3rd November 2026
Scotland faces a growing challenge in ensuring that it has enough skilled tradespeople to meet the demands of the economy over the coming years. Yet the businesses expected to train those workers are increasingly concerned about the financial burden of taking on apprentices.
The plumbing and heating industry is now highlighting the problem, with the Scottish and Northern Ireland Plumbing Employers' Federation (SNIPEF) calling for additional financial assistance towards apprentice wages and the costs of supervision.
It is an issue that deserves wider attention because it goes beyond one industry. If small businesses cannot afford to train young people, where will the next generation of engineers, electricians, plumbers, construction workers and other skilled tradespeople come from?
The real cost of employing an apprentice
SNIPEF has published a report entitled The Forgotten Side of the Apprenticeship Triangle, examining the pressures facing plumbing and heating businesses.
Its research included a survey of 188 employers and regional discussions involving businesses across Scotland.
The findings suggest that employers remain committed to apprenticeships, but the financial risks are becoming harder to manage.
SNIPEF estimates that apprentice wages over a four-year training period can amount to approximately £82,500, based on nationally agreed rates and a 40-hour working week.
That figure is before allowing for additional employer costs, including supervision, administration, insurance, equipment and the time spent providing practical training.
There is also the question of productivity. An experienced plumber can work independently, complete jobs and generate income for the business. An apprentice requires supervision and may initially take considerably longer to complete the same work.
Employers are investing in somebody who may eventually become a highly skilled and valuable member of their workforce, but they must carry much of the financial responsibility during the training period.
According to SNIPEF, 78% of those surveyed considered existing Scottish Government apprenticeship support inadequate or poor.
The organisation wants targeted assistance towards wages during compulsory college attendance and the costs of supervision, particularly in the early years.
Are fewer businesses willing to recruit?
The survey provides some interesting indications.
Among employers who gave a definite answer about future recruitment, 53% expected to take on apprentices during the next three years.
However, 24% of all respondents said it was too early to decide.
This does not mean that businesses have abandoned apprenticeships. Indeed, 81% supported retaining the established four-year training model.
But it does demonstrate the uncertainty facing employers.
The wider Scottish apprenticeship figures also deserve attention.
Skills Development Scotland reported 24,849 Modern Apprenticeship starts during 2025/26, a reduction of 2.6%, or 658 starts, compared with the previous year.
The achievement rate, however, improved to 80.3%, its highest recorded level at the end of a financial year.
This suggests that those who enter the system are generally completing their training successfully, but fewer opportunities are being started.
That should concern government and employers alike.
The government already provides support, but is it enough?
It is important to recognise that Scotland already has an apprenticeship funding system.
Skills Development Scotland contributes towards training and assessment costs, with the level of support depending on factors such as the apprentice's age, qualification and occupational sector.
There are also additional incentives and support arrangements for certain groups.
The Construction Industry Training Board provides grants to eligible employers, while other industry organisations have their own arrangements.
However, the distinction between paying for training and paying for an apprentice's employment is important.
Even where training costs are supported, businesses must still meet wage bills and provide the workplace experience and supervision needed to develop a competent tradesperson.
SNIPEF is not simply asking government to pay for apprenticeships. It is arguing that the financial contribution expected from employers needs to be reconsidered.
There is a reasonable argument that if government wants businesses to provide more training opportunities, it should recognise the real costs involved.
Equally, public money must be targeted carefully. Assistance should encourage additional training rather than simply subsidising recruitment that businesses would have undertaken anyway.
The consequences for Scotland's economy
The shortage of skilled workers could become a serious obstacle to Scotland's economic ambitions.
Construction, housing, renewable energy, engineering and infrastructure projects all require people with practical skills.
Scotland needs more homes, improvements to existing buildings, electricity network upgrades and a substantial workforce capable of maintaining essential services.
The construction industry alone faces considerable recruitment demands.
Evidence presented to the Scottish Parliament in March indicated that more than 6,500 people started construction-related Modern Apprenticeships in 2024/25, with more than 13,000 in training.
Yet industry representatives have warned that the supply of suitable apprenticeship opportunities does not always match the demand from young people wanting to enter the sector.
This is an important distinction.
It may not simply be a question of young people lacking interest in skilled trades. The ability and willingness of employers to provide training places is also a major part of the problem.
If businesses cannot afford to recruit apprentices, young people may find themselves unable to access the very training opportunities that government says the country needs.
A particular problem for rural Scotland
The challenge could be even greater in areas such as Caithness and Sutherland.
Smaller businesses often have fewer employees and less financial flexibility than larger companies.
A plumbing firm employing three or four people cannot necessarily absorb the costs and reduced productivity associated with an additional apprentice as easily as a large national contractor.
There are also geographical difficulties.
An apprentice may need to travel considerable distances to attend college or specialist training. Employers can face additional costs and lost working time when employees are away from the business.
Yet rural areas need skilled tradespeople just as much as cities.
Indeed, maintaining housing, public buildings, energy infrastructure and local businesses becomes increasingly difficult when experienced tradespeople retire and there are insufficient replacements.
There is a wider question about whether apprenticeship funding arrangements adequately recognise the additional costs of training in remote and rural communities.
Who should pay for training Britain's future workforce?
There is an argument that businesses should accept responsibility for training the people they need. After all, employers ultimately benefit from having qualified staff.
But there is also a wider public interest.
A trained plumber, electrician or engineer may work for several different businesses throughout a career. The benefits of that training therefore extend beyond the original employer.
Government also benefits through higher employment, increased tax receipts, reduced reliance on imported skills and a more productive economy.
It would be short-sighted to allow the cost of training to discourage employers from taking on young people.
A more balanced arrangement could involve targeted wage assistance, recognition of supervision costs, better support for college attendance and additional help for smaller rural employers.
Any scheme would need safeguards to ensure that public money produces genuine additional training opportunities and that standards are not weakened.
Investing in skills is investing in the economy
Scotland's apprenticeship system has achieved considerable success, and the improving completion rate is encouraging.
But there is little value in setting ambitious targets for apprenticeship numbers if the businesses expected to provide the opportunities cannot afford to participate.
The latest concerns from plumbing and heating employers should therefore be seen as a warning to government.
Politicians regularly talk about economic growth, new housing, renewable energy and infrastructure investment. All these ambitions depend on having enough skilled people to deliver them.
Training the next generation cannot simply be left to employers while government concentrates on announcing targets and funding headline figures.
There needs to be a genuine partnership between government, colleges, training organisations and businesses.
The question is straightforward: if Britain needs more skilled workers, why are the small businesses expected to train them finding it increasingly difficult to afford to do so?