The Bench Report

Level 7 Apprenticeships Funding Crisis: Impact on Architecture and Skilled Careers

• The Bench Report • Season 5 • Episode 8

Share episode

This episode examines the critical debate surrounding the government's plan to remove public funding for many Level 7 apprenticeships for those aged 22 and over, effective January 2026. The government aims to rebalance funding toward younger learners beginning their careers. However, critics argue this move will severely hinder diversity and access in sectors like architecture and town planning, where apprentices rarely reach Level 7 before age 22 or 25 due to lengthy training requirements. We explore how this policy risks shrinking the pipeline of qualified professionals needed to meet national targets for housing and infrastructure, particularly impacting small businesses that rely on this funding. The debate contrasts the focus on youth funding with the need for high-level specialized skills across the built environment.

Key Takeaways

  • Public funding for many Level 7 apprenticeships will be restricted to those under age 22 (or under 25 for specific groups like care leavers) starting in January 2026.
  • The apprenticeship route, especially at Level 7, has been crucial for achieving better gender balance and increasing access for people from disadvantaged backgrounds in architecture.
  • Professions in the built environment (architects, town planners) have long qualification periods, meaning apprentices typically reach Level 7 well past the age of 21, making the new restriction a significant barrier.
  • The government is encouraging employers to invest directly in upskilling older staff and is shifting focus to young people by introducing Foundation Apprenticeships in critical sectors like construction.
  • Skills shortages are acute across the built environment; over 250,000 additional workers are estimated to be needed by 2028 just to maintain current construction output.

Source: Level 7 Apprenticeships
Volume 776: debated on Tuesday 25 November 2025

Follow and subscribe to 'The Bench Report' on Apple, Spotify, and YouTube for new episodes daily: thebenchreport.co.uk

Subscribe to our Substack

Shape our next episode! Get in touch with an issue important to you - Producer Tom will grab another coffee and start the research!

Email us: thebenchreportuk@gmail.com

Follow us on YouTube, X, Bluesky, Facebook, Instagram and TikTok! @benchreportUK

Support us for bonus and extended episodes + more.

No outside chatter: source material only taken from Hansard and the Parliament UK website.

Contains Parliamentary information repurposed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0...

Amy:

Hello and welcome once more to the Bench Report, where we discuss recent debates from the benches of the UK Parliament. A new topic every episode. You're listening to Amy and Ivan.

Ivan:

Today we're looking at the debate around level seven apprenticeships. That's the master's degree equivalent, and we're trying to understand the core conflict.

Amy:

It seems to be a choice, really. Is the government prioritizing funding for younger people just starting out or securing high-level skills for really critical sectors?

Ivan:

Precisely. Let's get into the policy itself. In June, the government confirmed a major change is coming.

Amy:

They're stopping public funding for these level seven apprenticeships.

Ivan:

But not for everyone. It's for most people aged 22 and over, and that kicks in from January 2026.

Amy:

There are a few exceptions for carelivers, for instance, but for most people, that door is closing.

Ivan:

And that age limit is, well, it's the critical point. Especially for a profession like architecture.

Amy:

Because the training path is so long.

Ivan:

It's seven to ten years. So anyone starting that journey is going to be well past 22 before they even get to the level seven masters portion of it.

Amy:

I mean, it was stated in Parliament that it's virtually impossible to complete it before you turn 25.

Ivan:

So this policy doesn't just make it harder, it essentially eliminates the entire apprenticeship route for the architecture profession.

Amy:

Which feels very counterintuitive, especially since this particular route was by all accounts a success.

Ivan:

A huge success. It was bringing near gender parity to the field and opening doors for people from disadvantaged backgrounds.

Amy:

And this is all happening at a time when we hear so much about skills shortages.

Ivan:

Completely. Skills England estimates we need over a quarter of a million extra construction workers by 2028.

Amy:

Including architects and town planners?

Ivan:

Yes, just to meet the government's own housing targets. So you're shrinking the talent pool right when demand is at its highest. It is. A level seven apprentice gets about 10,000 pounds in support for their part two qualification.

Amy:

10,000. And a full-time student on the traditional university route.

Ivan:

They can access up to 46,000 pounds.

Amy:

That's a massive gap. And it must have a huge impact on who can even consider that path.

Ivan:

It does. And this connects directly to the size of the business, which was a crucial point raised in the debate.

Amy:

You mean large firms versus small ones?

Ivan:

Exactly. A large consultancy might be able to absorb the cost of training, but small and medium-sized practices, which are the backbone of the sector.

Amy:

They rely entirely on the skills levy funding to take on apprentices.

Ivan:

Entirely. They can't finance it directly? For them, this change means the route simply disappears.

Amy:

So what was the minister's rationale for making a decision with such uh significant consequences?

Ivan:

Aaron Powell The central argument is about rebalancing the system. The focus, they say, needs to be on younger people.

Amy:

They cited a fall in youth apprenticeship starts.

Ivan:

A 40% fall under the previous administration, yes. So the argument is that funding must be prioritized for those at the very start of their careers.

Amy:

And what about the supply of high-level skills? Was that addressed?

Ivan:

It was. The government's position, citing Skills England, is that there are other options available.

Amy:

Non-apprenticeship master's courses.

Ivan:

Correct. The suggestion being that the long-term supply of skills is unlikely to suffer significantly.

Amy:

And on the diversity point, because that seems like a big loss.

Ivan:

The minister countered that overall, level seven apprentices are statistically less likely to be from deprived backgrounds compared to those at lower levels. So the focus is shifting down.

Amy:

To new foundation apprenticeships in construction and engineering with incentives for employers.

Ivan:

That's the plan.

Amy:

So we're left with this very clear trade-off, a real tension in policy.

Ivan:

It is. How can the system support new young entrants while also ensuring that vital professions, ones that need these long qualification times, don't lose their best way of bringing in diverse talent and filling critical skills gaps?

Amy:

That does seem to be the strategic contradiction at the heart of this.

Ivan:

And that's the question you're left to consider.

Amy:

As always, find us on social media at benchreport UK. Get in touch with any topic important to you. Remember, politics is everyone's business. Take care.

Podcasts we love

Check out these other fine podcasts recommended by us, not an algorithm.

Parliament Matters Artwork

Parliament Matters

Hansard Society