Skills Funding Agency warnings on the rise

The number of notices of concern slapped on colleges rose by 25 per cent in 2012/13 from nine notices in 2011/12.

Notices of concern are triggered by inadequate Ofsted results or fears over the college’s financial health or controls.

A Freedom of Information request by FE Week has uncovered that that as of May 15 there were 22 colleges under one or more notices of concern.

Bicton, Great Yarmouth, Stockport, Bracknell and Wokingham, Kensington and Chelsea, K College and five unnamed colleges, were issued with financial health notices.

Financial control notices were also issued to five unnamed colleges, along with Lambeth, Macclesfield, Bracknell and Wokingham, Kingston and K College.

Ofsted ‘inadequate’ inspection results led to notices for Lambeth, Macclesfield, City of Bristol, City of Liverpool, Worcestershire and one unnamed college.

City of Wolverhampton College is the only one currently under a notice of concern for all three.

Stockport College, Kingston College and Great Yarmouth College all said they expected their notices to be lifted soon.

Kensington and Chelsea, Liverpool and City of Wolverhampton College said they had made “significant improvements” since being issued with notices.

Lambeth College said the inspection notice had now been lifted, but the college had been issued with a financial health notice in June.

Bristol described the notice as procedural and “fully expected”.

K College said it had completed an LSIS-run structure and prospects appraisal and accepted the recommendations.

Bicton College, Macclesfield College, and Stafford College declined to comment, and nobody from South Worcestershire College was available for comment.

Parliament debate on apprenticeship funding reform

Proposals to use the tax system to fund apprenticeships won tentative approval in a House of Commons vote organised by FE Week.

More than 120 people from across the FE and skills sector attended the debate on the government’s three proposed apprenticeship funding reforms, with the option of employers recouping the costs of training through the PAYE system emerging victorious.

It claimed the biggest minority, with 27 per cent of those who voted saying ‘maybe’ the PAYE option should be adopted.

At the start of the debate, 22 per cent of voters had wanted ‘no change to the current funding system’.

The event, sponsored by Pearson and hosted by Shadow Skills Minister Gordon Marsden, took place in the House of Commons’ largest committee space — room 14 — on Wednesday, September 4.

Figures of SME take-up remain quite stark — that sets the challenge for government.”

Votes were cast electronically at the beginning and end of the debate on reform options and whether employers should make a cash contribution for 19+ apprenticeships.

At first most of the voters — 33 per cent — thought employers shouldn’t pay towards apprenticeships, but at the end 36 per cent thought they should.

Speakers included Stewart Segal, chief executive of the Association of Employment and Learning Providers, Neil Carberry, director of employment and skills at the Confederation of British Industry, and Michael Davis, chief executive of the UK Commission of Employment and Skills.

David Phillips, managing director of colleges and work-based learning at Pearson, and Nick Linford, FE Week editor, made up the rest of the panel along with Ann Konzolik, executive director of business development at Northwest Kent College. She replaced Alice Barnard, chief executive of the Peter Jones Foundation.

They explored the reform options of direct payment to employers, payment through the tax system (PAYE) and payment to providers.

The options were put forward by the government after an independent review of apprenticeships by former Dragons’ Den investor Doug Richard. He pushed the idea of incentivising employers by paying them for taking on apprentices.

Mr Marsden introduced the debate telling delegates: “The most important thing is that we are having this discussion.

“It’s worth remembering how we got here in the first place — the government felt compelled to do the Richard Review because of concerns over quality of training programmes which coincided with the government’s expansion programme when they axed Train to Gain in 2010.

“Also the Holt review looked at how to assist small and medium enterprises (SMEs) in accessing the apprenticeship scheme because many of them felt unable or unwilling to access the scheme in its present form.

“Figures of SME take-up remain quite stark — that sets the challenge for government,” he said.

He said he didn’t see how the three systems put forward “directly addressed” how to get more SMEs to access the scheme, adding: “That should be at the forefront of the process.”

“I’m disappointed that there’s no mention of funding being distributed by a regional or sectorial approach — that might be how SMEs would like to get on-board,” Mr Marsden said before adding that the Labour Party were in the middle of doing their own report on apprenticeship funding reform.

Mr Davis started the debate, pushing hardest for the PAYE system.

“All businesses are familiar with the PAYE system,” he said.

“We have been up-and-down the country and had unanimous support from businesses for funding through PAYE.”

He likened the proposed employer payments to statutory maternity pay, however, Mr Segal dismissed the comparison, saying apprenticeships had multiple rates and would not involve one straightforward payment.

Mrs Konzolik claimed that paying employers directly or through the tax system, could create problems for what she coined “roving apprentices”.

All businesses are familiar with the PAYE system”

“If the apprentice decides it isn’t quite right for them to work in one particular organisation and they want to move on, who picks up the tab in terms of the employer contribution?” she said.

Mr Linford added that one problem already identified by the government of the tax system method could be that many SMEs were so small their PAYE bill would not be enough to cover their apprenticeship incentive.

One audience member suggested that while larger firms with over 1,000 employees could get on-board with the PAYE, perhaps SMEs should be exempt, but Mr Segal did not agree, saying two systems would be “too complicated”.

Further, he said direct funding was not likely to “drive quality”.

He added: “We are not in disagreement that the system needs reforming, but we do not think the system is broken.

“Employers are already owning this system, but clearly we want them more involved — we’ve got to get them back involved in developing the apprenticeship frameworks as government has had too heavy a hand in that.”

Mrs Konzolik said she never had any difficulties getting businesses to pay providers for apprenticeships and Mr Carberry backed her, saying: “The biggest bit of feedback I get off businesses is if something is free, then what is wrong with it? If the price is right, businesses will buy.”

The government’s consultation on reforming the apprenticeship funding system opened two months ago and closes October 1.

Responses to its consultation should be sent to apprenticeships.consultation@bis.gsi.gov.uk by the closing date. Visit www.gov.uk/government/news/government-sets-out-radical-plans-to-shake-up-apprenticeship-funding for further details.

———————————————————————————————————————————————————–

The UK Commission for Employment and Skills (UKCES) publication Funding Apprenticeships through Pay As You Earn (PAYE) puts forward the argument that employers should be paid through the tax system.

It would bring simplicity, familiarity and flexibility, as employers would be able to start training apprentices throughout the year, according to the UKCES.

It argues that a change in the tax system would be a long term benefit and bring stability to the apprenticeship scheme, adding that changes to tax reach all businesses and making it easier to take on apprentices.

The Edge Foundation, a charity which promotes vocational education, published Apprenticeship Funding: Heading the Wrong Way? in June.

The charity argues that employers should not make any financial contribution towards apprenticeship training, instead it should be fully subsidised by the government.

At present, only 22 per cent of employers make contributions, according to Edge.

It uses research commissioned by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, which suggests that if the state subsidy is reduced to zero, apprentice numbers will fall by 85 per cent.

The alternative, argues Edge, is directing public subsidies to where they would achieve results.

Underpaying apprentice bosses face increased name-and-shame threat

Underpaying apprentice bosses will be publicly named and shamed under government plans to make it easier to clamp down on rogue businesses.

Employment Relations Minister Jo Swinson has announced new rules as part of efforts to toughen up enforcement of the National Minimum Wage (NMW).

The clampdown, which will come into effect from October when the apprentice NMW goes up 3p to £2.68 an-hour, will strip back restrictions on naming employers who break the law.

It comes in addition to financial penalties, of up to £5,000, employers already face if they fail to pay adequately.

“Paying less than the minimum wage is illegal. If employers break this law they need to know that we will take tough action,” said Ms Swinson.

“This is why I’m making changes so it is easier to name and shame employers who break the law. This gives a clear warning to rogue employers who ignore the rules, that they will face reputational consequences as well as a fine if they don’t pay the minimum wage.”

In 2012/13 Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC) identified 736 employers who had failed to pay the NMW leading to the recovery of £3.9m in unpaid wages for more than 26,500 workers.

According to the Low Pay Commission (LPC) annual report this year, data from the 2012 Apprentice Pay Survey indicated that more than 27 per cent of apprentices were paid less than their applicable NMW rate last year, compared with 20 per cent in 2011.

Non-compliance, it added, appeared most prevalent among employers of young apprentices — 40 per cent of all 16 to 17-year-old apprentices were thought to be paid less than £2.65 an-hour, and 25 per cent of all 18 to 20-year-old apprentices were thought to be on less than £2.65 an-hour.

TUC general secretary Frances O’Grady said: “Minimum wage offenders are particularly prominent among apprentice employers. Despite representing a tiny fraction of the workforce, apprentices make up a quarter of all national minimum wage non-compliance cases.”

She added: “The significant minority of employers who dodge the minimum wage have not only ripped off young apprentices, they are also tarnishing the apprenticeship brand that government, unions and employers have so worked so hard to revitalise in the last decade.

“The government must clamp down on these minimum wage rogues before they do any more damage.”

Joe Vinson, NUS vice president, said: “The government’s own research, published last year, shows a fifth of apprentices were paid below their applicable national minimum wage, and non-compliance is particularly shocking in some sectors.

“A third of those doing apprenticeships in construction and almost half of those in hairdressing were paid less than the minimum wage.

“A clampdown on those companies who are breaking the law by failing to pay the minimum wage is of course to be welcomed, but the minister must not overlook the clear evidence of failure to comply with the apprenticeship minimum wage.”

Originally, employers had to meet one of seven criteria before they could be named. The minimum amount of NMW owed to workers had to be at least £2,000 and the average per worker at least £500 before an employer could be referred to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills from HMRC for naming. The revised scheme removes these restrictions.

The move follows the LPC’s recommendation this year for “a communications campaign and a targeted enforcement initiative to ensure that the apprentice rate is known to employers and apprentices, and that infringers are caught, punished, and wherever appropriate, named.”

The new naming and shaming policy applies to all workers, including non-apprentices.

Sir Geoff Hall quits as foundation chief – Peter Davies to ‘pick up the baton’

Sir Geoff Hall has quit as interim chief executive of the Education and Training Foundation after just three months in post, FE Week can exclusively reveal.

The foundation, the FE sector’s new self-improvement body, told FE Week that the former principal and chief executive of New College Nottingham and chair of the Information Authority, who was knighted for services to FE in the New Year Honours 2012, was leaving while the hunt for a full-time chief executive was ongoing.

Sir Geoff Hall

Peter Davies, who had been project leader in the foundation’s early stages, is expected to take over as interim chief executive later this month.

“It has been a great privilege to help set up the foundation and I am delighted to have played my part,” said Sir Geoff.

“In the last few months we have established, registered and launched the new organisation; appointed a very strong board; agreed deliverables and impact measures; and created a robust organisational structure.

“A number of strong interim appointments have been made to move the organisation forward, and good progress is being achieved towards building the permanent team. ”

“The foundation is now in the delivery phase after a period of set-up, so this is the right moment to hand back the baton as the organisation becomes operational.”

Officially launched on August 1, the group formerly known as the FE Guild is seen as a replacement for the Learning and Skills Improvement Service, from which a number of staff moved via Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment), or TUPE.

But it came under fire for its hiring policy with a warning of “sycophantic nepotism” after it emerged that no advertising had taken place for some senior roles.

Nevertheless, David Hughes, interim chair of the foundation board, thanked Sir Geoff for his efforts.

“He has done what we asked him to do in helping set up the Foundation quickly and I’d like to thank him very much for his positive contribution and support in this key phase of the organisations’ development,” said Mr Hughes.

“I am also very pleased to welcome Peter back to the foundation, and know that he will make a significant contribution in the role while we complete the recruitment of a new permanent chief executive and a new permanent chair.

“Peter did a great job in the initial consultation phase that led to the establishment of this new organisation and has a very strong understanding of what the sector wants and needs from us.

“I am very confident that his understanding, experience and skills will help us greatly to start delivering support to the sector and to deliver our programmes of work.

“We need to move quickly at the same time as focusing on the impact everyone rightly expects us to make.

“We always knew that the set-up phase over the summer would be tough. Having to let the TUPE process finish before being able to start permanent recruitment severely limited the resources we had to get things done.

“There are three vital priorities for this next phase: we will ramp up our communications and engagement with the sector; we will start recruiting into the permanent roles; and we will to start using the resources we now have to deliver support and change in the sector.”

Peter Davies

Mr Davies, who spent 35 years in the Royal Navy before becoming principal at adult education college City Lit in London before retiring in 2011, said he was looking forward to returning the foundation.

He said: “I am really delighted to return to lead the foundation and continue the very good progress that has been made under Sir Geoff.

“I was heartened during the development stage by the goodwill and strong sector support we received and I am sure this will be as vital as ever.

“I am especially looking forward to hearing how the sector thinks the organisation is doing and whether it is steering the right course.”

Serving the apprenticeship time

It’s just over a year since the minimum duration rule was applied, meaning most apprenticeships would have to last at least a year. Phil Hatton looks at whether the rule offers the quality assurance it was hoped for.

I was one of the two authors of the first NVQ back in 1987, which really changed the face of the old style time-served apprenticeships and the way they have subsequently developed.

That first level two NVQ was supposed to be the equivalent of five GCSEs and got away from the concept of annual end-of-course examinations. It was designed for delivery anywhere and wasn’t confined to the classroom.

Therein lies the current problem for this and previous governments who have shared an obsession with large scale growth in the number of apprentices, regardless of what the apprenticeships were in or who the apprentices were.

The mistake that those in government have made is to think that using ‘time-served’ rather than ‘quality of delivery and learning’ is a magic potion to ‘root out poor delivery’.

Some adults taking apprenticeships have already developed substantial amounts of work skills which can accelerate how quickly they demonstrate their technical competence.

They will usually take longer to pass functional skills and other written tests such as technical certificates because they are out of the habit of studying.

However, if the decision has been taken to fund adults with previous experience as apprentices, they should not be forced to take a year by slowing-up their progress and diminishing their enthusiasm for learning, when nine months would do.

Not everything labelled ‘apprenticeship’ should be an apprenticeship

This ‘never mind the quality, think of the duration’ approach does not solve the problem of shoddy provision or work to ensure excellence in delivery, especially if the apprenticeship product is not equitable.

The real crux of the matter is not the time taken to deliver an apprenticeship, but the inequality between the different frameworks.

We are not talking about functional skills, but the heart of the apprenticeship, the vocational qualification.

That first NVQ was not time-bound, but the brightest apprentices took 18 months and most two years to achieve it (anything less and you knew there was something ‘dodgy’ occurring).

That ‘five-GCSE’ equivalent has now completely gone out of the window for a level two apprenticeship.

The simple truth is that not everything labelled ‘apprenticeship’ should be an apprenticeship.

An example that comes up frequently at conferences is the ‘security guard’ apprenticeship.

I had previously inspected excellent provision where training in the main area was delivered in three to four days and people got jobs. Now, even with some beefing up to make a framework, can that be worth the ‘five GCSEs’?

Providers have said they will have longer periods between visits to employers to stretch the delivery time out. Does that sound like quality delivery?

Proposals to get employers involved in designing qualifications already exists — in NVQs

Ofqual and the late QCA have not done the FE sector any favours by allowing the explosion in inequitable level two qualifications. Perhaps the term ‘traineeships’ should have been saved for the lesser content frameworks?

Post Richard Review, the proposals to get employers involved in designing qualifications already exists — in NVQs.

There is a reluctance by lead training organisations to help niche employers, such as newer engineering technologies, develop qualifications because of the low numbers who will need them.

The model of employer development being proposed sounds too much like an earlier failure, when colleges developed thousands of bespoke qualifications validated by other colleges.

But why learn from previous mistakes such as Training and Enterprise Council (TEC) direct NVQs (where TECs quality assured small providers and received countless inadequate inspection judgements) and franchising? These could have informed the rules for ensuring robust subcontracting?

My plea is for the Skills Minister, Matthew Hancock, to not rely solely on those who want to see increases in numbers engaging in apprenticeships, but to see engagement in apprenticeships that will mean something to employers and eventually offer a real alternative to university for our young people.

Phil Hatton, FE improvement consultant at Learning Improvement Service Ltd and former Ofsted HMI

Apprenticeship guidance plea despite growing application numbers

Guidance on apprenticeships needs a “no-holds-barred” review, NUS president Toni Pearce has claimed despite official figures indicating application numbers rocketed more than 30 per cent last year.

She spoke out with statistics from the National Apprenticeship Service (NAS) showing that 1.4 million applications were made online last year — an increase of 32 per cent on the previous year.

But NUS research suggests more promotion of vocational learning is needed, with, it claimed, more than 20 per cent of apprentices having never received information from a careers service.

And it claimed that more than 50 per cent of university students had never been presented with the apprenticeship opportunities available to them.

Further, respondents who received career information, advice and guidance (IAG) “frequently” reported it to be of a poor standard, with close to 50 per cent reporting it to be less than acceptable.

Miss Pearce said:“Education has changed, and the old route that ends with a three-year full-time undergraduate degree no longer needs to be norm.

“The lack of proper careers advice about the available study options and pathways to work is failing young people. Students need the information and tools to thrive, whatever their learning journey.

“We need a no-holds-barred review of IAG to ensure it is fit for purpose, fit for the twenty first century and fit the realities of students’ lives.”

The NUS said its research, which has come out less than a month before the expected publication of Ofsted’s review of IAG, showed the apprenticeship minimum wage of £2.65 an-hour, which is less than half that for those aged over 21 at £6.91, was a major deterrent for those who did look into apprenticeships. In total 886 people took part in the research survey. Of this 442 participated in the survey of apprentices and 444 participated in the survey of higher education students.

Nevertheless, NAS figures show that nearly 129,000 vacancies were posted online in 2012/13 compared to 101,000 in 2011/12 — a 27 per cent increase.

And each online vacancy attracted an average of 11 applications.

Skills Minister Matthew Hancock said: “We want to see it become the norm that young people either go to university or into an apprenticeship.

“To match the growing popularity of apprenticeships, I would urge more employers to consider how hiring an apprentice could benefit their business.”

Jaine Bolton, NAS director, said: “These figures show that the demand for apprenticeships keeps growing.

“It is the first choice for many talented young people and more employers wanting young talent need to wake up to this fact.”

Among the fastest growing apprenticeships, in terms of the percentage increase in vacancies advertised online, were health optical retail (590 per cent increase year on year), vehicle sales (500 per cent) and facilities management (263 per cent).

Apprenticeships in the arts, media and publishing sector were most in demand during the past 12 months, with an average of 19 applications per vacancy.

The most competitive job areas were live events and promotion (35 applications per vacancy), plumbing and heating (33) and marine industry (28).

The data also reveals the top five most popular apprenticeship types applied for and vacancies advertised during 2012/13.

Mrs Bolton said: “With such strong demand for apprenticeships, it is vital that we encourage more employers to take advantage of the benefits that apprenticeships bring.

“With dedicated support from NAS and the 16 to 24 apprenticeship grant for small and medium businesses, there really has never been a better time to recruit an apprentice.

“That is why we are continuing to grow the range of opportunities that are available for potential apprentices.

“Apprenticeships increasingly reflect the exciting world of work and they now cover more than 1,500 job roles in 170 different industries, with qualifications up to degree level in many sectors.”

 

Answering the apprenticeship funding question

With the government looking at a “radical” overhaul of the way apprenticeships are funded, Neil Carberry looks at the key considerations for any such changes.

Apprenticeships are a remarkable link between our economy’s pre-industrial past and its globalised future.

In the Middle Ages they were a contract between master craftsmen and workers. Apprentices learned the expert skills and would pass on their knowledge to the next generation.

The same basic tenets are now central to how the UK creates a highly-skilled workforce fit to compete internationally in the 21st century.

The entrepreneur Doug Richard was right when he said there was “universal agreement that apprenticeships are a good thing,” in his review for the government.

But he was also spot-on in arguing we’ve drifted from their original philosophy.

Instead of employers designing relevant courses and deciding how best to deliver them, the system is weighed down with rules and regulations.

The need to get this right has never been so important.

Stop looking enviously at the gold-standard systems in countries like Germany and build our own

We’re facing critical skills gaps in sectors where we need to generate long-term growth, and without a strong base at both graduate and technician level, we will fall even further behind.

Yet interest in apprenticeships hasn’t been as high in decades.

Employers want the right attitude; practical industry experience and decent technical skills so young people are asking rightly whether university is always the best way to provide that.

Alternative routes which give them top quality training, a guaranteed job and no debt is a big carrot for firms, working in partnership with FE providers, to dangle in front of sixth formers.

So this is a watershed moment. It is time to stop looking enviously at the gold-standard systems in countries like Germany and build our own to rival theirs.

Business welcomes ministers’ backing for Mr Richard’s recommendations, but the devil will be in the detail.

Everyone agrees that employers, not bureaucrats, must be in the driving seat. So we need to overcome three tests over coming months and years to genuinely achieve this.

Firstly, we must sweep away the current labyrinthine funding system.

To drive up standards, firms must directly buy-in high-quality, relevant provision themselves, rather than grants being routed through providers, Skills Funding Agency and Higher Education Funding Council for England.

A tax credit is the best solution on paper, where firms claim back the costs of training apprenticeships through the PAYE system.

But it will need detailed piloting to ensure that it doesn’t weigh down firms in paperwork and to ‘grandfather’ existing good provision to ensure a smooth transition.

Secondly, we must make it easier for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) — the lifeblood of the economy — to take on apprentices.

Reforming funding on its own is not enough. We need to slim down inspection, assessment and compliance to common sense levels.

Too many growing firms are struggling to recruit highly-skilled staff without hollowing out their own supply chains or having talent staff poached by bigger firms further up the ladder.

So we need to get industries consolidating training budgets and expertise within their sector and region — and working providers to tailor courses for their specific needs. SMEs are a vast untapped market and we cannot afford for them to miss out.

We need radical reforms to boost the provision of alternatives to universities

And thirdly, we must better sell apprenticeships to young people at an earlier age. It does not start at 16.

The Confederation of British Industry (CBI) wants much clearer routes into technical education from 14; tougher, new vocational ‘A-levels’ at 18; and, for all students to study English and maths throughout their school and college careers.

We need to tackle the perception the traditional A-level/three-year degree model is the only route to a good career.

We need radical reforms to boost the provision of alternatives to universities — in FE and in work, as well as business-backed degrees

The prize is clear — lean, competitive industries and long-term growth. This is a key moment for government, the education sector and businesses to step up to the plate.

Neil Carberry, director of employment and skills, CBI

 

Neil Carberry will be among a number of speakers at a Parliament debate on apprenticeship funding on Wednesday, September 4.

It will be hosted by Shadow Skills Minister Gordon Marsden and sponsored by Pearson.

Coverage of the debate will feature in the first edition of FE Week (dated Monday, September 9) for the new academic year.

 

Firms behind every other English college’s internal audit to become one

Two firms who between them carried out internal audits for nearly 50 per cent of England’s colleges in 2011/12 are to become one.

Debt-laden accountants RSM Tenon, whose sector clients included Harrow College and Middlesbrough College, has been acquired by Baker Tilly.

It was rescued in a ‘pre-pack’ deal, overseen by administrators Deloitte. It is understood that under the terms of the sale agreement, Lloyds TSB Bank will not recover borrowings of £80.4m in full.

The two London-based firms between them handled 49.9 per cent (172) of internal audits and 39 per cent (134) of all English colleges’ financial accounts.

A spokesperson for Baker Tilly, whose sector clients included Runshaw College and Hugh Baird College, said: “This transaction allows for the ongoing success of RSM’s Tenon’s profitable trading businesses, free from the burden of the group’s historic debt obligations, as part of an enlarged and financially strong Baker Tilly group.

“We believe that this is an excellent outcome for RSM Tenon’s clients and employees, allowing for enhanced service excellence and career development opportunities.”

Research carried out by FE Week indicates that in 2011/12, 49 colleges, including East Surrey College and Croydon College, used both firms – with one for either financial accounts and the other for internal audits.

However, the Skills Funding Agency declined to comment on the implications of the acquisition for the sector.

“It is not the agency’s place to comment as this is a commercial acquisition of one organisation to another,” said a spokesperson.

But FE Week can reveal that college auditing rules were recently altered to allow the same firms to carry out a college’s financial accounts and internal audits in the same year.

“It is no longer the case that a college must use different firms to carry out their financial and internal audits,” said a college finance director that did not wish to be named.

“The Joint Audit Code of Practice Part 2, which has just been released states, ‘where a college decides to appoint one firm as both financial statements and internal auditors, they must establish and maintain appropriate safeguards. The college also must have amended its Articles of Government to remove the prohibition on one firm providing both services.’

“So, colleges can have one firm providing the two services as long as they put in place safeguards and go to the trouble of changing their governing documents quickly.

“However, many college finance directors, and certainly audit committees, would feel uncomfortable.”

Julian Gravatt, assistant chief executive at the Association of Colleges, said: “The Baker Tilly purchase means they’ll be the biggest audit supplier to colleges with at least one-third of external and internal audit business.

“Our concern is simply to ensure that college governing bodies get an excellent audit service at a fair price.

“There have been several audit mergers recently and colleges now have more choice over how they provide assurance. We will be discussing this issue with colleges at our finance and audit conference in October.”

Laurence Longe, Baker Tilly’s national managing partner, said: “Baker Tilly and RSM Tenon are businesses of a comparable scale operating in similar markets across the UK and internationally, and so combining our strengths and skills will provide us with new opportunities for growth, as well as further strengthening and expanding our offering to the market.”