Shane Chowen calls for greater recognition of the impact welfare cuts will have on FE students.

The parliamentary process isn’t one that lends itself to straight forward explanation at the best of times.

But when complicated and contentious pieces of legislation work their way through Westminster, it’s all to easy to get caught up in the process and the politics and lose sight about the practical realities that new laws and regulations will have on people’s lives.

I often use this column to call on leaders in our sector to involve themselves more in the public policy debates surrounding the lives of learners, not just those directly affecting their institutions, and do all they can provide spaces for learners themselves to use their experiences to improve the quality of policy that is affecting their lives.

Looking to welfare, figures published in July 2015 showed that the number of benefit claimants enrolling in FE courses has risen to 650,000, up from 480,000 in 2009/10.

The overall number of learners in that time has decreased substantially, so as a sector, an increasing proportion of our learners are on benefits.

The majority claim Job Seekers Allowance (JSA) or Employment Support Allowance (ESA).

Theatre aside, reforms to the welfare system are happening alongside reforms to FE and skills and both impact on the lives of learners and their ability to access the support they need to get on in life

This is why the passage of the Welfare Reform and Work Bill is really important to our sector.

The bill seeks to increase a number of policies to help the Government meet its commitments to reduce spending on benefits, achieve full employment and half the disability employment gap.

Putting to one side for a moment whether you think current public spending on welfare is acceptable or not, we everyone in FE can probably agree that getting more people into good jobs, particularly helping to find more and better employment opportunities for people with disabilities, is laudable.

However, the Government is struggling to convince members of the House of Lords to agree to one element of the bill in particular.

It’s the plan to reduce the amount people on ESA, who are ill or disabled but deemed fit for ‘work-related activity’, down to the same level as JSA, which is a cut of about £30 a week for new claimants.

Opponents of the cut in ESA argue that cutting the incomes of disabled people will hinder rather than help them to find work, whereas proponents argue the changes won’t affect current claimants and people with severe health conditions and disabilities will continue to receive higher levels of support from elsewhere in the benefits system.

Having passed through the House of Commons and the House of Lords, the bill which includes this controversial cut in benefits to disabled people, is now at the stage known as ‘ping pong’ where measures that both houses disagree on are passed back and forth either until there is agreement, or until Ministers use measures to pass the legislation without consent from the Lords.

Theatre aside, reforms to the welfare system are happening alongside reforms to FE and skills and both impact on the lives of learners and their ability to access the support they need to get on in life.

That’s why I would like to see both agendas work much closer together over the coming months and years.

In particular, more recognition is needed through area reviews of the provision that people on benefits need — 88 per cent of which are level two and below, alongside what employers say they need.

Also, look out for a government white paper on disability, health and employment expected soon and contribute.

Shane Chowen is head of policy and public affairs at the Learning and Work Institute

The Government has faced criticism for rejecting attempts to ensure representatives from all stakeholders involved with apprenticeships — not just employers — are represented on the new Institute for Apprentices. Shakira Martin spells out the case for involving apprentice voices.

The government is once again chanting its refrain of “employers must be in the driving seat”.

The announcement of who will sit on the board of the Institute for Apprentices is all about ensuring employers have their say.

This mantra has been repeated so often you might be fooled into thinking that the government has a clear idea of why this should be the case, and what exactly ‘employer-led’ means.

Yet one of the key aspects of apprenticeships policy, and in fact the reason why the government felt it needed to introduce a levy, is that there is no such thing as a single ‘employer interest’.

Different employers have different interests — they need different forms of training, within different sized budgets, at different skill levels.

The government has confused the admirable aim of ensuring that demand is driven by individual employers’ skills needs, with the belief that in order to do so requires collective employer dominance of the new institute.

But employers are only one of the many stakeholders who matter in apprenticeships.

Countries with successful apprenticeship models, such as Germany, have recognised that a successful and high quality skills policy is a collaborative effort of employers, educators and apprentices themselves.

That’s why I’m disappointed to see the new institute seemingly dominated not only by employer representatives, but by university-educated employer representatives with no direct experience of apprenticeships.

Going forward, I implore the new institute to find a forum for incorporating apprentice voices, and work with the National Society of Apprentices and trade unions to do so.

This might involve an advisory board to the institute, or a national survey of apprentices’ experiences.

There is too much uncertainty for apprentices that their investment will be worthwhile

The government’s approach has consistently overstated the investment that employers make in an apprenticeships, and underestimated the massive commitment that apprentices themselves are making.

Apprentices are taking on poverty wages and investing their time, effort and energy in training and work.

Despite the government’s continued reforms, there is too much uncertainty for apprentices that their investment will be worthwhile.

We are hearing too many stories of apprentices with poor training, poor work opportunities and poor future employment prospects.

Prospective apprentices are effectively rolling the dice when it comes to making a quality choice.

That’s why NUS is continuing to invest in the National Society of Apprentices, which is growing day by day and now represents 150,000 apprentices in 150 different employers and training providers.

Having succeeded in obtaining a substantial increase in the apprentice minimum wage and an entitlement to sick pay last year, the society is now campaigning for a fairer deal for apprentices in many more policy areas.

We would like to see apprentices entitled to discount travel, become eligible for Care to Learn bursaries and have a right to a similar council tax exemption as full-time students. In particular, we are focusing on our campaigns for apprentices in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland in the run-up to the devolved government elections this May.

We also want the government to explore wage subsidies for young apprentices on the apprentice minimum wage, by using outstanding funds raised by the levy.

This would enable apprenticeships to be more accessible and appealing, without increasing the burden or risk on employers.

Crucially, we want to see real plans from the government about how it will ensure 3m new apprenticeships progress into 3m secure, well-paid, full-time jobs.

As in all aspects of skills and education policy, ultimately it will be the health and strength of the jobs market that will determine whether we are successful in fulfilling the promises of opportunity and security we give to students and apprentices.

Shakira Martin is vice president of the National Union of Students

The Sub-Committee on Education, Skills and the Economy has launched an inquiry that will look at the merits of government apprenticeship reforms. Neil Carmichael and Iain Wright explain what it will be focusing on and why they keen to collect views from people across the sector.

As a nation, we need to do more to equip our young people with the skills to compete in a modern economy.

Apprenticeships have an incredibly important part to play in achieving this goal and, as chairs of the Education and Business Committees, we are committed to playing a constructive role in helping Government to drive up the numbers of young people earning technical qualifications which are of good quality.

The Government has embarked on a number of reforms affecting apprenticeships.

But there remains considerable uncertainty about how the apprenticeship system is going to work in the future. This makes it an opportune time for the committee on Education, Skills, and the Economy, to examine these matters.

The Government is committed to a target of 3m apprentices by 2020. As part of our inquiry, we shall be examining what the Government is doing to support the delivery of this target.

There is a genuine risk that training schemes will be rebadged to ensure the 3m target is met

While we welcome the Government’s commitment to boost the numbers of apprenticeships, the apparent lack of consultation with industry in setting the 3m target is worrying.

Given that industry will largely be responsible for delivering on this target, the issue of industry engagement on, and rationale for, the 3m target will certainly be an area of interest for our inquiry.

Boosting the numbers of people going into apprenticeships is vital but we also need to create a system which delivers with the very best standards in technical qualifications.

In a recent report, Ofsted said some learners on low-level, low-quality programmes were unaware that they were even on an apprenticeship and asked if these apprenticeships were really worthy of the name.

There is a genuine risk that training schemes will be rebadged and that apprenticeships will be watered down to ensure the 3m target is met.

As part of this inquiry we will want to examine issues around the quality of, and minimum standards for, apprenticeships, and how these standards can be enforced.

The Government has said it will establish an Institute for Apprenticeships which will be a “new employer-led body to set apprenticeship standards and ensure quality”.

Skills Minister Nick Boles has been keen to stress that the new body will be very much at arm’s length from the Government, but precisely what role the institute will play is not yet clear.

Employers and providers will have concerns about the move away from frameworks and as a committee we shall be examining how the new body will operate and how it fits within the wider education and training landscape.

The Government’s proposed apprenticeship levy is another area in need of urgent scrutiny.

There is still a distinct lack of detail on how the levy is going to be implemented and we shall be asking questions of ministers and hearing from industry and stakeholders about their views on the levy.

For businesses, colleges and students to have little idea of how the apprenticeship system is going to work in the future is hardly an ideal model on which to both increase the numbers of apprenticeships and to ensure that we have good quality technical qualifications.

Apprenticeships can provide valuable technical qualifications and a wonderful and exciting introduction to the work-place.

However, evidence from our careers advice inquiry so far suggests apprenticeships are not being well promoted by schools.

Colleges, for their part, often provide an important interface between business and education.

While Nick Boles has said it is not Government policy to “somehow drive people into” apprenticeships, we consider it vitally important that greater efforts are made to provide information about apprenticeships and encourage people, especially young people, to pursue this route if it suits them best.

The FE sector has an important role to play in helping to deliver good-quality apprenticeships and we are keen to hear your views, ideally before the written evidence deadline on Friday, March 18.

Visit http://www.parliament.uk/education-skills-and-economy to find out more.

Neil Carmichael is Conservative MP for Stroud, and Iain Wright is Labour MP for Hartlepool. They are both chairs of the Sub-Committee on Education, Skills and the Economy