Amid the government’s enthusiasm for apprenticeships, concerns about quality have never been far from the surface. Suspicions have been raised that the funding on offer may be encouraging a lower standard of qualifications, and in some cases – most notably in the retail sector – all too brief training periods.

In an attempt to redress the balance, skills minister John Hayes has now announced that all apprenticeships must last for a minimum of 12 months. The idea is to give trainees enough time to learn and then practise their skills to a high standard; ministers hope this will drive up standards and reinforce the reputation of apprenticeships as a career route.

But is this focus on the length of programmes justified?

David Way, chief executive of the National Apprenticeship Service, backed the policy. “By ensuring apprenticeships last between one and four years, we are not only giving employers what they say they want, but also giving confidence back to everyone who has questioned the growth in shorter apprenticeships,” he said.

There will be exceptions – trainees with “proven prior learning” will be able to count this towards their 12 months – but even then the training must last at least six months.

Critics of the move say these time periods are arbitrary and not necessarily a benchmark of quality. The Association of Employment and Learning Providers opposes a minimum duration and called the move “very disappointing”. It said employers and providers should have the opportunity to fast-track talented learners and that it would be using the forthcoming consultation to seek reassurances on the circumstances under which six-month training periods were sufficient for funding.

In February, Stephen Uden, the head of skills and economic affairs at Microsoft, told a government select committee that the IT giant had run very successful accelerated programmes that had lasted between seven and 12 months.

In response to the latest move, Uden told PM: “Most of our apprentices take 12 months or sometimes longer to meet the requirements of the awarding organisation. However, some very capable young people are able to meet the requirements more quickly, and we don’t feel they should be held back by an artificial limit on length.

“Students are able to attain other level 3 qualifications, such as A-levels, whenever they meet the requirements – we would like to see the equivalent for apprenticeships.”

Linda Millett, head of HR at pharmaceutical firm Takeda Cambridge, said: “In our industry we wouldn’t consider less than 12 months worthwhile. You wouldn’t get a broad enough skills base or a deep enough understanding of the science to deliver as an employee, however bright you are.

“We run a three-year programme, and I think a 12-month minimum is a good thing, but it’s not just about the duration; it’s about the quality of skills acquired and how transferable they are. I am against short-term low skilled schemes being called apprenticeships.”

Worryingly, other quality concerns with apprenticeships remain unaddressed. The BBC’s Panorama programme <<BBC ONE Panorama - The Great Apprentice Scandal recently highlighted a string of cases where certain schemes being run by training sub-contractors appeared to be of little benefit to those taking part.

In response to Panorama’s findings, AELP said: “Lead contractors should not only be fully responsible for the quality of their own directly delivered apprenticeship provision, but they should also be strongly accountable for the provision of their sub-contractors.”

AELP suggested that a new Skills Funding Agency (SFA) pilot, which aims to encourage sub-contractors to become direct contractors of the SFA, could go some way to clarifying accountability, which could increase the spotlight on quality.