Non-levy apprenticeship funding process was as fair as possible

Every month, Anne Milton, the minister in charge of skills and apprenticeships, will write a column for FE Week, giving her perspective on the issues facing the sector. For her first outing, she tackles the non-levy procurement exercise

As a government we have made significant changes to the way our apprenticeship system will work – placing quality at the heart of this programme, with employers centre-stage. Our wider reforms have introduced a number of important changes, which will naturally present challenges for businesses, so this is a chance for me to explain some of those.

I want to use my first column to talk about the non-levy procurement process, which was undertaken to fund organisations who can provide training to smaller businesses. This has meant providers have faced important changes to the way they receive funding before the apprenticeship service becomes the norm for every employer in 2019.

This procurement has been all about ensuring and increasing access to apprenticeship training for small- and medium-sized employers

The procurement exercise was not a policy choice, but as a contracting authority we were under a legal obligation to run it in order to comply with the EU’s Public Contracts Regulations 2015.

Tender exercises like this are always tough, and I’ve been open about these challenges after we had to restart it when we saw that the outcomes would not have delivered our goals of stability and continuity. Throughout this process, we have wanted to be careful, to take the time to get this right for providers, apprentices and employers. I know it won’t have been an easy time for many.

So that we can help keep the supply of training as stable as possible, we introduced a number of elements. This included capping the amount of funding for which different providers could bid, and a minimum contract award of £200,000 to make sure all contracts awarded would be financially viable. That naturally has led to disappointment from some, and I understand the challenges this led to for those who did not win contracts.

We wanted all providers to do their best and published evaluation and scoring criteria to help them in this process. Unfortunately, this was still a competition and not every bid – and we received over 1,000 of them – could be successful in such a highly competitive bidding process.

We were mindful of the uncertainty, and took steps to extend the contracts of all current providers that were unsuccessful by a further three months. Of course, we will also make sure all existing apprenticeships continue to be funded until they are completed.

This procurement has been all about ensuring and increasing access to apprenticeship training for small- and medium-sized employers. We are encouraging them to take on apprentices and to take advantage of support available, including the joint investment of 90 per cent of training and assessment costs for apprenticeships provided by the government.

The awards have maintained the same proportion of funding across each of the nine regions as is currently delivered, and allow providers to meet the demand across all of the sectors apprenticeships currently support.

We have also enabled more new providers and employers to enter the market, while still supporting the existing supply where we could; approximately 95 per cent of the funding awarded will be to providers currently delivering apprenticeships.

Anne Milton is Minister for skills and apprenticeships

Your thoughts

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


  1. Poorly thought out process on every level. The introduction of the ROATP and all employers accessing apprenticeship training through the Apprenticeship Service should have happened at the same time. In essence this current situation is for a period of 12 months and has severe implications for the small providers who have been providing ‘good’ and ‘outstanding’ provision for years. We are one of those who were unlucky not to have a contract, but’s it alright we can sub-contract our new starts with an organisation lucky enough to have received a contract! So basically we can do the same work for less money – that is if we can find somebody to sub-contract with!

  2. I think that in many areas people were not aware of the regional percentage of cut back which in turn placed some under the threshold. I can show the minister two providers 5 miles apart i in one region the other in another both doing the same qualifications and one won but the other did not due to the percentage cut and both did the same turnover within £100.00