensure that detailed technical and vocational knowledge at the higher level is also brought to bear? I don't agree that it's an ideal, perfect situation, but neither do I think that we need to fall into an unhelpful trap of one versus the other. 

I just wanted to come back to the rather sniffy attitude the panel had towards QAA. QAA have a role, but we know that the culture of quality assurance in universities is more than that. It's a peer review, collaborative and cross-institutional critical culture. It goes beyond QAA. Therefore, that robust system could be just as effective, if not more so, than Estyn at level 6, surely.

If I may, I think the point you made there, Hefin, in terms of across the institution, when work-based learning providers are inspected it's across the employers as well. So we've got to look outside the institution. I did say 'my limited knowledge'. Apprenticeships are more than just the delivery of a qualification. They are the delivery of the programme, and Estyn—

A qualification in a university is more than a qualification, there's a programme as well. There's a definitive programme document that explains in great detail and depth exactly what that programme will deliver and is required to go through a validation process, which is incredibly rigorous; I've been through it myself. That equates, surely, to anything that Estyn does. 

They're the same but different; they are different approaches to quality assurance. 

Yes, but that shouldn't preclude universities from doing degree apprenticeships. 

Not at all. I don't think in this evidence and, indeed, what I heard from the evidence of the previous session, no-one is saying that one part of the ecology should or shouldn't deliver. What we are saying is that this is an inquiry not so much into QAA, Estyn, HEFCW or individual providers; it's an inquiry, I believe, Chair, into the steps that were taken to establish degree apprenticeships, and I think that's where our fruitful focus needs to be. 

So, your question earlier was—. Sorry, Jeff, go on. 

So, just to be absolutely clear: NTFW is not saying that universities shouldn't be involved in the delivery of degree apprenticeships, because there clearly is a place for university institutions to be part of that skills agenda at a higher level. And the Welsh Government's policy is driving towards higher level, and we need universities to deliver that.

But you don't think they should be developing programmes.  

Well, they have to develop programmes because only universities can develop degrees. We haven't discussed prescribed and non-prescribed qualifications being fundable as well. But, absolutely, they should be able to develop the qualifications to form part of that apprenticeship framework, but that apprenticeship framework needs to be looked at in the round as opposed to just the delivery of the element of qualification. 

I concur with Jeff. There's a subtle difference that where we have a qualification, be that an off-the-shelf awarding body, a Pearson qualification, a university degree or a sub-degree level 4 or 5 qualification, you also in an apprenticeship have a framework. And it's very similar, actually, to the kinds of wider delivery that you see in FE delivery, that it's not just a qualification, it's the wider learning programme that we're looking at, which is a range of provision and the qualification is just one element. I agree that when the institution is engaged, a QA looks at more than just the one qualification, but we have to identify here that we're dealing with a different kind of learning. This is neither FE nor HE; this is work-based learning, so—

What the universities put to us is they are talking programmes; they're not talking qualifications, they're not talking about a certificate at the end. They're talking about the process that leads to the kind of learning that you want to see. Their argument is that's exactly what they are doing through their programmes—not qualifications, but programmes. 

Maybe it's a frame of reference thing. So, when I talk about an apprenticeship programme, what I talk about is not just the delivery of the qualification; it's all of the other things that the apprenticeship providers need to deliver to develop that individual and to work with that sort of employer. Now, be that safeguarding, well-being, Prevent, Essential Skills Wales, digital learning—all those sorts of things— those are the elements that form part of the Estyn common inspection framework that providers will be inspected against. So, I think the view that I have is that maybe the common inspection framework is far broader than maybe just a QAA, but I do accept I may be— 

Okay. I don't want to keep keeping coming back to that; we've explored that. Okay. And with regard to collaborative working, Iestyn, I think you said earlier you were optimistic that collaborative working between universities, FE and other bodies was effective originally but not as effective now. 

Yes. I think when you start off, any new process always has a degree of energy and creativity into it, and then the reality of funding and developing programmes and budgets all comes to bear. So, I think we have to continue to invest not just in the programme delivery costs, but in the critical mass that we need to create around these programmes to bring co-operation together. And nothing stops co-operation more than culture and the need to hit the pounds, shillings and pence. Because it's a less than perfect world, but we started off with—

So, we're looking for recommendations that will resolve that, which also include bringing in the wealth of experience that universities have into degree apprenticeships. So, what would that recommendation be?  

I think our recommendation would be (a) for the continuation of this programme but also, under the auspices of the new body, to ensure that regulatory and funding frameworks—

You said 'the continuation of this programme'. 

We'd imagine that degree apprenticeships will continue, and they will continue right through under the new regulatory framework should the Bill be passed. 

And you'd be happy with that. 

We'd be happy with that. Like I said, no-one here is saying that we should have some artificial divide or we should stop. We can't design something new by reverse engineering an old product. And, hopefully, the engineering degree apprentices will understand that. We need to consider what it is we want to achieve. What is the purpose that we are trying to achieve here, and how can we best secure a framework or a product or whatever you want to call it that delivers that? You will need a significant investment in bringing in collaboration, you will need to desensitise areas of competition where it's not helpful or not necessary, and the programme will need to build better synergies between providers—both private, both HE and FE—if we are to meet the ambition that we want, which is higher skills and a denser level of skills across all levels in our communities.

There's no argument that degree apprenticeships are a really positive step for the apprenticeship brand in Wales, and, in the eyes of parents and young people that are looking to aspire and making choices over a vocational or academic route, it's potentially a game changer for us. And equally there's no argument either, Hefin, that universities obviously have got a massive role to play in the development of degree apprenticeships. I suppose the point is, really, we've got really strong collaborative relationships between FE and HE across Wales on franchise relationships. We just need to see that happening more in degree apprenticeships would be—. And I guess evidence will tell over time of how much collaboration has actually happened, particularly at level 4 and 5 levels, of what is, potentially, a three or four-year degree apprenticeship programme.

Ultimately, they're the degree-awarding bodies. So, if you want degree apprenticeships, you're going to have a university.

Well, there are alternatives. There are other ways of accrediting or credentialing a level 6 or above programme. Level 6 and level 7 qualifications do exist outside of the traditional university framework, as you'll be aware. So, again, it's how do we want to get to where we want to get to? And if we're saying the only route is either FE or HE or work-based learning, that's a very fruitless discourse, I believe, for us in civic society and indeed in education in Wales. We need to understand where we want to get to and how we can get there.

Other countries have various routes to get to the same point, and I think Wales would do well to learn not only from England in the introduction of degree apprenticeships, but to learn more widely from Europe where there are multiple routes to the same end, whether it's a vocational route, it's a technical route, it's an accreditation route, it's a certification route—whatever it might be. We used to have them, and many of our university institutions now were once in that space, and not just using the traditional degree route we've got now. So, there are other ways of getting to this point. But that does not mean that we have to fall into any unnecessary and unhelpful competition between providers.

Okay.

And can I just say, Chair, as well, just for clarity: the NTFW is not advocating the cessation of degree apprenticeships? There is a role for the very reasons that Matt said—it is a game changer to change people's perception of apprenticeships, which I know this committee has looked at. But it is just making sure that the wiring below is tidied up.

Okay.

Thank you. Vikki Howells.

Thank you, Chair. Can you explain to us how degree apprenticeships and other apprenticeships are actually costed?

How long have you got? Jeff's the expert on this.

Can I just check? You've provided us with a document at the beginning of the session.

Yes, very late, Chair, I'm afraid, but it at least provides a little bit of context.

Well, we haven't had time to look at that as Members, but, if we're pressed for time, perhaps we can have a look at that after the meeting and come back to you otherwise. Vikki didn't realise we'd had that information beforehand, so apologies, Vikki.

Maybe just, as a one-liner: apprenticeships, currently, are funded on an activity-cost model, and, however much that activity costs, that’s pretty much what gets funded. So, in terms of demonstrating real value for money, you can't get much better than that.

Okay. We'll digest your information sheet at the end of the meeting. Thank you.

I'm just wondering now what's on the information sheet and whether it's worth me asking any of the questions.

No, no—I think it was just the first one, I think, that was being addressed. Sorry, Vikki.

That's okay. So, looking at the delivery of level 4 and 5 higher apprenticeships, how would you say the costs of that compare to the cost of delivering the level 4 and 5 degree apprenticeships?

Well, in our experience, a level 4 or 5 higher apprenticeship programme would usually attract anywhere between £8,000 and £12,000 over the course of probably a two-year programme, whereas the degree apprenticeships are pretty much standard at £27,000 over a three-year programme. Now, it's not for me to decide how those figures were come to, but there's clearly a bit of a disconnect there between those two values and the methodology that's being used to come up with those values. And I guess a challenge I've come across from employers over the degree apprenticeship costings compared to previous higher apprenticeships is—. Well, their first question is around what's different to what are the current degree apprenticeships from what would have been the previous part-time apprenticeship programmes that they would have sponsored their employees to be on, and be paying fees of roughly £2,500 per year on, to what they're now getting, which—degree apprenticeship providers are drawing in £9,000 per year. That's a challenge we've had.

Okay. So, for the future, then, because this is just the start of the model, what do you think a sustainable funding model for degree apprenticeships would look like, considering the fact that they're one of four apprenticeship types?

I think that, despite the complexity that's implicit in the activity costing model, there has to be a real plausible case for that being the base upon which the funding is established. I think elsewhere, not just in level 4 and 5, with degree apprenticeships, we would want to ensure that Welsh Government, or indeed the funding body going forward, is utterly transparent in how it establishes that model and how it costs it with the sector, but, ultimately, if we're going to increase provision anywhere across the spectrum, we are realistic, I think, as a sector, cross-sector, that there is very little new money to pay for this, so transparency and actually hitting the nail right on the head is what we need to do, and that applies equally to all forms of funding for skills. Again, I'm not trying to seek special pleading for any particular part of the provision or play one end against the other. We need to really be sure what we are getting, what are we paying for as a society, and, actually, what are the outcomes we achieve at the end.

We'd certainly say that value for money has got to be key. I talked earlier around the activity cost model and we've called for degree apprenticeships to be funded along the same model as that, because the overall quantum of apprenticeships funding generally tends to be fixed. You may well be aware, currently, the provider network is facing a 5 per cent cut next year, to the tune of £5 million to £6 million—not likely to be the first year, likely to run into the next, second and third year as well.

So, at a time when employer demand and learner demand is growing for apprenticeships, we're facing a funding cut. And the more higher level apprenticeships, including degree apprenticeships—the more higher level you deliver, they come at a greater cost, and that means that you are unable to deliver any of the lower, or fewer of the lower, level costs, and the main thing to consider with an apprenticeship programme is that it is around ladders of progression, so, if you deliver more higher level, then the opportunities for people to progress to that level are taken away.

So, it is a challenge for Welsh Government how to square that circle, and that's why what we need to do is identify value for money, and also identify at which level Welsh Government—and, indeed, the Welsh economy—gets greater return on investment. Welsh Government have identified it's not at level 2: we are no longer providing, or minimising the amount of provision, at level 2 and moving up that value chain. And it's only right, then, that all forms of apprenticeships are funded along the same model.

Okay.

Okay. Thank you. Unless Members have got any additional questions, that brings us to the end of this session, but thank you for your time this morning and we appreciate you're one of the earlier evidence sessions, so, if there's information that's provided in later meetings that you feel you want to respond to, we'd very much welcome that and encourage that. And please also check the transcript after the meeting as well. If you want to add to anything then, please do so. Thank you for the additional information at the beginning of the meeting, which the Members haven't digested yet, but we will after the meeting. So, diolch yn fawr. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Chair. On behalf of the clients, can we put on the record our thanks to the committee for its continued interest in skills, and vocational skills in particular? It really does go some way to helping this parity of esteem gap. So, we appreciate the commitment of the committee to these subjects.

We appreciate that, and that's on the record. Thank you. And that brings us to an end of our public meeting this morning.