Last year, I wrote how Skills England could be transformative, but only if it had real influence across government, independence, meaningful employer engagement, and the powers to drive change. That matters more than ever with youth unemployment rising, productivity forecasts downgraded and economic growth stubbornly weak.
So how is it getting on?
Skills England is beginning to shape the language and direction of skills reform. It has an energetic chair, Phil Smith, who understands the system and its shortcomings. However, the decision to move it to the Department for Work and Pensions raises real concerns.
England’s skills system has a long history of new bodies that never quite land. Skills England is now around the thirteenth national skills body in fifty years. Structural churn slows delivery and carries a hidden cost in lost corporate memory.
There’s also a danger of expectations racing ahead of capacity. Skills England has inherited complex functions, high visibility and deep-rooted problems. Without the tools, stability and time to succeed, optimism will quickly turn to cynicism, regardless of leadership.
From employer-led to pro-employer
The Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (IfATE) was legally required to be employer-led. Skills England was initially framed the same way, albeit without statutory footing. It is now described by DWP as pro-employer.
That distinction matters. Pro-employer risks becoming a system designed for employers, but decided by ministers.
Having served on IfATE’s board for four years, my biggest concern remains Skills England’s diminished powers and role of employers. This includes the loss of statutory underpinning, with the formal accountability to Parliament removed and no legal duty to consult employers. It raises the critical question: is Skills England a system leader, or a system supervisor? And is the apprenticeship levy there to support employer training investment, or to fund ministerial priorities?
Employer engagement is therefore the critical test, and cannot be limited to ad hoc consultation. It requires shared ownership of standards, products and outcomes, and a system that genuinely values employer insight, rather than treating engagement as a tick-box exercise.
Will DWP priorities differ from DfE?
The DWP Secretary’s priorities letter signals a shift in tone, but not a wholesale break with the past. What will matter is how DWP uses its new responsibilities and funding to deliver against its core objective: stopping rising unemployment.
That objective risks pushing the system towards volume over quality. We are already seeing signs of this; Level 7 apprenticeships removed from levy funding eligibility. Level 6 degree apprenticeships facing intense scrutiny, despite often offering the strongest career prospects. Minimum durations reduced to eight months. English and maths requirements removed. Off-the-job training rules being loosened. Proposals for ‘apprenticeship units’ also create the prospect of apprenticeship training that lasts only a few weeks.
How successful the first batch of apprenticeships reviewed by Skills England are will be a make-or-break moment, especially given a backlash from employers on ‘dumbing down’ has already started.
The quality requirements introduced over the past decade existed for a reason, moving apprenticeships away from being a second-rate option that reduced unemployment figures without genuinely setting people up for careers.
The recent budget underlined how constrained the operating environment now is.
Skills saw no meaningful new investment, with the Office for Budget Responsibility concluding the budget measures won’t improve overall productivity or growth.
There were no structural reforms to the skills system. No uplift to apprenticeship funding bands. No new employer incentives. Detail on the long-trailed growth and skills levy did not materialise.
The upcoming increase in the apprentice minimum wage will be welcomed by apprentices, but raises costs particularly for smaller employers. The extension of zero SME co-investment for apprentices aged 22 to 24 should help reduce cost barriers for younger adults. But combined with frozen tax thresholds, higher national insurance contributions and wider inflationary pressures, some employers may reduce apprentice recruitment.
At least levy receipts are forecast to rise from £4.4 billion in 2025-26 to £5 billion by 2029-30.
Skills shortages do not respect departmental boundaries.
They are shaped by Treasury funding decisions, major infrastructure and housebuilding programmes, DWP employment policy, Home Office migration choices, industrial strategy and more. Without real authority across government, Skills England risks being accountable for outcomes it cannot control. Skills England should be hosted in Treasury to be truly cross government.
Parliamentary debates have already raised concerns about whether it has enough weight across Whitehall. That is not a technical issue. It goes to the heart of whether Skills England can succeed, or whether we will soon be welcoming the fourteenth national skills body in 50 years.
Cross-party consensus on skills is also essential. It was encouraging to hear apprenticeships feature prominently in Kemi Badenoch’s conference speech, and some positive noises from Reform UK about boosting the trades.
So, Skills England has made a credible start. It has retained effective systems inherited from IfATE, strengthened the evidence base, and established itself as a central player in skills reform. The next phase must be about delivery for employers and apprentices alike, not just presence.
Your thoughts