Latest news from FE Week

DWP question time April 2026: Live blog

Welcome to FE Week‘s live blog covering DWP questions in the House of Commons on 27 April 2026. The session will begin at shortly after 2.30pm.

This is a new function we are testing following our decision to stop posting on the social media website X.

Instead of live reporting key events via our social channels, we will host these blogs on our website, making it easier for our readers to see all updates in one place.

If you have feedback, please email news@feweek.co.uk

Cheap means nasty for apprenticeship units, say providers

Labour’s flagship apprenticeship “units” risk stalling before they begin as training providers warn the courses are so underfunded they may refuse to run them.

Ministers this week published long-awaited funding rates for the first tranche of 10 units – short courses that will, for the first time, allow employers to spend levy money on non-apprenticeship training.

But training organisations said the rates, ranging from £22.80 to £27.10 an hour, fall well short of covering the real cost of delivery, fuelling claims the programme has been set up to fail.

One leader of a large apprenticeship firm described the rollout as a “spectacular mess”, warning that some of the courses were “not fit for purpose” and so poorly designed “it’s as if it’s been designed so that no one enrols on it”.

‘A compromise we will not make’

Seven of the units are in manufacturing and construction with delivery hours ranging from 35 to 140, while three are AI leadership courses of just 30 hours.

The units are for employees aged 19 and older who are looking to upskill. Starts can begin from Tuesday (April 28).

The Department for Work and Pensions said Skills England recommended funding rates using a “best estimate of costs”, with initial rates for units reflecting delivery expenses plus set-up and fixed learner costs such as onboarding and administration.

Ben Newbould, managing director of specialist tech provider Velocity Academy, said the proposed £750 funding rate for the level 5 AI units, which works out at just £25 per hour, is “wholly misaligned” with reality.

His own analysis, based on the AI strategy and opportunity unit, found 69 per cent of the content is lifted from the existing level 4 AI and automation apprenticeship standard, funded at £18,000 with a delivery rate of £42.86 per hour.

Applying a proper weighted model across the four standards used to build this new qualification, he said, puts the true cost of the unit closer to £39 or £40 per hour.

Velocity Academy is now “seriously considering not delivering these units”.

The only way to make them viable, Newbould warned, would be to cram learners into oversized classes, pushing the learner-to-trainer ratio beyond what is acceptable for high-quality teaching – “a compromise we will not make”.

Benjamin Silverstone, associate professor and head of skills policy and strategy at the University of Warwick’s WMG Skills Centre, was planning to deliver the AI units but said to be financially viable, the courses would require a “bigger cohort size than you are realistically going to fit into a room”.

He told FE Week it was “disappointing that there seems to be a lack of understanding of how much education actually costs” and added he felt providers were “not really consulted in terms of how much they would require financially to do this stuff”.

Jemma Perks, managing director of S&A Academy, said providers like hers support the “increased flexibility” apprenticeship units are supposed to bring. But she was also concerned the funding for AI leadership modules was “lower than we anticipated”, making it “challenging” to design and deliver programmes that meet the expected quality standards, especially given the need for specialist expertise and technical competence.

Without better alignment between funding and costs, she warned, provider uptake risks being “limited”, ultimately impacting employer access and development of technological skills.

Providers also raised that the design of the AI units does not match real workforce needs, which is hands-on AI capability, not leadership-only or policy-heavy provision.

Set up to fail

Apprenticeship units are a centrepiece of Labour’s rebranded “growth and skills levy”, promised by leader Keir Starmer in opposition to give businesses the “flexibility they need to train their workforce”.

Yet nearly two years after taking office, ministers are preparing to launch just 10 short courses that can be funded through apprenticeship levy contributions.

Since gaining power, ministers have found it difficult to flex the levy after realising England’s apprenticeship budget distributed by the Treasury is fully spent each year.

Despite now increasing the national annual budget to £3.3 billion, ministers have had to find savings, including by defunding level 7 apprenticeships for people aged over 21 and axing a range of popular management apprenticeships, to steer funding back to young people while also introducing their promised short course offer.

Silverstone said Labour’s promised short course growth and skills levy policy had “narrowed down massively” since inception.

He said ministers had made it so the policy “is technically doable, so you can’t accuse anyone of saying that opportunity has been taken away”, but the offer is “that unattractive” that it drives low take-up.

Another element of apprenticeship units that the sector fears will drive low interest is the payment model, whereby 70 per cent of the funding is withheld until the learner has completed all hours and passed a skills test.

The government has said it will keep the “affordability” of apprenticeship units “under review” and could withdraw a unit with just four weeks’ notice. Providers fear this “big stick” model leaves them exposed.

Ben Rowland, CEO of the Association of Employment and Learning Providers, said there was a “fundamental question” over whether the government actually wants the units to succeed.

If they do prove popular, he warned, “the system won’t be able to afford them”.

“Funding does not match the real-world cost of delivery, and the rules are too inflexible for providers and employers to make them viable. Taken together, the sum of the parts just doesn’t stack up,” Rowland added.

Saqib Bhatti, the Conservatives’ shadow education minister, said the reports were “immensely concerning” and reflected a broader pattern in which government rhetoric failed to meet reality. The units’ proposals, he argued, were “ill-thought-through and totally undeliverable”.

Risk worth taking?

Sam Callear, chief executive of GTA England, a network of not-for-profit training organisations, said his members support the concept of apprenticeship units and have ambitions to deliver them, but the planned system makes investment “a risky” decision.

He also highlighted that the mechanised welding unit, which requires expensive equipment, small classes and significant face-to-face teaching, is funded at a lower hourly rate than AI courses.

The manufacturing sector shares those concerns. Robert Halfon, former skills minister and now executive director of external affairs at Make UK, said funding levels were “lower than is comfortable for many providers” and warned the payment structure could make the units “unsustainable”.

Colleges are also proceeding cautiously. Blackpool and the Fylde College welcomed “any move” towards flexible, unit-based modules funded through the levy but said the rates were “less than we expected”, given the high costs of specialist staffing, facilities, consumables and compliance.

Yiannis Koursis, chief executive of The Bedford College Group, warned that low funding combined with delayed payments “raises concerns about the overall viability of delivering these units at scale”.

Not all providers are put off, however. Emma Barrett-Peel, chief executive of Train’d Up, said her organisation had received “lots of interest already” from their engineering and manufacturing employers who were “excited about widening their training offer to staff who were not suited to full apprenticeship programmes”.

“At this stage we believe we can design something high-quality. However, through the process over the coming weeks and months we will definitely keep the cost to deliver in our minds to make sure before we launch we are confident that the training is as good as our apprenticeship training,” she added.

Rowland pointed out that the government had described this as a “test and learn” phase for apprenticeship units. He said if ministers want to give the short courses a “genuine chance of success”, they must “find a way to control budgets without suppressing funding rates to the point where delivery becomes unworkable – otherwise, there is a real risk a good idea never proves its value”.

A DWP spokesperson said: “This government is committed to addressing skills gaps identified in the jobs market, which is why apprenticeship units have been introduced for priority sectors.

“The funding rates for the apprenticeship units are based on the expected cost of delivery.”

NOCN lays foundations for ‘skills passport’ fight

Two major construction training organisations are locked in a trade mark dispute over rival “skills passports”.

Awarding organisation NOCN has accused the Construction Skills Certification Scheme (CSCS) Ltd of infringing its registered trade mark through the use of the term for its digital carding system.

A cease and desist letter sent on behalf of NOCN, seen by FE Week, argues that CSCS’s use of “skills passport” is identical or highly similar to its own registered trade mark, and is being used for “identical or similar” services, creating a “likelihood of confusion”.

NOCN confirmed it had also launched opposition proceedings against CSCS’s own trade mark application with the UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO).

However, CSCS has rejected the claims and considers NOCN’s allegations to be “entirely without merit”.

A spokesperson added the term “skills passport” was a “generic, descriptive phrase and we do not accept that it is appropriate for any single organisation to claim exclusive rights over its use”.

Escalating dispute

NOCN has held a registered trade mark for “NOCN skills passports” since August 2024, which covers digital platforms for storing and managing skills and qualifications information.

The organisation said it registered the trade mark following several years of development of digital competency records linked to construction certification schemes.

It added that discussions with CSCS about a potential joint approach to a digital scheme had taken place but “fallen away”, with CSCS subsequently launching its own product using the term.

NOCN said it believed legal action was necessary to “avoid confusion for operatives about providers and protect their interests”.

NOCN’s registered “skills passport” trade mark (left) alongside CSCS’s app branding (centre and right)

Its lawyers have called on CSCS to cease using the term or face further legal action, such as an injunction or litigation for damages.

In a statement, NOCN said: “Regrettably, we have been given no choice but to serve a cease and desist letter as a first step in a legal process against CSCS. We confirm that we have also commenced opposition proceedings against CSCS at the UKIPO.

“We believe this action to be necessary so as to avoid confusion for operatives about providers and protect their interests, given both NOCN Group and CSCS operate within the construction sector.”

NOCN also requested FE Week remove a related opinion article. The publication declined.

Digital services that collate and display learners’ qualifications are increasingly used across the skills sector. Proponents believe such systems improve verification and reduce fraud, particularly in safety-critical industries.

CSCS pointed to multiple examples of similar services already available, including initiatives from awarding bodies, employers and regulators.

The government recently signalled its intent to “explore the development of skills passports” to support unemployed people into work in its post-16 education and skills white paper.

But NOCN believes CSCS’s version amounts to a trade mark infringement due to alleged branding similarities and use of the phrase “skills passport”, which its lawyers said is “aurally identical” to its registered mark.

Regulator probes collapse of engineering trainer

The Charity Commission is assessing “governance and financial concerns” at a 60-year-old engineering training charity that closed abruptly last year.

Oldham Training Centre (OTC), which has been running since 1966, dismissed staff without notice or pay in November.

Formally known as Oldham Engineering Group Training Association, the charity told employees it was about to enter creditors’ voluntary liquidation because it was “unable to make all payments”.

But five months later it is yet to formally enter liquidation, and former employees, who said they had not received wages, fear they are running out of time to claim redundancy pay within a six-month time limit.

Some staff are understood to be owed redundancy payments covering more than 15 years of employment at the charity.

Asset questions

Employees and a former trustee told FE Week they are concerned about what happened to profits from an auction of the charity’s 21,000 sq-ft training centre in Oldham, Greater Manchester.

The building was sold in July with an advertised guide price of £750,000.

Its specialist equipment, including pillar drills and lathes, were also sold online last year by a neighbour of OTC’s director of business operations Martin Peter Sherry.

Sherry, who ran the organisation, was appointed as a director of the charity’s business in July 2024. He also appears to have been a trustee for a short period.

He had previously run apprenticeship companies including Cranage Ltd, Obscurant Limited and Tatton Solutions.

Ten days ago ownership of the charity’s subsidiary health and safety training business, OTC Consulting, which brought in an income of £105,000 in 2023-24, was transferred to Sherry and fellow director and current trustee James Kelly.

A Charity Commission spokesperson said: “We are assessing governance and financial concerns raised with us about Oldham Engineering Group Training Association Limited to determine any next steps.

“We can confirm that, in line with our guidance, the charity has reported this matter to us.”

The commission added that it has made no findings and drawn no conclusions at this stage.

When contacted for comment, Sherry claimed he was unavailable because he was about to start an online meeting. He now appears to have blocked our calls.

Staff ‘completely aggrieved’

Former employees told FE Week they had received limited direct contact from trustees and directors since receiving dismissal letters from Sherry on November 26. Staff were told to contact insolvency practitioner Chris Knott, of insolvency firm Leonard Curtis, with queries about redundancy payments.

However, Knott told them he could offer no help as he had not been formally appointed as liquidator.

Electrical instructor Paul Brown, who worked at OTC for 10 years and believes he is owed more than £12,000, said he felt “completely aggrieved”.

He added that staff all put “a lot of effort” into helping the centre gain a ‘good’ Ofsted grade in 2024, after a previous ‘requires improvement’ grade.

Former tutor Eric Shaw, who estimates he is owed £2,500, said he was “disgusted” staff had not been paid.

Both Brown and Shaw called for an investigation into what had happened at the charity, including the sale of its building.

OTC’s training centre was auctioned last July. (Source: https://propertyauctions.io/)

When questioned about the delay, Marie Ann Shenton, accountant for OTC, told FE Week that insolvency paperwork had now been completed, adding: “These things don’t happen overnight.”

She said assets were sold after “independent valuation” and claimed transferring the subsidiary company OTC Consulting into Kelly and Sherry’s personal ownership made the liquidation process “easier to do formally”.

She added: “It was just for ease of transaction, really. And there’s no value in the company, so it’s not as if we’ve shifted value from the holding company to shareholders.”

Falling headcount

Income and apprentice numbers at OTC appear to have declined in recent years.

It specialised in apprenticeship standards including maintenance and operations engineering technician, metal fabricator, engineering fitting and design and draughting.

Its 2021-22 accounts show a surplus of £90,000 on a turnover of £664,000, with reserves of almost £1 million.

But in 2023-24 it made a loss of about £360,000, reserves fell to £407,000, and Companies House records show it took out two loans of undisclosed amounts in late 2024, with all of its assets offered as security.

When Ofsted gave the ‘requires improvement’ grade in 2022 there were about 130 apprentices. By the time it returned to ‘good’ in 2024 there were only 75.

When contacted for comment, Kelly, also CEO of the British Metals Recycling Association, shared what he claimed was a collective statement “on behalf of the trustees”.

It said that liquidators were currently only working in an “advisory” capacity, with a formal decision on their appointment “imminent”.

It added: “The trustees have at all times sought to act in accordance with their duties and responsibilities, taking appropriate advice where required and working to ensure that decisions are made in the best interests of the organisation and its stakeholders, including learners, staff, employers and funding bodies.

“The circumstances leading to the current position are complex and have developed over time.

“As is standard in situations of this nature, several of the matters raised are now subject to formal review and will be considered through the appropriate statutory and regulatory processes.”

The statement said trustees were “fully committed” to working with bodies including the Charity Commission, and that “decisions have not been made lightly”.

However, the statement claimed it would be inappropriate to provide “detailed commentary on specific points”.

In a separate statement, trustee John Robinson, a director at Innovative Technology Ltd, distanced himself from Kelly’s statement.

He said: “Given the circumstances and my responsibilities, I’m not in a position to comment in detail at this stage.

“I have, however, taken appropriate steps through the relevant channels to ensure that matters are being addressed in line with my duties as a trustee.

“I have sought at all times to act in the best interests of the charity and its staff.”

GTA model in decline

Group training associations (GTAs) are long-running charities, often originating in the 1960s, that offer shared specialised apprenticeship training to local employers.

Employers typically access GTA training through an annual membership and sometimes oversee its management by becoming trustees.

OTC is the second GTA to close in Greater Manchester in recent years, following the liquidation of Salford and Trafford Engineering GTA (STEGTA) in 2024.

Only Stockport Engineering Training Association remains in the region. There are understood to be about 29 GTAs across England.

FE exit numbers still ‘stubbornly high’ but improving

The rate of teachers quitting the FE sector has hit its lowest level in four years, data reveals.

Analysis of the 2023-24 teaching workforce found 14.7 per cent left further education the following year.

This was 1.9 percentage points lower than the previous year and the lowest “attrition rate” since 2019-20 when 14.5 per cent quit.

Exit rates in FE had declined since a 2014-15 peak of 20.8 per cent until four years ago, when numbers began to trend upwards again.

Michael Scott, senior economist at the National Foundation for Educational Research (NFER), said the data suggests “some progress has been made in improving retention across the sector”.

However, he added exit “rates remain stubbornly high, and it is clear much more needs to be done”. He called for more funding to improve salaries and action to reduce teacher workload.

Just 8.7 per cent of those who left FE in 2024-25 were found to be working elsewhere in the education sector. This is a decrease of 2 percentage points on the previous cohort.

Younger teachers, aged 29 and under, consistently make up the majority of FE leavers. In 2023-24 they accounted for 42 per cent of teachers exiting the sector.

Pay goes up

The data, collected through the Teachers’ Pension Scheme, shows the overall FE teacher headcount rose 2 per cent in 2024-25 year on year, reaching around 57,000.

In 2024-25, the median full-time equivalent salary of a general FE college teacher was £38,813.

This represented a 3.8 per cent pay rise on the previous year and a 10 per cent rise from 2022-23, when the median pay was £35,271.

However, teachers at sixth form colleges still out-earn their FE college counterparts, reaching a median salary of £48,783 in 2024-25.

The near £10,000 pay gap is the widest since this data was first recorded in 2002.

Seven findings from DfE’s third FE workforce data release

Newbies stay put

Last year, the majority (88 per cent) of 7,500 teachers joining FE for the first time were recruited from outside the education sector.

The data also found three quarters (75.5 per cent) of new teachers who joined in 2023-24 remained in their roles one year later.

This is the highest one-year retention rate in 18 years since 2005-06 when the rate was 82.7 per cent.

Regarding pay, new teachers at general FE colleges earned a median of £33,197 in 2024-25, while sixth form college teachers earned £42,964.

This represents a 3.6 per cent increase for new general FE college teachers from the year prior, and a 14 per cent jump for sixth form teachers.

Secrecy for seven ends as devolution budgets revealed

Seven regions will take control of adult skills funding for the first time this year, as the government expands its devolution programme.

In total, £120 million in adult skills funding (ASF) and free courses for jobs (FCFJ) will be handed to the authorities in the 2026-27 academic year.

The newly devolved areas will join 13 existing authorities with full devolution of adult skills, bringing the percentage of devolved ASF and FCFJ to 77 per cent of the approximate £1.4 billion national budget.

The new adult-skills authorities are: Lancashire Combined County Authority, Greater Lincolnshire Combined Authority, Hull and East Yorkshire Combined Authority, Devon and Torbay Combined County Authority, Surrey County Council, Warwickshire County Council and Buckinghamshire Council.

While some authorities had published estimates of the funding they expected, grant determination letters released by the Department for Work and Pensions this week confirmed exact amounts for the first time.

The funding allocations were welcomed by most authorities contacted by FE Week.

A spokesperson for Devon and Torbay Combined County Authority, which will receive £13.1 million this year, said devolution of adult skills was a “positive and welcome step” that would give officials the ability to “shape provision” around local market demand and economic priorities.

They added local control would allow training to focus on “high-growth sectors”, plus local “bedrock industries” such as hospitality, tourism and care.

Strategic planning

Ahead of devolution, officials in each area prepared strategies for their first year.

Reform UK-run Greater Lincolnshire Combined Authority, receiving £19.6 million annually, has already decided to scrap eligibility for funded ESOL courses from August 2027.

Both Devon and Torbay and Lancashire aim to have a new three-year contract framework in place by “autumn 2026 onwards”, while others will not procure until the following academic year.

Plans published by Buckinghamshire Council last month revealed it would take a “light touch” approach by adopting national policies and delaying procurement until the second year of devolution to enable officials to “understand the delivery cycle” before changing providers’ allowances.

Current contracts for delivery by the council-run Bucks Adult Learning and Buckinghamshire College Group will continue.

To assure government officials that it is ready for devolution, the authority must submit an “assured” strategic skills plan that includes a skills and employment strategy that uses ASF related data, a governance framework, a procurement plan and funding rules.

However, leaders in the county have voiced concerns that Department for Education implementation funding of £150,000 over three years is “not sufficient” to cover estimated costs and is “significantly less” than other areas have been paid in the past.

They said: “We have lobbied DfE hard on this issue with no success.”

Surrey County Council will take on a £12 million ASF and FCFJ budget this year.

According to a cabinet report published in February, the council said it would finalise procurement plans once the DfE provided its final confirmation of funding levels.

It added funding would focus on “tackling the highest need”, with grant funding agreements for local providers remaining the same in the first year.

The council also plans to reduce funding for out-of-area providers and “non-contracted” spend, by assessing requests on a case-by-case basis.

At Warwickshire County Council, a spokesman said officials had found the DfE “particularly helpful” during work to demonstrate their “readiness” over the last 18 months.

They added the allocations “appear consistent” with the region’s previous funding levels for adult skills.

Strong foundations

The 2026-27 wave of adult skills devolution means there will now be four authorities with devolved skills that are not combined authorities and do not have a directly elected mayor.

Cornwall will be joined by Surrey, Warwickshire and Buckinghamshire.

These authorities, known as “foundation strategic authorities”, will be subject to tighter ringfence restrictions on what they can do with funding than “mayoral” or “established” strategic authorities.

Six more authorities are expected to gain control of their adult skills budgets in coming years, although political disputes over local government reorganisation could cause delays.

Vocational reform will only work if people trust it

Qualifications open doors for young people – but only as far as society and employers recognise their value. That is why getting them right carries such high stakes, and why changes to post-16 vocational and technical qualifications should be viewed in the context of those who take them and those who accept them. They need to be understood and they need to be trusted.

Vocational qualifications are valued by students, colleges and employers. But they have lacked the national elements – the common content and grading scales – that give GCSEs and A Levels their universal recognition. The upcoming post-16 qualification reforms are the opportunity to build that in from the ground up.

This reform programme is the most significant attempt to address this imbalance in vocational qualifications in a generation. Following the curriculum and assessment review and the skills white paper, three new types of qualification are being introduced by the Department for Education (DfE): V Levels at level 3, and foundation certificates and occupational certificates at level 2.

T Levels remain the high-quality technical route for students committed to a specific occupational direction. A Levels remain the academic route. Now in addition, V Levels (which can be taken alongside A Levels) will allow students to explore a broad vocational area without committing to it at the depth of a T Level.

V Levels are not a rebadging, or an academic qualification in disguise. They open a new vocational route, designed for students who want to develop real skills and knowledge in a sector, but with the national rigour and recognition that has historically been the preserve of academic qualifications.

Together, A Levels, V Levels and T Levels will form a family of well-recognised and valued qualifications, underpinned by nationally-set content and common grading scales – the same foundations that have made GCSEs and A Levels trusted and understood by students, teachers, universities and employers.

That degree of consistency is something we have not had before with vocational qualifications, and it matters enormously for how students’ achievements are understood and valued beyond the college gates.

However, simply understanding what a qualification means is not enough – we must trust them. This means ensuring high quality from the start. That’s why earlier this year Ofqual proposed the clear expectations and high standards that awarding organisations must meet before they can deliver the first tranche of V Levels.

Our latest consultation sets out our proposals for how awarding organisations will be regulated to deliver these level 3 and level 2 qualifications. It is open alongside DfE’s consultation on subject content, because content and the way it is assessed must be developed together to secure qualifications that are coherent and trusted.

The starting point for our regulation is clarity around the purpose of the qualifications. V Levels are intended to support progression to higher study, higher technical training or apprenticeships. To support this, our regulations must ensure V Level results provide accurate information about student attainment for recruiters and decision-makers in these areas – and that students have the knowledge, understanding and skills set out in DfE’s subject content.

Qualifications need a grading scale that is a reliable indicator of attainment, and that can be understood by students, employers and institutions. Our proposed alphabetical seven-point grading scale for V Levels is intended to differentiate a wide range of attainment of students taking the qualification, to aid progression decisions.

We propose that V Levels will be modular, with a balance of assessment methods reflecting their vocational and applied nature. This includes timetabled assessments set and marked by awarding organisations, alongside assessments set by the awarding organisation and marked by teachers and quality assured by awarding organisations. A significant proportion of timetabled assessment will take place at the end of the two-year course to ensure standards are upheld. This balance of assessment methods will be considered on a subject-by-subject basis.

For the first time, young people will have a genuine choice of high-quality, nationally standardised vocational alternatives to A Levels – qualifications whose grades are widely understood, and that universities and employers can rely on. For students, and for the colleges that support them, that is good news.

Benefit losses force teens to ditch apprenticeships

Disadvantaged young people are quitting apprenticeships due to welfare rules that cost poorer families hundreds of pounds in benefits, experts have warned.

The “apprenticeships penalty” has caused low-income families to lose as much as £339 per week due to 16-year-old apprentices being classed as “independent workers” within a household.

As a result, young people have turned down apprenticeships and parents are discouraging their children from taking one up.

Researchers heard of one parent who kicked their child out of the family home for not abandoning their apprenticeship.

A report by the Social Security Advisory Committee found the losses leave disabled young people, young adult carers and care leavers “much worse off”, with some choosing courses that allow them to keep benefit income.

The advisory committee urged ministers to conduct a comprehensive review of the financial “cliff edge”, particularly for families with disabled children, those with caring responsibilities and single-parent households.

They also recommended improving access to information about how household and individual benefits change when a young person pursues an apprenticeship or remains in education.

Wages cannot offset benefit cuts

The report explained that young people no longer meet the criteria for “qualifying young person” status once they leave full-time education to begin an apprenticeship, even if they still live in the family home.

However, young people in full-time education are classed as dependents, so families don’t lose out on payments.

Apprentices sign an apprenticeship agreement, a form of contract, meaning they are automatically excluded regardless of their financial circumstances.

Most families with 16 to 18-year-olds in full-time education receive child benefit of £26.05 per week for the first child and £17.25 for the second and subsequent children.

For those on universal credit, families get £78.23 per week for the child element and £52.17 per week for a work allowance before their universal credit is tapered.

In total, the government spent £2.4 billion on child benefit payments to households for 16 to 19-year-old children last year.

The report found families with young apprentices lose all three elements of benefits simultaneously, meaning they lose between £17 to £339 per week, with families with disabled members hardest hit.

Meanwhile, income for young people with part-time jobs is disregarded if they remain in full-time education.

The committee recommended ministers address the timing gap between benefit cessation, currently the August 31 after the young person’s 16th birthday, and participation commencement. Advisors said the government should extend support from the current cut-off date until young people begin their apprenticeship and have received their first wage.

Social Security Advisory Committee chair Stephen Brien said no realistic apprenticeship wage could offset the “substantial losses”.

“For too many households, choosing a vocational pathway – one that the government promotes as an equally valid route into adulthood – can trigger substantial losses in financial support,” he added.

The committee suggested a review of all benefits rules, a “joined-up approach” between the Department for Work and Pensions and HMRC, and transferring responsibility for child benefit to the DWP, from HMRC.

Adults influence decisions

The report discovered that parents, social workers and teachers were influencing young people’s choices based on their potential household income losses.

Researchers heard multiple cases of single-parent households where a child was discouraged from taking up an apprenticeship amid concerns about losing child maintenance payments.

Another family reportedly told the committee they would be £700 per month worse off if their child, who has a disability, left full-time education for an apprenticeship.

“While direct testimony from young people is limited, available evidence suggests obligation dynamics influence decisions,” the report said.

One young person agreed not to pursue an apprenticeship after learning her parents would lose income, despite feeling it was “deeply unfair”.

Another parent asked their child to quit their apprenticeship or leave the family home once they realised some of their benefits had stopped.

After being kicked out, the teenager sought a youth hub to claim universal credit to support themselves on their apprentice wage.

“Ultimately, the young person moved back into the family home, but they left their apprenticeship as a result and went back to college,” the report concluded.

Heavy burden for young carers

Young carers are ineligible for the carer’s allowance if they are in full-time education at age 16-18 or are apprentices who earn over the earnings threshold or care for fewer than 35 hours a week.

Government advisors said even with part-time courses or work, young people with caring responsibilities were becoming overwhelmed.

They also heard some young adult carers felt pushed to choose courses that were part-time, despite being unsuitable for their interests or long-term prospects.

“In these situations, we heard, young adult carers can often fail to achieve qualifications on a par with their peers,” the report found.

The committee recommended ministers remove the ineligibilities for young carers and introduce a young carer grant.

Disabled apprentices ‘much worse off’

Government advisors also warned about the impact of a 16-year-old leaving full-time education to begin an apprenticeship.

When this happens, the parents’ entitlement to child benefit and the child and disabled child elements of universal credit is stripped.

The report also found the extra time taken for a young disabled apprentice to be independently considered for disabled work benefits could leave families in “financial limbo”.

“We heard that this process could cause stress and potentially lead to dropout,” the committee warned.

It urged the Department for Work and Pensions to have “greater flexibility” on when young apprentices should claim adult benefits.

A DWP spokesperson said: “We are determined to reverse the 40% drop in young people starting apprenticeships over the last decade, and are carefully considering the report’s recommendations.

“With the apprentice minimum wage now at £8 per hour, a young person working 35 hours a week will earn around £270 a week and, as the report acknowledges, in most scenarios this offsets any reduction in household benefits.

“We’re determined to give every young person the best possible start in their career. That’s why we are investing £2.5 billion to tackle youth unemployment, creating 50,000 additional apprenticeships for young people, and introducing a new incentive of up to £2,000 for SMEs which take on a 16–24-year-old apprentice.”