Small businesses should pay into an ‘apprenticeship and skills levy’, says think tank

A former skills adviser to the government has proposed a radical overhaul of the apprenticeship levy that would see nearly all small and medium sized businesses having to pay into the pot.

Business leaders however warn it will be a “retrograde measure” and “yet another tax burden detrimental to the economic growth that springs from SMEs”.

The EDSK think tank has published a report called ‘Changing Courses’ which proposes to split the current apprenticeship levy into separate funds for apprenticeships and skills training, with more businesses paying into it.

Report authors Tom Richmond – a former adviser to Department for Education ministers – and Eleanor Regan propose converting the levy into an ‘apprenticeships and skills levy’ which would see all businesses with 10 employees or more contribute 0.4 per cent of their annual payroll costs to the fund.

That cash would then be distributed to firms in two pots – a national apprenticeship fund to deliver apprenticeships, and a national skills fund to deliver non-apprenticeship skills training.

The national apprenticeship fund would cover apprenticeships up to level 6, and include traineeships.

The national skills fund would then be devolved to mayoral authorities where possible, and be used to upskill or re-skill existing workforces.

In addition, EDSK says the adult education budget and free courses for jobs fund – a flagship government scheme to offer a free first level 3 qualification to those who do not have one or who are unemployed – into a single devolved ‘local skills fund’.

It also wants a right to paid training leave to be introduced enabling employees to access up to five days of paid leave per year for skills or training courses. Employers would be reimbursed a flat £20 per hour rate for those workers to enable it to arrange cover.

The report said that under the proposals, the number of levy-paying businesses would rise from around 23,000 to 278,000, and raise an estimated £3.8 billion per year – £1.1 billion more than the current system.

Presently, only employers with a wage bill of £3 million or more pay into the apprenticeship levy, at a rate of 0.5 per cent of their annual wage bill.

But EDSK said that the current system, introduced in 2017, isn’t effective enough.

It recognised that the levy had increased employer awareness of apprenticeships, but said goals from the outset were “vague”.

The think tank highlighted that often employers were opting for higher level courses to use up levy funds. The report also warned that more than 50 per cent of apprenticeships are “fake”, with employers effectively rebadging their existing training as an apprenticeship in order to fund it through levy cash. Many had apprentices working for the company more than three months prior to their apprenticeship starting.

The report said it had “undermined the apprenticeship brand and wasted a considerable amount of time, money and effort”.

It added: “By moving away from only funding ‘apprenticeships’ and large qualifications to instead supporting more flexible (and often shorter) forms of training such as non-qualification courses and individual units of qualifications, employers, employees and government can all expect better value for money and larger returns on their respective investments.”

But the plans have not been welcomed by the Federation of Small Businesses, which warned that another tax on small firms would be too much for some.

Tina McKenzie, policy chair at the FSB said the levy was designed to encourage small businesses to take up apprenticeships funded by contributions from bigger firms.

“Undermining this fundamental aspect of the system would be a retrograde measure; yet another tax burden detrimental to the economic growth that springs from SMEs, and fewer apprentices would be trained,” she said.

“Broadening the apprenticeship levy to a training levy, could further reduce the number of apprenticeships available in smaller businesses. Small firms already provide significant training opportunities; they could provide even more which could be done through tax training relief. Adding another tax to them will have the opposite outcome.”

England’s largest apprenticeship provider, Lifetime Training, said a period of stability is needed for the levy. Matt Robinson, commercial director added: “Potentially imposing the levy on smaller businesses would be another pressure and potentially force apprenticeships in environments where it would be difficult to provide off the job and mentor support effectively.

“Instead, we would welcome the ability for large employers to transfer funds more easily to smaller businesses by transferring directly between digital accounts.”

EDSK acknowledged that there could be some resistance from smaller employers to the proposals, but said that “every employer needed to have a stake in the training system”.

Firms with 10 to 49 employers would likely only pay between £1,700 and £4,200 per year, making it a “relatively minor investment”, the report said.

“Even though these smaller organisations are now being asked to contribute to the ASL [apprenticeships and skills levy], they will be able to access financial support for apprenticeships and other forms of training that far exceeds their nominal contribution through the ASL,” it added.

Sector leaders have long called for changes to the apprenticeship system since the levy’s launch. Some business chiefs, such as the Confederation of British Industry, have previously called for it to be transformed into a wider skills and training levy.

EDSK’s report comes ahead of potential changes to the apprenticeship levy as part of a review announced by former chancellor Rishi Sunak.

In his spring statement in March, Sunak said he would examine the levy’s effectiveness, although the Treasury later denied it was a formal review.

A spokesperson from the DfE said the levy was an “important part of our reforms” and pledged £2.7 billion in apprenticeship funding by 2024/25.

They added: “We continue to improve apprenticeships, making them more flexible for employers in all sectors and making it easier for employers to transfer their unused funds.”

Government confirms 6-month energy bills support

The government has confirmed its plans to help colleges, training providers and other non-domestic energy users with their energy bills this autumn.

Ministers say their plan to reduce rates to a “government-supported price” of £211 per megawatt hour for electricity and £75 for gas will equate to a saving of £4,000 for a school or college paying £10,000 a month for energy.

For comparison, the government said wholesale costs this winter are expected to be around £600 per megawatt hour for electricity and £180 for gas. College leaders had warned they faced four-fold bill hikes that threatened their insolvency.

The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy said it would compensate energy suppliers for the reduction, which will initially apply to energy use between October 1 2022 and March 31 2023.

The discounts will apply to business and public sector organisations on existing fixed price contracts agreed on or after April 1.

They will also apply to those signing new fixed-price contracts, those on “deemed” or out of contract or variable tariffs, and those on flexible purchase or similar contracts.

For fixed contracts, the discount will reflect the difference between the government’s price and the “relevant” wholesale price for the day the contract was agreed.

For variable, deemed and other contracts, the discount will reflect the difference between the government’s price and wholesale price, but will be subject to a “maximum discount” that will be “determined at the beginning of the scheme”.

Colleges could save 40% on energy bills, says BEIS

The government said a school or college using 10 megawatt hours of electricity and 22 megawatt hours of gas a month would currently pay around £10,000 a month.

Because prices were higher than the government-set rates announced today when they signed their contract, they would receive support.

The difference between the two rates would be worth £240 per megawatt hour for electricity and £70 for gas, leading to a reduction in their monthly bill of £4,000, or 40 per cent.

The support will be “automatically applied to all eligible bills”, and colleges “do not need to take action or apply to the scheme”.

Savings for energy used in October will be seen in October bills, which would usually be received in November.

Those who signed new contracts before April 1 “would not have been exposed to the recent rises in wholesale prices, so you will not be eligible for support under the scheme”.

Geoff Barton, general secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders, welcomed the details of the scheme, but warned the “glaring problem is the fact that the scheme is time-limited to six months”.

The government has said it will review the scheme in three months before making a decision about support beyond March 2023.

“This uncertainty makes it impossible for schools and colleges to plan financially with any degree of confidence because they could be knocked off course at a later date by steep rises to energy bills if government support drops off.

“School and college budgets are incredibly tight and any financial ill-wind is potentially devastating. We will be pressing the government for a firmer commitment to the sector.”

Jane Hickie, chief executive of the Association of Employment and Learning Providers, also said her members will be “seriously concerned about what happens after April if energy bills fail to return to their previous levels”.

“Rising costs, through energy bills and other pressures, are causing huge challenges within the skills sector that require immediate intervention,” she added.

David Hughes, chief executive of the Association of Colleges said: “This week’s energy bill relief announcement will protect many colleges from price rises for the next six months but government needs to make sure that this is not just a temporary reprieve.

“We need a long-term plan and support to make sure that colleges, who have already been battered by a decade of cuts and rising costs, aren’t forced into new financial difficulties when the current arrangements finish.”

Unions launch legal action against new ‘strike-breaking’ law

Unions representing education workers will take legal action against the government over a new law allowing agency workers to cover for striking staff.

Ministers changed the law in July in response to threats of widespread industrial action over pay. It was previously illegal to draft agency staff in to cover striking workers.

Teaching union NASUWT said it will this week lodge a judicial review of the decision, while support staff union Unison has already lodged papers for its own legal challenge.

The University and College Union as well as the National Education Union, the country’s largest education union, are also participating in a joint legal challenge with other unions, coordinated by the Trades Union Congress. Other unions involved in the judicial review include the GMB and Unite, which represent school and college support staff.

Unison said if both its action and the TUC’s were given permission to proceed, it was “likely all the arguments will be heard together”.

Ministers say law will maintain ‘crucial public services’

unions NASUWT teachers vaccine pay
Dr Patrick Roach

The government said in July that the law change would allow organisations “most impacted by industrial action to fill vital roles with temporary, skilled workers”.

The reforms would “help ensure crucial public services and people’s daily lives remain uninterrupted by staff strikes”.

But unions have accused the government of bringing in measures to “effectively break strikes”, and said today the new law violates “fundamental trade union rights, including the right to strike”.

“These regulations seek to further undermine and weaken the rights of all workers, including teachers, to take legitimate industrial action,” said Dr Patrick Roach, general secretary of NASUWT.

“The government is seeking to prevent workers taking collective action to defend their jobs, pay and working conditions in direct contravention of its international commitments and obligations. The right to strike is enshrined in international law.”

He said the change in the law would have a “profound impact on supply teachers”.

Unions urge ministers to help solve pay disputes

Unison general secretary Christina McAnea said ministers “should be rolling up their sleeves and helping solve disputes, not risking everyone’s safety by allowing the use of inexperienced agency workers”.

“Changing the law in such a hostile and unpleasant way makes it much harder for workers to stand up to dodgy employers. It also risks limiting the impact of any legal strike.”

It comes as the University and College Union prepares for “unprecedented” strike action against below-inflation pay offers in almost 30 colleges.

The new government also faces a potential triple whammy of industrial action this year from school teachers, support staff and even school leaders in response to ministers’ pay proposals.

The ASCL school leaders’ union is consulting its members on whether to ballot for industrial action for the first time in its 16-year history. The NAHT leaders’ union said it was not ruling “any action in or out”.

Teachers gear up for pay ballots

The National Education Union has promised the “largest teachers’ pay ballot in a generation” when it formally asks around 250,000 members in November if they want to go on strike. NASUWT has also consulted members on the pay proposals.

The GMB and Unison are consulting support staff members on whether to accept or reject their pay offer. Unite, which also represents some support staff, is balloting for strike action.

Announcing the law change earlier this year, the then business secretary Kwasi Kwarteng said: “In light of militant trade union action threatening to bring vital public services to a standstill, we have moved at speed to repeal these burdensome,1970s – style restrictions.

“From today, businesses exposed to disruption caused by strike action will be able to tap into skilled, temporary workers to provide the services that allow honest, hardworking people to get on with their lives. That’s good news for our society and for our economy.”

The unions now need to wait to receive the permission of the High Court to proceed with their legal challenges.

Diversity in FE Week: A look at how we’ve done

Twelve months after our first look at diversity and visibility within our newspaper pages, FE Week editor Shane Chowen looks at how we’re doing.

When we published our first diversity audit last year, we said that as the sector’s only dedicated newspaper, we take seriously our responsibility to reflect and represent the diversity of the FE and skills community. That commitment is as true now as it was then and we know we have more to do.

FE Week diversity audit graph shows visibility of women has declined very slightly but has improved for ethnic minorities.
Representation in FE Week in 2021-22 compared to 2020-21

Figures for our 2021/22 publication cycle show that we have made good progress in the visibility of people from ethnic minority backgrounds. We had a more diverse mix of opinion writers last year with 18 per cent coming from an ethnic minority, up four percentage points from the year before.

On our front pages, 31 per cent of the people pictured throughout the year were from ethnic minorities, almost double the proportion from the previous year.

Before the pandemic struck, diversity and inclusion was the sector’s top priority. It’s vital that leaders revisit the commitments they made and bring it back to the top of the agenda.

Because even though we’ve made some progress in our pages, it remains the case that people from ethnic minorities are still woefully underrepresented at the top of the sector. We know that 26 per cent of students and 16 per cent of the FE workforce are from ethnic minorities, yet the latest estimates from the Association of Colleges is that only nine per cent of college principals and chief executives are.

When we introduced The Staffroom last year – a weekly column reserved for writers from the frontline of the sector – we were able to extend our reach beyond the top tier of provider leaders and therefore reach a more diverse pool of writers, perspectives and, hopefully, readers.

Through our special inclusion supplement – FE: For Everyone, published at the AoC Conference in November – we were able to provide a platform for the disruptors and up and-coming leaders from a range of backgrounds in our sector who are not just hungry for change, they are delivering it.

Our other focus has been on making sure that the contribution of women in FE is fairly reflected. Women make up 55 per cent of the student population, 61 per cent of the college workforce and, according to the AoC, now 49 per cent of college principals and chief executives.

However, those numbers have not been so high in the upper echelons of government departments, sector bodies and thinktanks we draw from.

While our audit shows that we have increased the proportion of ethnic minorities in our profile interviews and opinion column writers over 2021/22, those figures dropped from 59 to 57 per cent and 47 to 44 per cent respectively when counting women over the year in FE Week.

Ethnic minority representation in FE Week compared to population data

I recognise that we have more to do on who we commission and write about in our newspaper. We will listen to women and others, such as people with disabilities, who we know are underrepresented in our pages.

But over the last year we’ve made sure we hold the sector, as well as ourselves, to account on the equality agenda.

In addition to our supplement last November, our reporters have covered the achingly slow progress towards closing the gender pay gap in colleges, as well as the responses of ethnic minority leaders to the government’s “bizarre” strategy to increase diversity in apprenticeships. We challenged the DfE’s latest round of appointments for national leaders of further education (NLFEs) for continuing to not promote any non-white principals.

It remains farcical that non-binary students are still forced to choose “male” or “female” in order to get funding for their course – unlike most other places now in the public sector – and that the quality of data on the FE workforce and leaders in parts of the sector is so scarce.

We should not just focus on ethnicity and binary gender. We do not currently track who among our roster of writers identify as LGBTQ+, nor their socio-economic backgrounds. I’d like to hear from our readers on how to make this happen.

So, with your support, FE Week will continue to do its bit in bringing the voices of those you need to hear from, empowering the leaders of tomorrow to disrupt the system, and to hold to account those with the power to change things.

What to expect under plans for adult education devolution across England

More devolution deals are set to be signed off by the end of the year as the government ploughs ahead with plans to give every area of the country control of its adult education budget (AEB). FE Week takes stock of what progress has been made to date and what to expect in the coming weeks and months. 

In February, the government published the Levelling Up white paper, which outlined a number of fresh devolution proposals. 

It included “trailblazer” deals for further devolution at two existing mayoral combined authorities, a new deal for York and North Yorkshire, an expanded deal in the north east, and nine “county deal” devolution arrangements. 

Most, if not all, are likely to include devolution of the AEB, involvement in local skills improvement plans, and for the two trailblazer areas greater powers over skills provision. 

Trailblazers chosen for greater skills devolution 

Ten areas of England, including Greater London, have mayoral combined authorities (MCAs), which have control over their AEB. 

Of the current MCA areas with devolved AEB, Greater Manchester and West Midlands have been selected by the government to be the trailblazers for further devolution. 

Negotiations for those are ongoing and have not been made public, but a few details have been hinted at around which powers authorities would like to take on. 

Andy Burnham, the mayor of Greater Manchester, told a Royal Society for Arts (RSA) event on local and regional economies over the summer that skills and technical education is “the biggest missing piece and the single most important ask we will make as part of this trailblazer process”. 

The authority said it wants a “clearer” role in the wider skills system, with “full devolution of some components and co-commissioning of others”. 

It also wants a new role in influencing technical and professional education for 16- to 19-year-olds so that it meets local labour market needs. 

Greater Manchester is making three asks as part of the negotiations: local control of post-19 skills and work-based learning, a partnership with the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) in order to have more influence in how job centres operate, and a tie-up with the Department for Education on 16 to 19 education to co-commission courses such as T Levels. 

Further details on those asks have not been disclosed. 

“At the moment we are dealing too much in work-arounds and retrofits such as our matchmaking service for the apprenticeship levy,” Burnham told the RSA event. “With more control over post-16 technical education, we could build a more responsive local skills system which would be a significant boost to investment and growth.” 

West Midlands has provided fewer details, but the authority said it wants more integration between skills training and employment. 

“This would include greater influence over post-16 technical and vocational education and over careers, as well as joint working with DWP in shaping employment support,” a spokesperson said. 

A timeline for trailblazer announcements has not been laid out but further details are expected in the coming months. 

County deals get off the mark 

Elsewhere, the government has confirmed the north east would be invited to expand its existing deal, while York and North Yorkshire’s deal for a mayoral combined authority would be finalised. In addition, nine areas of England were invited to begin negotiations for “county deals”.  

Those county deals are based on three levels of devolution. Level one has the lowest level of powers, with local authorities working together in a committee. Level two has a county council without a directly elected mayor but more powers than level one, while level three includes a directly elected mayor with the most powers available. 

Government guidance indicates that level two and three deals include a devolved AEB, as well as input into local skills improvement plans (LSIPs). 

Negotiations are taking place behind closed doors so the details for each potential deal have not been made public, but political leaders appear to be largely pursuing level two or three options. 

York and North Yorkshire’s deal was announced on August 1, Yorkshire Day. Under the deal, £540 million will be distributed to the new mayoral combined authority over the next 30 years. 

It is not yet clear how much its annual AEB will be, but the report for the agreement said it would be fully devolved in time for 2025/26. 

On August 30, the first county deal for the East Midlands was announced, covering Derby, Derbyshire, Nottingham and Nottinghamshire (see main image).

It will form the first mayoral combined county authority (MCCA), with the aim of holding a mayoral election in May 2024. 

The East Midlands deal involves an estimated £1.14 billion over the next three decades and a fully devolved AEB in time for 2025/26. 

The ongoing north east negotiations are expected to centre around expanding the North of Tyne Combined Authority area to include areas south of the river; South Tyneside, Gateshead and Sunderland, as well as Durham which is among the county deal areas. 

The county deal areas currently being negotiated are Cornwall; Devon, Plymouth and Torbay; Durham; Hull and East Yorkshire; Leicestershire; Norfolk; and Suffolk. 

The government said it wanted to have the county deals wrapped up this autumn, but it looks like that will now be achieved by the end of the year. It is expected that negotiations will then begin for other areas of the country. 

What devolution means for adult education 

The upshot is that the AEB will increasingly be farmed out to local devolved areas, with the goal of eventually having a “devolved system across all of England”. 

In addition, the government expects all areas with devolved AEBs to be involved in the employer-led LSIPs – key documents which outline priorities and changes in that area to make post-16 education more responsive to the needs of the local labour market over the following three years. 

It pledged that “by 2030, every part of England that wants one will have a devolution deal with powers at or approaching the highest level of devolution and a simplified, long-term funding settlement”. 

The annual AEB pot stands at about £1.5billion, with the government first starting to devolve the AEB in August 2019. 

Roughly 60 per cent of the AEB – about £786 million – is devolved to the existing MCAs, but the Association of Employment and Learning Providers (AELP) estimates that will reach about 80 per cent, or up to £1.2 billion, with the new and likely devolution deals outlined in the Levelling Up white paper. 

Jane Hickie, the chief executive of the Association of Employment and Learning Providers (AELP), said the organisation supports devolution of the AEB as long as the commissioning by each area is fair, open and transparent, but stressed that  programmes such as apprenticeships and traineeships should continue to be commissioned nationally by central government. 

“As devolution is rolled out across the country, this presents both opportunities and risks to providers,” Hickie said. 

“On one hand there are now many more commissioning opportunities to engage with. However, a diverse approach to commissioning results in significantly more work and bureaucracy for providers. There needs to be a balanced approach which takes these issues into account and focuses on getting funding to the front-line adult learners.” 

Holex, the professional body for adult and community learning, said most providers were happy that combined authorities were doing the right thing for learners but cautioned that they must not forget about lower-level qualifications. 

Sue Pember, the director of policy and external relations at Holex added: “We would like to see that the ‘deal’ makes it clear that from day one CAs are there to serve all the residents of the area, and not just those ready for level 3 and above. There needs to be a social inclusion dimension to the work and wider benefits of learning need to be recognised.” 

Simplification of adult education funding ‘does not go far enough’

Mayoral combined authorities have criticised the government’s drive to simplify adult education funding, claiming that the plans do not go far enough. 

The Department for Education is consulting on measures to reform adult education funding through its Skills for Jobs paper. It proposes to simplify the process by bringing the adult education budget (AEB) and free courses for jobs funding into a single “skills fund” from 2023/24. 

The combined authorities, which have the responsibility to administer the AEB in their area as part of their devolved powers, said the new skills fund should also  incorporate the funding streams for skills bootcamps – flexible courses of up to 16 weeks to address specific skills shortages – as well as 16 to 24 traineeships. 

A spokesperson for Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority said: “Creating a single skills fund including all elements of post-19 funding and extending local flexibilities would be welcomed in our area. This would greatly help to support the delivery of our employment and skills strategy to upskill and/or reskill our citizens.” 

A spokesperson for the mayor of London said: “The single skills fund must go further, bringing together all post-16 skills and employment budgets, including careers advice, apprenticeships, traineeships and further education capital funding, as well as the programmes that have been developed since the publication of the Department for Education’s Skills for Jobs white paper. 

“This must be done with flexibility to respond to the needs of our local communities and economies.” 

West Midlands, North of Tyne, Tees Valley, South Yorkshire and West of England combined authorities agreed that having more funding pots in a single fund would provide greater flexibility for local needs. 

The consultation had originally been due to close on September 21, but the DfE on Friday confirmed that had been extended to October 12 to “give some stakeholders more time to engage with proposals”.

The department said its proposals for putting the AEB and free courses for jobs into a new skills fund would help its levelling up mission by having 200,000 more people a year completing skills training, including 80,000 more in the lowest skills areas by 2030. 

In its consultation document it said it “should help providers plan provision; as well as making it easier for the public to understand what funded courses are available to them”. 

Last month, FE Week disclosed that West Midlands and West Yorkshire combined authorities had already begun simplifying the administration of the existing AEB and free courses for jobs funds – for which the authorities receive separate allocations from central government – to effectively have them appear as a single pot for the purposes of commissioning for providers. 

The free courses for jobs pot can only be used to fund eligible learners under criteria for that scheme – those aged 18 and above without a level 3 qualification who are able to access a fully-funded level 3 qualification, or a second qualification if they are unemployed or earn below the real living wage. 

The government recognised in its first-stage consultation that some respondents wanted to see skills bootcamps and the UK Shared Prosperity Fund as part of the simplified AEB pot, but the Department for Education said that skills bootcamps were a national priority and would “remain funded through the DfE either by direct grant to local areas, or through national procurement”. 

For traineeships, the DfE said it wants to progress 16- to 24-year-olds into apprenticeships, employment or further learning and confirmed it plans to “undertake further work to ensure that this is done in the most effective way possible”. It said it will return with an update. 

This year, £60 million of the £2.5 billion National Skills Fund was set aside for skills bootcamps, while £126 million was invested in traineeship starts in 2021/22. 

Consultation responses will be collated after October 12 and assessed by Whitehall chiefs before the next steps are announced. 

MOVERS AND SHAKERS: EDITION 398

Faye Natalie Moore

Director of Strategy and Development, GBS Apprenticeships

Start date: September 2022

Previous job: Head of Business Engagement, Skillsfirst Awards

Interesting fact: Faye caught the travel bug after taking a trip to the Canary Islands at just 18 for a six month work placement, and was still there six years later. Now she believes you should travel as much as you can, as far as you can, and as often as you can!

Ben Robinson

Deputy Principal and Deputy CEO, Middlesbrough College

Start date: August 2022

Previous job: Principal, Bede Sixth Form College

Interesting fact: Ben spent much of his youth in Middlesbrough, and even worked for the college 17 years ago as head of A-level PE. Returning to raise the aspirations of young people in the area is, he says, a proud moment in his career.

How the Truss government could boost skills – without committing any new money

Funding and contracting rules are too bloated and bureaucratic for a start, writes Jane Hickie

The new Truss government has promised a “fiscal event” before the end of September. This will essentially be a mini budget, setting out the new administration’s economic priorities.

Truss has been clear in her view that she can boost economic growth by cutting taxes and tackling the cost-of-living crisis.

We can expect much more detail on this over the coming weeks, including the new energy announcement for households and businesses.

However, the government must realise that sustained economic growth will simply not be feasible without a sustainable skills sector. With any fiscal event, we will always call for increased funding. We know this is essential if we are to build a world-class skills system.

But there are actually a number of things the government could do without committing any significant new funding at all.

These interventions could make a big difference at a time when purse strings are understandably tight.

Cut red tape

Aside from rising costs and staffing, by far the biggest issue for providers is navigating the bureaucracy involved with delivering skills programmes.

This bureaucracy is also a huge barrier for employers – particularly small and medium-sized businesses – even though demand for in-work training is high.

The government could make a real impact on getting more employers engaged in skills without committing significant new money, just by making the existing system much more accessible.

The Department for Education clearly recognises the scale of the problem and has committed to undertaking a simplification project, which is welcome.

Moving to an employer-led system for apprenticeships was absolutely the right call.

However, the apprenticeship service remains a significant barrier. Providers have had to employ extra staff just to administer the system and support employers.

The fact that so few non-levy employers are set up on the system frankly speaks for itself.

The new system for advertising apprenticeship vacancies is causing delays, when employers need apprentices now.

Implementing an auto-enrolment system for employers who could then activate their account would be a significant improvement, along with stripping out duplication and layers of administration.

This would save time and money and should be at the heart of the DfE’s plans.

The apprenticeship funding rules need addressing too. Now at more than 140 pages, they have become bloated and overly bureaucratic.

We need the right measures in place to ensure accountability, but providers should be able to get on with delivering high quality training for learners and employers, without getting wrapped up in red tape.

Reducing bureaucracy around the funding rules and contracting would save providers time and money at a time when many are struggling to stay afloat.

Recycle underspend effectively

We know various skills programme budgets are currently underspent – including apprenticeships, traineeships and the adult education budget.

The reasons are complex, from the ongoing impact of the pandemic on learner numbers to trends in the wider labour market.

Treasury should not use this as an excuse to claw back funding. A strong economy relies on a well-trained workforce.

Without committing any new money, the government could use programme underspend to implement a range of learner and employer incentives to boost participation in skills.

This could include reintroducing the new hire £3,000 employer incentive, which we know had a really positive impact on boosting apprenticeship starts, particularly at level 2 and 3 and for those under 24 years old.

We also know that employer demand for traineeships remains high, yet providers struggle to get learners on to a programme.

Implementing a training allowance would incentivise participation in traineeships – a programme that has proven positive outcomes, particularly for those from disadvantaged backgrounds.

A final call – I hope the new government recognises the significant role our sector plays in delivering economic growth.

You can’t upskill the nation on the cheap – there is clear evidence of return on investment in high quality skills training.

But at a time of economic uncertainty, and with a political agenda of reducing public spending, it makes sense to consider how we can be most efficient with what we already have.

Bernie Savage, vice president for FE, National Union of Students

Bernie Savage, the new vice president for FE at the NUS, was blown away by her time in a strong and well-funded students’ union. She relays her message for unconvinced college principals to Jess Staufenberg

The vice president for FE at the National Union of Students has a proud history of postholders very happy to rock the boat: Shakira Martin, Emily Chapman – and even FE Week’s own editor, Shane Chowen. 

But never before has it been held by an adult learner who spent time in women’s refuges and foster care, and cut their teeth at a well-funded students’ union in Scotland.

That is until Bernadette Savage, or Bernie. She appears to know exactly what an effective SU looks like, and I’m betting will accept no excuses for anything less in England.

The former BTEC student rose from being class representative at City of Glasgow College, to president of its students’ union, before taking over the FE role at the NUS from Salsabil Elmegri last month.

She is a blaze of energy and vitality, and when I begin with her childhood, replies with a wide grin that doesn’t prepare me for the tale: “Oooh, the life story is a riot!”

It started that way – Savage’s mum gave birth to her on a street waiting for an ambulance to arrive – and was left deeply unimpressed when it eventually turned up, apparently “dirty” she cackles.

Savage was one of six children and, in a bid to make herself heard, was a tearaway in her Newcastle primary school. Her punishment was to “go and read to the headmistress”, at which her mum told staff: “Well that’s stupid, she really likes reading!’” 

So the school decided instead to reward her with reading if she behaved. “That worked better,” Savage chuckles.

Her wicked grin and cheery demeanour breeze through what sounds like some very tough situations for a child.

There was domestic violence at home, and her dad even took her away for several days when she was six, only returning her to her worried mum because she was hungry. 

Her stepdad, an ex-Marine, turned out to be similarly bad news. So she and her mum “stuck a pin in a map, and mine landed in Devon”. It was a women’s refuge, miles from the north-east.

“That was a riot too because no one understood my accent down there,” Savage continues. She has lived twice in women’s shelters, once aged five and once again aged 11, and estimates she has moved home about 25 times.

She jokes, but with a serious edge, that three of her streets have featured in Channel 4’s The Secret Millionaire (in which a wealthy person lives in an impoverished community).

At a housing rally

During this upheaval, Savage’s mum died of breast cancer. Savage reflects on how she responded to such a great loss aged only 14.

She became a “bit shut off”, she says – and even today finds it hard to be around someone’s naked emotions. “I’m a bit ‘there, there’ because I find it hard to know what to say. I want to know what I can do to help!”

Her other reaction was to suddenly begin behaving at school, because it was a safe space. “I went from being someone who was biting everyone to constantly being there. No one picked up on the change.”

At this point Savage, her sister and younger brother moved in with her mum’s sister, but it didn’t work out. She eventually got taken into foster care, living with an “amazing” Trinidadian woman called Sarah, whom she remains close to today.

It was just in the nick of time – Savage got six GCSEs, and headed to Newcastle College to study a BTEC in beauty therapy services.

As a result the new vice president has the benefit of experiencing students’ unions in both English and Scottish FE institutions. The one in England didn’t leave an impression on her, she warns.

“I just don’t recall it having a students’ union. At City [of Glasgow College], it’s all over the social media, people talk about it.”

Savage on her birthday

So the SU passed her by, and Savage realised she wasn’t destined for a career in beauty therapy. Instead she and Sarah drove to Northumbria University and managed to find her a place studying health and social care.

But with little pastoral support and a dislike for asking for help, Savage struggled in the degree and managed a 2:2. Soon she was back home, working in hospitality and surviving off the tips.

Two moves then followed which show there is a bravery and strength to Savage that I imagine is why her fellow students have trusted her to represent them.

First, she clocked she was in a minimum-wage “vicious cycle” and in danger of doing nothing with her life. She took the extraordinary step of moving to Australia to join her sister living there, quickly building up skills selling a newspaper on commission out there. 

But on returning home after a year, most of her friends were “still on the dole or in hospitality” on low wages.

“I don’t know if I realised it would be Groundhog Day [a day that repeats itself for the rest of your life], but I booked a flight to Thailand,” she tells me. “I’m normally someone who hates change – I’ve no idea what went through my brain that day.”

Savage had landed a placement on a TEFL course, teaching English as a foreign language to kindergarten children in a rural Thai town.

In Ha Long Bay in Thailand

Working with small children was a revelation for her, and after her NUS stint she wishes to become a primary school teacher.

“You can be having the worst day, and they come in really excited about this ridiculous thing, or they’re upset because someone called them a pineapple,” she grins at me.

“FE students are great – but they’re still not quite as amusing as a five-year-old.” 

After four years, Thailand’s laws banned her from teaching further without a degree, so Savage returned to the UK and headed to City of Glasgow College to take a higher national diploma in business.

First she was elected class representative and, with the arrival of the pandemic, found herself busily communicating between students and college leadership. Soon she was the paid, part-time vice president for teaching and learning – and is filled with praise for the support she received.

“I really liked it! We have student engagement officers that mentored us, we got to sit on college boards and worked with senior management.”

By contrast, FE Week reported in June that many colleges in England have slashed their student support teams due to a combination of budget cuts. Meanwhile, NUS itself also has fewer resources since a big financial restructure in 2018.

I can say to colleges in England: look what you can do with some funding

“The student association wasn’t tokenistic at City like I’ve seen at other student associations,” nods Savage, the affection for her Scottish college evident in her voice. “I can take that to colleges in England and say: ‘Look what you can do with some funding’.”

It’s a powerful message. As Graeme Kirkpatrick, a former NUS vice president for Scotland, has previously warned FE Week, it is FE students who particularly suffer from cuts to SU funding as those from less privileged backgrounds may be intimidated by the formalities of the role.

Doing TEFL (Teaching English as a Foreign Language) teaching

Savage knows this first-hand from her time in Glasgow. “The college were really good at breaking down the jargon so I understood it. The student engagement officers understood how my brain worked better than I do.”

Elected as NUS vice president in March this year, Savage has a direct message for colleges without proper SU teams here.

“The only reason not to have this is if you’re not interested. You’re just not listening to your biggest asset here. FE students and apprentices are so often overlooked and it needs to end.”

The only reason not to have an SU is if you’re not interested

She leans forward, talking directly to those at the top. 

“I imagine for a lot of principals, it’s years since they were a student. Their student experience isn’t what’s happening now, and by the time it’s gone from the student rep through other people, it’s not the truth anymore. They need to break down those barriers and go and talk to the students and students’ union.”

Aside from better support for SUs, Savage has two other issues in her sights for her two-year term: apprentice pay and adult learners in FE.

After our chat she has a meeting with Ben Kinross, the deeply committed founder of the National Society of Apprentices, which launched within NUS to support apprentice representation in 2010.

“The apprentice pay rate is slave labour,” Savage says bluntly. “I would challenge the new PM to live on it. It’s disgusting.”

Receiving a college award

She also wants the voice of adult learners to be properly heard. The funding cliff-edge at age 19 or 25 for many courses and subsidised transport prevents people like her from re-training, she warns.

“People assume FE is 16-19, but it’s not. Are they carers, parents, part-time or evening? These students don’t get surveyed a lot and I feel like no one asked them what they want.”

But Savage is also aware of the contextual challenges ahead – including that many of today’s students may be more enthusiastic about global online hashtag campaigns than college policies and students’ union membership.

“I think that’s definitely a thing, because people are constantly online,” she agrees. “But that’s where the unions need to change their comms strategy. Go to where the students are, not where you think they are. Get online.”

This needs people on the ground making a racket

On the other issue facing SUs – the lack of funding in FE – Savage is utterly straight in her response. “Stop taking the cuts quietly. This is a thing that can’t be an email. This needs people on the ground making a racket.”

College leaders should be involving their students directly, Savage adds. “Colleges need to get students backing them up, and acting as case studies.”

There’s no doubt about it: Savage is a powerhouse. And with that big grin, too, she could be the very visible postholder the role so badly needs.

“Don’t make students’ unions tokenistic,” she concludes to colleges. “Students are paying for your jobs.”