Sarah Gibson

Absolutely. Right across the built environment, careers take a long time, and therefore we need to be supporting different types of people into those careers at a later age. If we want to meet housing targets, we need planners, architects and surveyors. Otherwise, we will not meet our net zero commitments and we will not be able to unlock the large-scale retrofit of existing homes that is needed and that, as we know from experience, requires technical support to get right. We cannot meet those ambitions while simultaneously shrinking the pipeline of qualified professionals across the built environment. In addition, the Government’s proposal is prejudicial to those already in the system. Level 6 apprentices cannot access the same undergraduate student finance as their full-time counterparts. Although a full-time part 2 student may receive up to £46,000 in support, a level 7 apprentice progressing to part 2 would receive only £10,000. The very pathway that has enabled young people without family wealth to enter the architecture profession risks becoming a dead end. The Architects Registration Board has been undertaking major reforms of the initial education and training of architects. It has stated that a key plank of those reforms has been to increase access to the profession for those taking non-traditional routes and, in particular, those from disadvantaged backgrounds or minority ethnic groups. The apprenticeship route in architecture is still in its infancy, but it is a very important part of the wider strategy that the Architects Registration Board is trying to achieve. Architectural practices are overwhelmingly small and medium-sized enterprises. They rely on the growth and skills levy to train apprentices; without it, they simply cannot take them on. The engagement that the Architects Registration Board has had with trailblazers, employers and the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education has led it to conclude that the removal of funding for level 7 apprenticeships could close off this route entirely. The benefit of being able to learn while you earn, in a profession that takes seven to 10 years to qualify for, cannot be stressed enough. Extending the date until which those over 21 can receive funding would help to reduce the cliff edge and would give universities, learners and employers time to adapt. I therefore ask the Minister the following questions. What assessment has been made of the impact of restricting level 7 funding on the future diversity of the profession that requires this level as part of its final qualification? What impact will this restriction have on the ability of the profession to deliver the homes and infrastructure that the country desperately needs?