Dr. Jim Murray:

There is no real evidence that consortium-led apprenticeships are less rigorous than craft apprenticeships. There may be preferences, including cultural preferences, for different approaches but we must put it in the context that craft apprenticeship arrangements date back a considerable period of time. They originate in the Industrial Training Act 1967, which has been amended consistently over time. We must bear in mind that the systems have changed radically since then. Regional technical colleges and institutes of technology have now gone. They are now technological universities. ANCO and FÁS have now gone while SOLAS is here. We have a qualifications framework and new quality assurance systems. The old systems cannot stay still. They cannot remain static. The thrust of current policy is to create a coherent system for all apprenticeships in the 21st century where there are new approaches to quality assurance.

There may be concerns and worries about that but I think we need to be more explicit about where the lack of rigour is, because it is not our experience as the quality assurance agency across the board that one system is weaker than another. I reiterate that when you question the quality assurance of providers that have primary quality assurance for their provision, you then have to ask whether that is the case for university provision in their own qualifications. That issue is not really fully considered when these kinds of statements are made. There is much work to do to bring the system together for the 21st century but there is huge commitment across all stakeholders to do that.