MOVERS AND SHAKERS: EDITION 440

Airam Neesa

Finance Director, Woodspeen Training

Start date: October 2023

Previous Job: Head of Finance UK, Cognition Education UK Limited

Interesting fact: Airam is passionate about the power of education and her career in education, spanning over 15 years, has taken her around the world


Susanne Davies

Director, Black Country and Marches Institute of Technology & Partnerships, Dudley College of Technology

Start date: September 2023

Previous Job: Director of Engagement, National College for Advanced Transport & Infrastructure

Interesting fact: Susanne is now a keen open water swimmer, having recently faced her fears of fish and the cold!

Combined authority ponders double college build to tackle FE ‘cold spots’

A combined authority has set aside almost £5 million to explore whether two new college campuses need to be built to tackle further education “cold spots”.

The lack of FE provision could otherwise force youngsters out of St Neots and East Cambridgeshire with the population set to swell, the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority warned.

The authority is searching for a consultant to deliver a feasibility study, which it hopes will show if the plans are “financially viable [and whether] the educational case is robust”. It earmarked £4.8 million for the project over the next three years, subject to approval by the board.

“Initial conversations” have also taken place with multiple FE colleges over whether they would consider opening new campuses in the areas – but with mixed reception.

The authority said it started analysing its FE provision after adult education was devolved in 2019. It receives around £11.9 million of adult education budget funding to spend in its area each year.

It classed St Neots and East Cambridgeshire as FE “cold spots”, meaning the proportion of the local population in further education is lower than the authority average. Neither area has their own FE college, and there are “no adult education and skills providers” in East Cambridgeshire at all.

Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority warned there is not enough provision to meet the population increases. In St Neots, a council’s “masterplan” includes four new schools and more than 4,200 homes and will see the population surge – but without colleges to meet the demand for FE.

“An aspirational local further education offer” is also needed in East Cambridgeshire to keep more of its young people in the area, the combined authority said, adding this is a “strategic priority”. Currently, young people travel miles to Cambridge or Bury St Edmunds for FE.

An authority spokesperson said the planned feasibility study will establish the “evidence base and potential range of strategic options”. 

“This could include the expansion of FE provision in the market towns, to bring provision closer to learners, but only if it is financially viable to do so and the educational case is robust.”

Authority documents suggest each campus would cost between £25 million and £40 million – though the spokesperson stressed those are “very outline estimates”.

“Initial conversations” have also taken place with multiple FE colleges over their support for the project, plus one secondary school and a group representing manufacturers.

The authority has discussed expanding FE in St Neots with: Cambridge Regional College, Bedford College Group, North Hertfordshire College and MAKE UK. It has also consulted with the College of West Anglia, Ely College and West Suffolk College over FE in East Cambridgeshire.

Ian Pryce, chief executive of Bedford College Group, said the college “agrees that these high growth areas are an FE cold spot”. He said students from St Neots currently travel to Bedford College or Cambridge Regional College for FE. 

While he acknowledged the population of St Neots “would not [currently] support a major FE presence” he said this would “change over time”.

“We would obviously want to avoid creating anything that is not sustainable or viable, so we would like to work with Cambridge Regional College to agree a strategy for how best to serve the community and the extent to which new FE facilities could advance that aim.”

Not all local principals were as enthusiastic. David Pomfret, principal at the College of West Anglia, said “evidence of need has yet to be established” with only one meeting so far on the plans, back in November 2022.

“Alternative solutions such as improved transport access should be fully assessed by any feasibility study,” he said.

A spokesperson for Cambridge Regional College acknowledged that it is “part of the consultation group for both sites”. But they added that it is too “early in the consultation process” to comment further.

A spokesperson for the Eastern Education Group, to which West Suffolk College belongs, said it is “committed to growing our educational offer and supporting the [authority] in line with the findings of their study”.

The combined authority spokesperson said it will “continue to seek [colleges’] insights on the project” and will reconvene the advisory groups once it has appointed consultants.

SEND apprenticeship pilot proving a hit

Apprenticeship leaders have hailed the early success of a “game-changing” pilot that aims to make apprenticeships more accessible to people with learning difficulties.

Hundreds of people who found themselves blocked from apprenticeship opportunities under government requirements are now enrolling on programmes thanks to a new English and maths exemption.

The “LDD apprenticeships English and maths flexibilities pilot” was launched by the government in May to allow, for the first time, those without a pre-existing education health and care plan (EHCP) or statement of learning difficulties assessment (LDA) to work towards a lower level of functional skills.

Under current rules, apprentices must achieve level 1 English and maths functional skills qualifications if they’re on a level 2 apprenticeship and did not pass the qualifications at GCSE. And if a similar learner is on a level 3 or higher apprenticeship, they must achieve functional skills at level 2.

The rule is often cited as a common reason why there is a near-50 per cent drop-out rate in apprenticeships nationally.

Those with an EHCP or LDA can, however, work towards and pass the lower level of functional skills English and maths at entry level 3.

Around 20 providers have been trialling a change to the rules that allows special educational needs and/or disabilities coordinators (SENDCOs) to conduct additional assessments and judge whether a learner without an EHCP or LDA – but with equivalent needs – can be approved for this flexibility.

HIT Training had fewer than 20 apprentices eligible to work towards lower levels of functional skills last year, but since the EHCP requirement has been removed they’ve referred over 100 learners to their SENDCO for assessment of their eligibility, according to chief executive Jill Whittaker.

She told FE Week the relaxing of the Department for Education’s “really restrictive rules” is making a “huge difference” to the 67 people her national hospitality and care provider currently has on the trial.

A further 21 are awaiting the outcome of their assessment to join the pilot.

“A lot of people who didn’t pass English and maths at GCSE were often hiding a learning difficulty,” Whittaker told FE Week. “There are certain apprenticeships where you don’t really need the government’s prescribed level of English or maths to become occupationally competent.

“Instead of continuing to make them a failure, this pilot allows them to participate, occupationally, in a skills programme that is going to be of benefit to employers and UK plc, as well as for that individual. It provides social justice.”

Providers involved in the pilot have no set target number of apprentices to test out this new approach, and no extra funding has been handed over. Every provider that spoke to FE Week called for it to be rolled out nationally once it concludes in April 2024.

Dynamic Training, based in the southeast, has eight apprentices on the trial with another six pending their screening process.

Head of operations Vanessa Cole said the pilot has enabled employers to “widen the scope of applicants to pathways and programmes, benefitting NHS workforce development”.

English and maths has been a barrier

Ali Khan, managing director of ELA Training Services in London, has 14 apprentices on the pilot with another 18 in the six-week, one-to-one screening process. His provider is receiving up to 15 new referrals a month for the pilot of which he expects at least 50 per cent to be accepted.

He told FE Week: “Whether functional skills are fit for purpose or not, providers have had to set challenging benchmarks for applicants to achieve during their initial assessment so that we are not setting up apprentices to fail. This is also necessary to protect achievement rates and maintain viability amid rising costs and low functional skills funding.

“There are learners of all ages who are fantastic at their job, passionate to progress, however English and maths has been a barrier to them accessing learning opportunities to enhance their career progression. Many of us are neurodivergent, and this should not be a barrier anymore. We sincerely hope the success of this pilot will support a change in the current policy, and widen participation on to apprenticeships.”

Daniel Redland, director of Tempdent, said maths is often a “real blocker” to a lot of aspiring apprentices in the dental sector who have “struggled through school due to a variety of learning difficulties that have not been fully identified or recognised through an EHCP”.

This pilot has enabled Tempdent to “eradicate barriers to entry” for 11 learners so far.

Exeter College has 16 apprentices on the pilot on programmes including light vehicle, bricklaying, dental nursing, hospitality, data analyst, hairdressing, and carpentry.

The flexibility has “motivated them to approach their studies without fear and they are energised to succeed” as it has “removed the stress of what can be multiple failures associated with maths and English”, according to apprenticeship success coach, Helen Baker.

While all providers were wholly positive about the pilot, they did stress that it is essential for providers to have a dedicated SENDCO to ensure it is not misused and for accurate assessments to be made.

Skills and apprenticeships minister Robert Halfon told FE Week it is “incredibly encouraging that the pilot has been a success so far”.

“A learning difficulty or disability should never be a barrier to embarking on a rewarding career. That’s why we are conducting this pilot – to understand how we can remove the barriers that stop disabled people applying for apprenticeships, which are the best way for people of all ages and backgrounds to kickstart their career, earning a wage while learning the skills employers are looking for.”

Lauener steps down as NCG chair early for ‘personal reasons’

Peter Lauener has stepped away from his position as chair of college giant NCG three years earlier than planned for “personal reasons”.

The ex-chief executive of the government’s Education and Skills Funding Agency has led the group’s board since 2018 and was supposed to end his term in 2026. However, he took a leave of absence from the role in March following a family bereavement and officially stood down in July.

He’s been replaced by John Widdowson following a “competitive process”, NCG said. Widdowson is a former college principal and president of the Association of Colleges. He joined the NCG board in 2020 and was its vice chair prior to this new role. His term as chair will be for an initial four-year period.

Lauener is also chair of the Student Loans Company and the Construction Industry Training Board – both of which are non-departmental public bodies of the Department for Education. Lauener said he will see out his term of office at both organisations, which runs until 2026.

He will also stay on as chair of Orchard Hill College, an independent special education college for 16- to- 25-year-olds in outer London.

He joined NCG five years ago at a tumultuous time for the group amid low achievement rates, staff strikes, the closure of its two troubled training providers that led to hundreds of redundancies, huge deficits and Ofsted downgrading the group to ‘requires improvement’.

Lauener told FE Week he was “pleased to have seen sustained progress” since then with the appointment of a “great” chief executive – Liz Bromley – in 2019, a ‘good’ Ofsted judgement in 2022, and restored to “sound” financial health.

He also celebrated NCG’s success in securing indefinite degree-awarding powers this year – the first college in the country to do so.

The group is, however, currently locked in an £8 million clawback dispute with the ESFA due to alleged funding claim errors between 2018/19 and 2020/21 – the first three years of Lauener’s term as chair.

NCG said the dispute, which is still ongoing, had nothing to do with Lauener’s departure.

Lauener is also currently involved in a lawsuit with former apprenticeship giant 3aaa’s co-founder Peter Marples, in his capacity as the former head of the then Skills Funding Agency.

Commenting on his exit from NCG, Lauener said: “For personal reasons related to a family bereavement I needed to free up some of my time and initially I took a few months leave of absence to deal with matters. But I then decided that it would be better to step back fully and was delighted that John Widdowson, who was already vice chair, was able to take on the role of chair.

“I will continue to support the NCG model but now as a former chair and I expect to see NCG go from strength to strength in coming years.”

£1.5bn immigration skills charge ‘blackhole’ revealed

Ministers have been slammed for offering “zero transparency” over how £1.5 billion generated through taxing employers for hiring migrants has been reinvested into skills training programmes.

An FE Week investigation found the government cannot provide evidence of whether it is meeting its pledge to reduce Britain’s reliance on overseas workers and upskill domestic workers with funding from the immigration skills charge (ISC).

The tax was introduced in April 2017 and an explanatory memorandum published by the Department for Education alongside the legislation specifically stated that income raised will be put towards programmes that “address skills gaps in the UK workforce”.

Receipts from the charge have grown exponentially (see table), starting at £91 million in its first year before ballooning to £586 million in 2022/23 alone. It has generated a total of £1.465 billion in total over the last six years.

The Home Office collects the funding as part of its visa sponsorship process and transfers the income to the Treasury’s consolidated fund. The funding is then apparently spent by the Department of Education and the UK’s devolved administrations. But the charge is not ringfenced for skills training.

A 2022 report by the Migration Advisory Committee laid bare that the revenue generated from the ISC is “not ring-fenced or linked directly to any fund for training to reduce the reliance on migrant workers and is simply a tax on the use of migrant labour which goes to the Treasury”.

Skills minister Robert Halfon admitted in a parliamentary question in September that the ISC revenue does not give additional funding for skills but “maintains the existing level of skills invested in England”.

“It is unclear exactly what this means in practice,” said Jonathan Thomas, senior fellow at the Social Market Foundation, who criticised the use of ISC income in a recent blog.

“There is zero transparency or accountability for how the proceeds of the ISC are applied and used; they seem to disappear into a general all-purpose blackhole,” he added.

FE Week submitted freedom of information requests asking how much ISC revenue has been allocated to the DfE skills budget for the last six years.

But DfE, the Home Office and the Treasury refused to answer.

The DfE confirmed in its response that it does not receive a ring-fenced budget for the ISC and therefore does not hold the information requested, and suggested FE Week asks the Home Office.

The Home Office said it did not hold the information and advised us to contact the Treasury.

The Treasury directed FE Week to speak to the DfE.

Former skills minister Anne Milton publicly claimed in 2019 that revenue from the first year of the ISC implementation contributed £75 million to the department’s skills budget.

But Stephen Evans, chief executive of Learning and Work Institute, questioned how Milton was able to publish the figure because the ISC is not a hypothecated tax.

He added the rise in ISC revenue has not “fully fed through” into increased skills funding.

“The adult skills budget in England, excluding apprenticeships which are largely funded through the apprenticeship levy, has risen by less than the ISC since 2016/17,” he said.

Evans called on ministers to increase the ISC revenue being put into an increased skills budget.

“Ultimately this is not a hypothecated tax – the government decides how much it wants to raise in tax and how, and how much it wants to spend on skills. To boost our economy and widen opportunity, we need to reverse the £1 billion real terms cut in skills budgets in England since 2010, however this is funded.”

The ISC is set at two levels depending on the size of the business. For large businesses (more than 50 employees), they must pay £1,000 per sponsored worker per year and an additional £500 for each six months the worker is sponsored. Smaller businesses and charities are charged £364 per worker for the first 12 months, and an additional £182 for subsequent six-month periods of employment.

Business representatives have also raised eyebrows over a lack of transparency when it comes to how the skills charge is being reinvested.

Martin McTague, national chair of the Federation of Small Businesses, said: “Our research shows that 86 per cent of small businesses say it is difficult to find individuals with relevant qualifications, skills and experience, raising questions as to whether the ISC is serving its purpose of helping to train domestic workers, as set out in 2017.”

A government spokesperson said: “The ISC helps encourage employers to invest in training so that UK workers have the right skills needed to fill jobs. The income raised by the charge helps to support programmes aimed at addressing skills gaps in the UK workforce, and further reduce reliance on foreign workers.”

Fraud and error ‘getting worse’ in FE

Fraud and error in FE are getting “worse”, according to the Education and Skills Funding Agency’s director of finance, who has revealed there was £50 million worth of clawback last year.

Andrew Thomas, who heads up the agency’s provider market oversight division, said clamping down on misused funding was his “top priority” at this week’s Association of Employment and Learning Providers autumn conference.

He told provider leaders that his agency doesn’t want there to be “any clawback”, to give the assurance to parliament that taxpayers’ money is “being used as intended”.

Thomas said the “vast majority” of the £50 million funding taken back from education organisations by the agency last year was mostly retrieved from independent training providers.

He revealed the agency is now planning to publish summary reports of “all” investigations it undertakes into FE providers “to help you to understand what you shouldn’t be doing”.

It is not clear whether these reports will be based on individual providers. More details are expected in due course, Thomas said.

Last week, the agency published a “common findings” guide from funding assurance work on post-16 education providers, which listed a host of data issues its officials found in 2021/22.

Thomas said: “We’ve simplified things for employers and we’re making things easier for you to get it right first time, every time, in terms of was that individual employed at the beginning of the apprenticeship; were they employed for the duration; or was it that employer they were employed with, because we know these are some of the common errors that lead to problems.

“We want to do more to help you learn from others. It’s much better for us all to be standing on the shoulders of giants rather than reinventing the wheel,” he added.

Winners of Mayor of London Adult Learning Awards 2023 revealed

An inspiring refugee college student who lost eight fingers and both legs is among the winners of the second annual Mayor of London Adult Learning Awards.

The awards, sponsored by FE Week and Ascentis, aim to recognise inspirational Londoners and excellent London-based providers for their contributions to adult learning in the capital.

Winners of the 10 award categories were joined by their families, employer representatives, the judging panel, Morley College’s Big Band and stakeholders from London’s education and skills sector at a ceremony at the City Hall headquarters in east London on Thursday evening.

The awards were established last year by the Mayor of London Sadiq Khan as part of his commitment to improve skills in London and the ‘Skills Roadmap for London’ strategy.

Earlier this summer, officials at the Greater London Authority and Learning and Work Institute assessed nearly 300 nominations to create a shortlist.

A judging panel, made up of representatives from London’s skills sector including AELP chair Nicky Hay, City Lit principal Mark Malcomson, and last year’s award winner Ghazal Mottaghi, then met virtually in September to agree on the winners and highly commended finalists.

Among the winners was Nabeel Ahmed, who received the inspirational adult learner of the year award. After coming from Pakistan to the UK alone and disabled after losing eight fingers and both legs due to frostbite in a refugee camp, Ahmed excelled in an ESOL course at New City College, which gave him confidence and more independence.

(L to R) Will Gompertz, Nabeel Ahmed, Pablo Lloyd OBE, ©2023, London, UK. 2nd November 2023. Adult Learning Awards ©GLA/Andrew Baker

“Studying has given me my life back,” he said. “Without this course I do not know where I would be.”

“Because I have to sometimes use a wheelchair or my artificial legs, this has enabled me to become more independent in my life and has given me hope that I will be able to find a job soon.”

London Skills and Development Network (LSDN) was awarded distinguished provider of adult education for its achievement in reducing reoffending amongst the existing and ex-offenders engaging with the not-for-profit social enterprise.

LSDN works with learners from recovery services, women’s shelters, rehabilitation centres, homeless centres, and probation services. The judging panel said they were impressed with its holistic approach and awareness of net zero on its green campus.

The Learning for Good Work Employer of the Year award went to SEND Coffee, which trains young people with a disability to be baristas and helps them into further employment. Founder Harry George was praised by judges for his inspirational and entrepreneurial approach.

SEND Coffee, ©2023, London, UK. 2nd November 2023. Adult Learning Awards ©GLA/Andrew Baker

Waltham Forest College was given the highly commended award in this category for its commitment to apprenticeships. The college employs around five per cent of its 320 staff through apprenticeships.

“The way they have adapted the workplace and supported their staff around the cost-of-living crisis stood out,” judges said. “They had clear data on the impact of their approach.”

Meanwhile, Anastasiia Trubkina won the Inspirational Tutor in Adult Education award for her ESOL teaching at MI ComputSolutions. Trubkina fleed Ukraine last May and volunteered in a humanitarian organisation to support eastern Europeans before joining MI ComputSolutions.

Phil Wilkinson (Ascentis CEO), Anastasiia Trubkina, Pablo Lloyd OBE, ©2023, London, UK. 2nd November 2023. Adult Learning Awards ©GLA/Andrew Baker

As a former English teacher, her passion for teaching was reignited at the company and also she helps learners into employment and other Ukrainians to settle into the UK.

The Mayor of London is responsible for the £320 million per year adult education budget for the capital after taking over in the devolved budget in 2019.

The budget included a cost of £300,000 for the GLA’s recent learner survey which found over half of non-retired adult learners had a positive economic or educational change after their course.

Is ‘good’ good enough to encompass the range of practices in FE?

In further education, the pursuit of excellence is a noble endeavour. Yet as we navigate the intricate landscape of Ofsted-graded institutions, a crucial question is whether ‘good’ or grade 2 is too wide for the range of practices is encompasses. At one end, ‘good’ reports read as great – or just shy of ‘outstanding’. At the other, they verge on something much less desirable.

The current four-point grading scale characterised by one-word judgments has been a fixture of our education system for many years. Calls for change (including those before the commons select committee from former Ofsted head Sir Michael Wilshaw last week) resonate. Incoming chief inspector, Sir Martyn Oliver has told the same MPs that he is unconvinced by the arguments, but his promised “big listen” should delve into the nuances of inspection reports to understand how closely or distantly an institution aligns with its assigned grade.

A deceptive clarity

At first glance, a simple grade seems like a straightforward assessment of an institution’s performance. However, the reality is more complex. This is why the Fellowship of Inspection Nominees (FIN) dissects inspection reports to uncover the details that really matter.

Examining published inspection reports from 1 September 2019 to 31 August 2023, we find compelling data. Over this period, there were over 1,300 inspection reports in total with 107 institutions (8 per cent) graded as ‘outstanding’. Breaking down the numbers by institution type reveals interesting insights, with sixth form colleges clearly leading the way in terms of the top grade.

When considering the type of provision delivered by the best performers, the data could suggest that the education inspection framework is more aligned to delivering full-time education to under-25s and less applicable to apprenticeship delivery. Learning on the job, at a variety of levels and at all ages is not such a snug fit.

In the same four-year period, inspections resulted in 64 per cent of all FE and skills providers being rated ‘good’, far outstripping those deemed ‘outstanding’, the 22 per cent judged as ‘requires improvement’ and the 6 per cent deemed ‘inadequate’ – individually and indeed collectively.

Are all ‘good’ providers really on a par with each other?

This begs the question: are all ‘good’ providers really on a par with each other? Does a ‘good’ grade imply a uniform standard of service across the board? In our view, the answer is not as straightforward as it seems.

Inspection reports have underscored this by throwing up some interesting examples and definitely revealing a spectrum. At one end, inspectors praised one grade 2 provider for its “welcoming and respectful environments” where learners “develop positive professional relationships with their trainers who support and motivate them to strive highly and achieve” – a clear indication that the right learners are enjoying the right programmes and succeeding. In contrast, another institution was also rated ‘good’ despite inspectors querying its levels of programme completion and whether the provider was using reasons for non-completion to improve its practices.    

Does ‘good’ require improvement?

So is there room for a more precise differentiation between ‘really good’ and ‘only just good’ to accurately reflect the quality of leadership and operational delivery? Would this provide more clarity to potential learners and employers selecting provision, or to potential funders to give them confidence that a provider’s plans for growth are combined with integrity?

While grade 2 is commendable, especially for those who genuinely deserve it, it’s pleasing to see providers continuously strive for excellence. It’s also encouraging to see many who achieve ‘good’ looking for ways to further strengthen provision and aspire for a higher grade.

Equally, we should applaud those achieving ‘outstanding’ who work tirelessly to maintain exemplary standards and stay one step ahead. Lowering the bar to let more into that category would only devalue the category and their work. However, there is a good case for reviewing whether it is the rigidity of the EIF rather than the quality of provision that locks very good apprenticeship providers out of that band.

For all these reasons, Ofsted’s “big listen” should establish whether providers and employers agree that the scope of grade 2 is too wide.

Every pound raised through the levy should be spent on apprenticeships

Since its introduction in 2017 there has been a lack of transparency as to how monies raised through the apprenticeship levy are spent. This has led many employers and employer groups to claim that a significant proportion of the levy they pay is ’wasted’.  

Of course, money raised from levy-paying employers is also used to fund apprenticeship provision for non-levy-paying employers. Employers have always needed to understand that. Nevertheless, there is some validity in the claim that some of the income raised by the levy is not being spent on apprenticeship but is instead being retained by or returned to the Treasury.

In a recent article, FE Week reported that last year £415 million raised through the apprenticeship levy was not allocated to apprenticeships, but instead “pocketed”by the Treasury.

These figures are telling. Of course, they do change year on year, but the constant is that the Treasury always wins. So, what needs to happen?

A commitment to transparency

To bolster confidence in the levy system, employers and training providers must know how much is raised through the levy and how funds are used. There is an urgent need for the DfE and Treasury to provide detailed figures and ongoing analysis on revenue raised, monies raised minus funding allocated to the devolved governments, the value of the apprenticeship budget and monies spent on apprenticeships. In addition, we need analysis of apprenticeship funding spent on non-levy-paying employers, in different regions, on different levels and on different apprenticeship standards. 

A re-commitment to the levy ‘agreement’

When introduced, the levy was sold to employers as a hypothecated tax, paid to fund apprenticeships. To safeguard confidence in the levy system, government should make a commitment that every pound raised through the levy will be spent on apprenticeships and that any surplus levy will be spent on related designated training programmes. 

At a superficial level, England’s budget is under-spent – as it has been since 2017/18. In reality there are several areas where funding is needed:

  • Raising funding bands to ensure that apprenticeship standards are financially viable to deliver. Given recent and current inflation levels, IfATE needs to undertake an urgent review of apprenticeship funding rates and advise on action needed to ensure that the delivery of all apprenticeship standards remains financially viable.
  • Funding entry-level programmes that provide access to intermediate apprenticeships. This is not a UVAC area. We are, however, conscious of the need to do more to support those who are not yet ready for an apprenticeship but could benefit from one if an access programme was provided.
  • Investing in developing provider capacity for apprenticeships that deliver the net zero and green jobs agenda. Apprenticeships should be a key programme to support the country to deliver these ambitions.  Levy funds could be used to support the development of capacity to do so.
  • Providing incentives to encourage employers and training providers to use apprenticeships to support social mobility. Levy funds could stimulate the use of apprenticeships in deprived areas as part of the levelling up agenda.  They could also be used to incentivise apprenticeships where there would be a significant positive impact on social mobility and workforce diversity.

The Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats and have put forward proposals to reform the apprenticeship levy. For example, Labour has proposed the introduction of a ‘Growth and skills levy’ where employers could spend up to 50 per cent of their levy payments on approved non-apprenticeship training. 

Whether sufficient funds would be available to use 50 per cent of levy income on other training without reducing spend on apprenticeships is questionable. In 2022/23, 83 per cent of monies raised through the levy after allocations to the devolved governments was spent on apprenticeships in England. 

First and foremost, the priority should be to ensure apprenticeship levy funds are spent on apprenticeships. However, the argument that any surplus funds should be spent on designated training programmes needed by employers rather than simply returned to the Treasury is appealing. 

Improved transparency from government would be a welcome first step towards an open and informed debate.