Don’t double the immigration skills charge

Conservative manifesto pledge: Double the Immigration Skills Charge to £2,000 to reinvest in FE and skills

Alex Balch argues AGAINST

Barely a month after the Immigration Skills Charge (ISC) has come into effect (April 2017), the Conservative Party have said as part of their manifesto that they will double the charge from £1000 to £2000. The ISC was brought in following advice by the Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) – an independent panel of economists – last year. The amount is levied annually on organisations that employ high-skilled non-EEA immigrants, although there are reduced charges for charities and small businesses.

Most of the public scrutiny of the ISC has centred on the ways it will significantly increase costs for the NHS, something politically sensitive. But how will the charge improve funding for FE and skills?

READ MORE: Why we SHOULD double the immigration skills charge

According to the MAC’s analysis the original £1000 charge would raise over £200m, so £2000 could bring in significantly more, but of course these are estimates, and it is difficult to factor in all variables (Brexit? recession? exemptions? non-compliance?). This means the actual amount at the higher charge will likely be much lower than £400m. The Conservative manifesto promises it will be invested in ‘higher level skills training for workers in the UK’. Beyond this there has been little detail about how it would be ring-fenced or precisely where it would be spent.

Even if all the funds it (may) raise were allocated to training, this would not be enough to solve the country’s skills problem. This really is a case of the Emperor’s new clothes for FE. The sector has lost out comparatively to schools and higher education for decades, and the idea this could be redressed by a charge on immigration of high-skilled workers is frankly absurd. The underlying gap in funding was laid bare by a 2017 IFS report which showed that spending per pupil in sixth forms and FE remains at 1990 levels, while for schools it has gradually increased over the last 30 years and is now at least 70% higher.

Moreover, the ISC will only have a limited effect on reducing immigration levels – the other aim of the policy. The cost is probably not high enough to change employer behaviour significantly, especially at the high-wage end of the labour market. So why did the MAC recommend it? And why is the government so keen to present it as a solution to the skills problem? It appeals to the MAC’s economists, who break down everything into a cost-benefit analysis and see the charge as a neat way of punishing certain behaviours (recruiting immigrants) and incentivising others (investing in skills of British workers).

This really is a case of the Emperor’s new clothes for FE

For the government, using the immigration rules to deal with the skills problem is a useful way to signal something else: that immigration is to blame. It is like a re-run of the 2015 election when debates over welfare largely consisted of a race between all the political parties to raise the number of years they would remove rights to benefits for EU workers (who account for a small percentage of claimants).

Immigration is not the reason the UK has a skills problem, just as it has not made welfare or our public health system unsustainable. It does exactly the opposite. The evidence is that immigration makes a massive contribution to the UK’s fiscal wellbeing.

The government chooses to ignore this when there should be a public debate about how to spend the macro-economic dividend. Instead the Conservative Party cynically take advantage of misconceptions about immigration’s costs to scapegoat immigrants, blaming them for what is actually chronic underinvestment, while charging them (and their employers) even more into the bargain.

The MAC was originally set up to bring greater levels of rational thinking, improve the evidence base for immigration policymaking, and limit the damage done by politicisation. As is normal in the way that the MAC operates, it did not propose the policy; the government instead asked how it could be implemented. However, it has allowed itself to become party to a fallacy: that immigration causes the UK’s skills problem and offers the best way to solve it.

 

Alex Balch is a Senior Lecturer in International Politics and European Integration at the University of Liverpool

Tories are right to double the immigration skills charge

Conservative manifesto pledge: Double the Immigration Skills Charge to £2,000 to reinvest in FE and skills

Steven Woolfe argues FOR

I welcome the Conservative pledge to double the Immigration Skills Charge (ISC) to £2,000 per applicant.

In many respects, our immigration policy has been filling in the gaps for many flaws within our education system. For far too long, net immigration has been running at levels which are simply unsustainable. There are many complex reasons for this, but one factor is that we have been over reliant on oversees labour for far too long.

It doesn’t have to be like this. Nothing within our immigration system is unchangeable. Brexit presents a golden opportunity to implement further policy changes on immigration.

With this opportunity, I passionately believe that not only do we need a change of policy on immigration, but also a change of philosophy and thinking.

And part of that means accepting that continuing to be reliant on foreign labour is not sustainable for the UK or its future workforce.

This is why I support the proposed doubling of the ISC in the Conservative manifesto for those who enter under a Tier 2 (skilled) visa.

http://feweek.co.uk/2017/06/01/dont-double-the-immigration-skills-charge/
READ MORE: DON’T double the immigration skills charge

This proposal was first suggested by the Migration Advisory Committee last year, which is made up not of politicians like me, but independent appointees working towards a remit set by the government of the day. It suggested an initial fee of £1,000 which was introduced earlier this year.

It’s important to note that this does not stop the right of UK companies to hire migrants from abroad, but it provides an incentive to recruit directly from talent pools in the UK.

This charge will not stop doctors or nurses coming to the UK, nor workers from some other skill sectors where we have a short-term shortage, but it will ensure that a company has to explore every avenue before deciding to employ someone from abroad. It will also encourage companies to recruit and possibly train native workers into the role, which in some cases will be cheaper than paying the ISC.

The introduction of the ISC marks a significant turning point and shift in immigration policy for the long term.

The reality is, our education system in many respects is failing to create a workforce for the UK in the 21st century. This needs to change and reinvesting the funds from this charge into more skills training is a good start (although the manifesto pledge gives little detail specifically on where and how the money will be spent).

Net immigration has been running at levels which are simply unsustainable

Let’s have a look at the numbers to see how much potential revenue could be raised from a £2,000 skills charge. Last year, the UK accepted just under 94,000 Tier 2 level visas. If this level stayed the same, a £2,000 visa charge could raise £188 million per annum to reinvest in skills and education.

However, this number could be considerably different depending on when the £2,000 charge is implemented. If the charge is levied after the UK has left the European Union (and the Single Market), the sort of immigration system the UK adopts post Brexit in relation to EU countries will determine levels of Tier 2 visas in the future.

Broadly speaking, I imagine EU migrants post Brexit will be treated under the same set of rules as non-EU, meaning Tier 2 is likely to be higher in the short term. However (and especially if the ISC increases over time) Tier 2 visas may decrease organically as more companies employ and train native workers in the long term.

Those that want a complete open border are just as wrong as those that want to pull up the drawbridge. Both of those options are simply not feasible or even desirable for the UK on all levels. I want to see an immigration system that strikes the right balance and that incentivises businesses to employ home-reared talent.

 

Steven Woolfe is an Independent Member of European Parliament for North West England, a former barrister and author of ‘Fair, Flexible, Forward Thinking Immigration Policy’. You can find him on Twitter at @Steven_Woolfe

Whether or not we create Institutes of Technology is not the immediate issue

Labour manifesto pledge: Abandon plans for new technical colleges and use funding for more teachers

Sue Pember argues AGAINST

The Conservative and Labour manifestos both advocate investing more in the future of young people and both embrace the concept of lifelong learning, which is to be applauded. However, the way they suggest this can be achieved is different and one of the main variations is around Institutes of Technology. Conservatives would make them degree level institutes and Labour would not create them at all but invest in more teachers instead.

From my experience, there is nothing more fulfilling than working in an environment that is dedicated to a single discipline, where the teachers and students are immersed in the subject. Creativity and innovation flourish and those who are new progress quickly when they can see the accomplishments of those further along. Therefore there is a role for Institutes of Technology but whether they are separate institutions or they share buildings and backroom support with other programmes is a secondary matter.

READ MORE: FOR abandoning plans for new technical colleges

There have been discussions about Institutes of Technology for a number of years and, although there has been some confusion over scope, most have accepted the definition described in the area review guidance and the Industrial Strategy green paper, which also confirmed the previous announcement of £170m capital funding to support their creation.

However, the Conservatives now seem to have re-interpreted the policy and instead of building on that previously published – which was to establish a new network of prestigious Institutes of Technology and national colleges to deliver high standard provision at levels 3, 4 and 5 – they now state in their manifesto that they will establish new Institutes of Technology, backed by employers and linked to leading universities, in every major city in England. They say these “Institutes of Technology will provide courses at degree level and above, specialising in technical disciplines, such as STEM, whilst also providing higher-level apprenticeships and bespoke courses for employers. They will enjoy the freedoms that make our universities great, including eligibility for public funding for productivity and skills research, and access to loans and grants for their students.”

I am not sure this change will help the goal of ensuring more people have high skills in technology. The previous remit is still required, there is still a need for a progression route and new investment focused on level 3, 4 and 5 will be essential.

While Conservative party manifesto drafters were redefining Institutes of Technology, the Labour party drafters were building on a UCU call from earlier in the year saying: “If government wants to support technical education it should invest in our further education colleges who desperately need thousands more teachers, rather than another set of gimmicks.”

If government wants to support technical education it should invest in our further education colleges

To support this approach, Labour in their manifesto state they would abandon Conservative plans to once again reinvent the wheel by building new technical colleges, redirecting the money to increase teacher numbers in the FE sector.

However, whether we rebadge all or part of HE or FE institutions to become Institutes of Technology or create new ones is not the immediate issue; the important part of this discussion and set of proposals is that both political parties recognise that as a country we need more technically qualified people.

To fulfil that commitment, they will need to support expansion, they will have to invest in physical resources to make that possible and also increase the number of teachers. In doing so, they will also need to consider the requirements of T levels and increasing student hours to 900 a year. Again, this will increase the number of teachers needed. The priority will be to find them, recruit them and ensure these teachers have the advanced skills needed to teach at these levels and have industry relevant experience. And any new proposals must also cover the costs of teacher development and retraining.

Sue Pember is director of policy and external relations at HOLEX

IFS: Parties’ spending plans leave 16 to 18 education with 10% less than schools

General election manifesto plans of all three major parties’ proposals will leave spending for 16 to 18-year-olds around 10 per cent lower than secondary schools, according to new analysis from the Institute for Fiscal Studies.

The think tank says that while the Conservatives, Labour and Liberal Democrats are all proposing to spend more on this age group over the course of the next parliament, only Labour’s spending plans will result in a real-terms increase.

The other two parties would, meanwhile, do enough to keep per-pupil spending for 16 to 18-year-olds constant in real terms.

And the IFS also says that although the Labour and Conservative proposals for sixth form funding “would represent larger increases” than their commitments on schools spending, “all would leave spending per 16 to 18 year-old pupils around 10 per cent lower than the parties’ respective proposals for secondary schools”.

The IFS said: “The Conservative manifesto.. would effectively result in a real-terms freeze in 16-18 spending per pupil over the next parliament.

“This has a similar effect to the Liberal Democrats’ proposal to protect per pupil funding of schools and colleges in real terms.”

However, the IFS added, these plans would still leave spending per pupil on 16 to 18 year olds in 2021-22 around 14 per cent below its peak in 2011-12.

It added: “In the case of the Conservatives, because plans for 16-18 education are slightly more generous than those for schools, the gap between 16-18 education and secondary school spending per student would shrink slightly from its current level of 13 per cent to around 10 per cent in 2021–22.”

Labour’s proposals would, according to the IFS, increase 16-18 spending per pupil to £5,800, a real increase of 8 per cent over the parliament.

But “this would still leave spending per student in 16-18 education about 11 per cent below that for secondary schools in 2021–22”.

According to the IFS, spending on 16 to 18-year-olds has “fared substantially worse” than other areas of education funding.

Spending per 16 to 18-year-old pupil in 1990-91 was more than 50 per cent higher than spending per secondary school pupil, but by 2017–18 it was 13 per cent lower. This decline was the result of deeper cuts in the 1990s, slower growth in the 2000s, and being one of the only areas of education spending to be cut under the coalition government, the IFS says.

It also looked at costings for new T-levels, set to result from last year’s wide-ranging review of technical education by Lord Sainsbury.

It said: “In Budget 2017, the Conservative government committed to following the recommendations of the Sainsbury review for post-16 education.

“These reforms would introduce ‘T-levels’ for technical education – slimming down the thousands of vocational qualifications currently on offer to 15 different lines of learning – and increase the number of teaching hours on some technical routes by more than 50 per cent.”

It recognised that the Conservative government committed £420 million of additional investment in 2021-22 for the implementation of these reforms.

The spokesperson added “If, after the Spending Review period, spending per pupil would – excluding the additional £420 million – have been frozen in cash terms between 2019-20 and 2021-22 (as was the case between 2010-11 and 2019-20), then total spending per pupil including the extra £420 millon would be about the same real-terms level in 2021-22 as it is today.”

 

Labour won’t reinvent the wheel – good, but which one?

Labour manifesto pledge: Abandon plans for new technical colleges and use funding for more teachers

Mick Fletcher argues FOR

If there is one thing that almost everyone in FE can agree on, it is the need for a reduction in the degree of turbulence faced by the sector. No-one is against change but there is a clear consensus that too much of the change affecting the sector in recent years has been ill thought-out, poorly managed and above all temporary. In that sense, the proposal by Labour to abandon plans to reinvent the wheel will be music to very many ears.

The precise wording in Labour’s manifesto is as follows: “Labour would abandon Conservative plans to once again reinvent the wheel by building new technical colleges”. Clear enough you might think, but it is symptomatic of the state of the sector that there are at least three wheels they could be referring to. Most people would be happy for them to abandon all three.

READ MORE: AGAINST abandoning plans for new technical colleges

One possibility is that they are referring to new University Technical Colleges (UTCs). At the time of the last election the main parties were vying with each other as to who could open the most UTCs but as each day passes the failure of this educational experiment becomes more evident. It’s not that vocational education for some 14-19 year olds is a bad idea; it’s just that it’s crazy to allow a group of well-connected idealists to attempt to graft a few 14-19 institutions onto a system that rejects a 14-19 phase; and it’s silly to set up schools to deliver an FE curriculum.

Another possibility is that they are referring to national colleges, which at one stage appeared to be springing up with every ministerial whim. After the new Nuclear College and the HS2 College, one half expected the National College of Brexit Negotiators. Fortunately, the pace of invention seems to have slowed; and ‘new’ in relation to national colleges seems to have more to do with badging collaborative activity than setting up new structures. One of the recent ones, for example, is described as ‘a network of hubs’, seemingly reinventing spokes as well as wheels.

One half expected the National College of Brexit Negotiators

The most likely candidates for Labour’s dustbin, however, would seem to be the proposed new Institutes of Technology (IoT) intended to be the flagships of the new technical revolution launched by Lord Sainsbury and supported by the Industrial Strategy green paper.

The Conservative pitch at this election is about stability but their policy on IoTs has been very far from stable. In the Post-16 Skills Plan – not yet 12 months old but looking increasingly out of date – the IoTs are seen as being built around existing infrastructure (though playing second fiddle to yet more national colleges). By the time of the Industrial Strategy green paper however, just six months later, they were announcing plans to develop “prestigious new Institutes of Technology to deliver higher-level technical education in all regions”. In the Conservative manifesto – barely three months further on – they had moved from all regions to one in every major city. At this pace of policy development there’ll be one around every corner before Christmas.

Labour is absolutely right to call a halt to this nonsense. We have a perfectly good network of FE colleges, most of which offer technical education at advanced level as well as the upper secondary phase. Some 10% of undergraduate higher education is offered in FE colleges and, as analysis for the Education and Training Foundation has shown, is clearly focussed on local employment opportunities. Colleges already offer degrees, foundation degrees, HNC/D and professional qualifications. We need to invest more in what we have, rather than wheel out yet another wheeze.

Mick Fletcher is the founder of Policy Consortium

Breaking: Sixth form college principal resigns with immediate effect

The surprise resignation of Bolton Sixth Form College’s principal has been confirmed this morning to FE Week, three days after it was reported he had been suspended.

Alex Fau Goodwin only took over as principal at Bolton in July 2016, following the retirement of former leader Steve Wetton.

But the Bolton News reported last week that he had been suspended.

The college initially refused to confirm or deny that this was true to FE Week, but it just emailed over a comment confirming his permanent departure.

A spokesperson said: “Alex Fau-Goodwin has resigned from his position as principal of Bolton Sixth Form College. The college wishes Alex every success in the future.”

She added Stuart Merrills has been appointed acting principal.

His suspension, which is reported to have taken effect “last Friday”, is understood to be related to his management of the college rather than financial matters, according to a story in the Bolton News.

The SFC was rated good overall at its most recent Ofsted inspection in February 2014.

Prior to his move to Bolton, Mr Fau Goodwin led Hartlepool SFC from September 2014 until July 2016.

He oversaw the college’s rise from an inadequate Ofsted rating handed out just two months after his arrival in November 2014, to a subsequent good rating in February 2016.

But the SFC was hit with a financial notice to improve by the Department for Education within months of Mr Fau Goodwin’s departure, and subsequently visited by the SFC commissioner Peter Mucklow in March.

His report, published in April, said the SFC’s financial difficulties began at the time of the inadequate rating in 2014, and the college had taken “insufficient action in relation to recommendations made” during his previous visit in February 2015.

T-levels are great, but can government make them as prestigious as A-levels?

Conservative manifesto pledge: To replace vocational qualifications with T-levels that have 50% more teaching time

Catherine Sezen makes the argument FOR

In the run up to the general election the political parties are focused on the importance of skills; both employability and technical or vocational skills are on the agenda. Labour and the Conservatives explicitly refer to their commitment to the Skills Plan for technical education, though the Labour party would be looking to include the service sector.

At the Association of Colleges we are broadly supportive of the overall intention of the Skills Plan. Investing in, and raising the profile of skills is welcome. Ensuring that key stakeholders, particularly students, parents/carers and employers are aware of the best route to a specific occupation can only be a good thing – though comprehensive, impartial careers guidance will be essential.

READ MORE: AGAINST the Conversatives’ T-levels pledge

But what lies beneath Skills Plan headlines that make it feature so prominently in at least two manifestos?

At its heart the Skills Plan aims to provide 16-plus students with a clear line of sight to work. It divides the technical occupations into 15 routes, 11 of which will be predominantly college- or provider-based and four that will be delivered through work-based learning. Each route will have a common core followed by a specialisation year with an extended work placement of up to three months leading to a T-level (equivalent, we believe, to a Level 3). When students complete their route they will be able to progress to work, a higher apprenticeship or higher education depending on the occupation they wish to pursue.

Higher-level skills will be delivered at Institutes of Technology. In the Skills Plan these were aimed at Levels 4 and 5 and centred on colleges working in partnership with universities and employers. The Conservative manifesto refers to Level 6 qualifications delivered at universities. The Labour Party would invest more in the current FE structure, while the Liberal Democrats would invest in national colleges.

Students who are not ready to embark upon a T-level can take a transition year to help them work towards the required entry requirements. For some students it is acknowledged that this may take longer than a year and that the most appropriate destination may be a supported internship, traineeship or independent living.

There needs to be a huge cultural shift

On paper it all seems very feasible; students working towards clear occupational outcomes. But how will it work in practice? After all, students continuing to study English and maths sounded a good idea in theory, but as with English and maths, does the strategy meet the needs of students and employers?

How will the government sell the concept of technical education? There needs to be a huge cultural shift for this to be seen as equally prestigious as the academic route. One way the Conservative government started to do this was by announcing additional funding for delivery of T-levels, but is this enough?

Much of the additional funding will have to be ploughed into finding and monitoring work placements. Colleges currently struggle to access two-week work experience for all students. Occupation-specific placements will require far more employers to offer placements. Extended placements will also require a great deal of planning to ensure that they are meaningful for employers and students alike, while taking into consideration how they fit into the wider curriculum including GCSE English and maths retakes.

The T-level curriculum is yet to be confirmed though we do know that it is aimed at students working at Level 2 and above and that each route will be offered by only one awarding organisation or a consortium. It will be important that the offer is attractive to both current technical students and students who might be interested in T-levels rather than taking the ‘academic’ route. Will there be Level 2 and 3 T-levels aimed at different occupations?

We also await further details on the transition year, but it does appear that it won’t be funded for 900 hours like the T-levels themselves. There are still questions over the role of applied general qualifications, especially where there is an overlap with routes such as the creative industries, and where there is no technical route, such as sport.

The outcome of the general election will be known by the early hours of 9 June; for the final version of T-levels we will have to wait a little longer. Let’s hope they deliver.

Catherine Sezen is senior policy manager for 14-19 at the Association of Colleges

Don’t prioritise vocational over academic routes

Conservative manifesto pledge: To replace vocational qualifications with T-levels that have 50% more teaching time

James Kewin argues AGAINST

The Conservative party’s plans to introduce T-levels could eventually amount to an annual increase in funding of £500 million per year.

While there is unquestionably a need to strengthen technical education in England, this should not be instead of (or potentially at the expense of) what the government’s Skills Plan defines as ‘the academic option’. Increasing investment in technical, but not academic, education is based on a flawed analysis of the country’s productivity challenge. The high-skill economy envisaged in the government’s Industrial Strategy will be driven by leaders, scientists, technicians, engineers and others that in most cases will have followed the academic path during their sixth-form studies.

READ MORE: FOR the Conservatives’ T-levels pledge

The £500 million pledged for technical education was underpinned by research conducted for SFCA by the Institute of Education that concluded sixth-form education in England was “uniquely narrow and short” compared to the high-performing education systems in Shanghai, Singapore, Canada and elsewhere. Unfortunately, this investment will have no impact on the vast majority of students in sixth form colleges as they are primarily studying academic qualifications such as A-levels. Our members provide the sort of academic education that the government variously describes as ‘world class’, ‘high quality’ and ‘well regarded’. Yet in short, it is not considered a priority for further investment. This is a mistake.

While it is true that sixth form colleges and other providers have continued to deliver excellent academic exam results in the face of funding pressures, the development and progress of young people cannot simply be measured through annual performance tables. The funding that institutions now receive to educate sixth formers covers the cost of delivering three A-level or equivalent qualifications, and little more. As a result, the wider support offer to students has greatly diminished. For example, it is increasingly difficult to address the concerns expressed by employers that young people lack the skills to flourish in the workplace and many institutions do not have the resources to address the sharp increase in students reporting mental health problems.

The wider support offer to students has greatly diminished

SFCA’s election manifesto and associated Support Our Sixth-formers (SOS) campaign calls for an immediate increase in funding of £200 per student to help schools and colleges to begin reassembling the range of support activities required to meet the individual needs of young people. The government was right to identify that students studying technical courses require additional support to succeed, but the same is true of young people studying A-levels and applied general qualifications – particularly disadvantaged students.

We are pleased that the Conservative party has adopted the second recommendation in our election manifesto and committed to undertaking a major review of funding across tertiary education. After ducking the challenge of including schools in area reviews, and focusing too narrowly on technical education with the cash injection for T-levels, it is important that an incoming Conservative government gets the scope of this review right.

It must include academic, as well as technical education and can begin by asking some pretty fundamental questions. For example, can we justify providing 21 per cent less funding for sixth formers than younger students? Is it good for our international competitiveness for sixth formers in England to receive half the tuition time as sixth formers in Shanghai? And most importantly of all – what does a rounded, high quality, sixth-form education actually cost to deliver? The proposed review is a golden opportunity to move away from funding sixth formers based on a notional number of annual hours and an arbitrary funding rate, and provide our young people with the sort of world class educational experience they deserve.     

James Kewin is deputy chief executive of the Sixth Form Colleges’ Association

Merger of two London colleges agreed

Two London colleges have finally agreed to merge, more than 18 months after the link between them was first proposed.

The College of North West London and City of Westminster College will join forces this summer to become United Colleges Group.

The decision was taken at their individual corporation meetings on May 17 and 24 respectively, after independent due diligence reports and responses from the consultation period were approved.

The colleges are expected to finalise the legal merger on August 1, 2017, though this is currently subject to final approval from education secretary Justine Greening.

In 2016, City of Westminster College took part in the central London area review, while the College of North West London was in the west London review. The merger was recommended through both reviews.

City of Westminster College and the College of North West London were both rated ‘good’ by Ofsted, in 2013 and 2015 respectively.

As part of the merger plans, a shadow board, led by chair designate Tony Johnston, has also been approved, and arrangements to appoint members are in progress.

Mr Johnston served on the College of North West London Corporation for two years, including as chair for the past four months. Outside the college, he is managing director of Engage Media Training.

He said: “Both college corporations are satisfied that the merger is the best strategic approach to securing a successful future.

“The formation of the new group places us in the best position to deliver outstanding technical, academic and vocational education, and serve the needs of employers and the communities of Westminster, Brent and the wider region.”

The college corporations jointly appointed Keith Cowell, who has served as principal and chief executive of City of Westminster College for nine years, as chief executive officer designate of the new institution.

Andy Cole, principal and chief executive of The College of North West London since January 2014 and the Association of Colleges WorldSkills champion for London, will take up the role of group principal designate.

Mr Cowell and Mr Cole will continue in their existing roles alongside their additional responsibilities until the proposed merger in August 2017, when they will take up their new positions in full.

Speaking of his new appointment, Mr Cowell said: “I believe the future of both colleges are better together and we have worked hard to ensure that as a combined organisation we have a vision to deliver the highest quality education and training opportunities for students and employers across west and central London, and beyond.”

Mr Cole added: “With growing recognition of the importance of vocational skills and apprenticeships to the future of our economy, this is an exciting time for the colleges to be coming together.

“Our mutual strengths and quality of provision mean the new merged college will present an excellent training proposition to employers and be a first-choice destination for individual students.”

A full response from the consultation process has been produced and is available from the College of North West London website and on the City of Westminster College website.

Individuals who submitted a written response during the consultation process will also receive a personal reply.