As FE (or Further Education) Week has reported:
Public funding for level 7 apprenticeships will be removed for people aged 22 and older from January 2026, the government has confirmed.
From the new year, employers will only be able to use the apprenticeship levy to fund the master's level courses for existing apprentices and new starters up to age 21, as first reported by FE Week earlier this month.
The Department for Education (DfE) said today the reforms “rebalance” the apprenticeship budget “towards training at lower levels, where it can have the greatest impact”.
It comes as part of a bundle of skills announcements, including 45,000 “domestic” training places funded through the immigration skills charge, a boost to the apprenticeship budget and £132 million for skills bootcamps in “priority sectors”.
So, apparently, we're short of cash for training, and so, if we are to have a policy that is intended to tackle the migration agenda, someone in the UK has to suffer, and that will be those over the age of 21 wanting to undertake an advanced apprenticeship.
Level 7 training apprenticeships are common in the professions. Health services, accountants, lawyers, vets, architects and many others use such schemes to create training opportunities.
Now they won't. Why? There are three reasons.
First, because Rachel Reeves says we can't afford to train such people any more, and Brifget Phillipson is her puppet..
Second, Nigel Farage has set Labour's agenda by saying we must train people to keep migrants out of the country.
And, third, the government wants to pretend that we cannot do both of these things.
So, I asked ChatGPT this question:
How much is the UK training levy in aggregate a year? Are all the funds expended on training every year? Have there ever been surplus funds? What happens to them? I stress, I am looking for aggregate data.
This is the answer I got:
The UK Apprenticeship Levy, introduced in April 2017, is a tax on employers with an annual pay bill exceeding £3 million. These employers are required to pay 0.5% of their total pay bill, minus a £15,000 annual allowance, into the levy. The funds are intended to support apprenticeship training and assessment across the UK.
Aggregate Annual Revenue
In the 2022–23 financial year, the Apprenticeship Levy generated £3.58 billion. Of this amount, £2.554 billion was allocated to the Department for Education (DfE) for apprenticeship funding in England, and an estimated £608 million was distributed to the devolved administrations in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. This left approximately £418 million unallocated, which, combined with a £96 million underspend by the DfE, resulted in a total of £514 million being retained by the Treasury in that year.
Utilization of Funds
Not all funds collected through the levy are expended on apprenticeship training each year. Employers in England can access their levy contributions through a digital account to fund approved apprenticeship training, with a 10% top-up from the government. However, if these funds are not used within 24 months, they expire and are returned to the Treasury.
Between May 2019 and March 2022, over £3.3 billion of unspent levy funds were returned to the Treasury due to this expiration policy.This indicates that a significant portion of the levy remains unused annually, leading to surplus funds.
Handling of Surplus Funds
Surplus funds from the Apprenticeship Levy, resulting from unspent employer contributions, are retained by the Treasury. While some of these funds are redistributed to support apprenticeship training for non-levy-paying employers, there is limited transparency regarding the full allocation and use of these surpluses. Critics argue that this lack of clarity undermines the original intent of the levy to fund apprenticeship training.
Employers have the option to transfer up to 50% of their unused levy funds to other businesses to support apprenticeship training, a measure aimed at reducing the amount of unspent funds.Despite this, significant surpluses continue to be returned to the Treasury annually.
In summary, while the Apprenticeship Levy generates substantial funds each year, not all of these are utilized for their intended purpose, resulting in surplus funds that are absorbed back into the Treasury.
There is no evidence that this pattern of under-spending has changed. In other words, there is not the slightest reason to cancel level 7 apprenticeships for those over starting over the age of 21 (which many people will have done in the past). There is no shortage of cash to provide these and achieve the other goals set by the government. There is no way the two are mutually exclusive.
All we are actually seeing is Labour's poverty of political thinking whilst jumping to Farage's tune in action, yet again.
Labour really does need to take an apprenticeship in politics. I suggest they start at about level 2. That's GCSE equivalent.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
But how do you get the ‘flexible workforce’ you need without……………………….oh God…………..fuck it, I give up…………….
Someone please let me know when they get voted out at the next election will you.
God help us.
It’s particularly relevant looking at something like the care sector. There has been a significant increase in modestly qualified roles like Health Care Assistants, and a previous reliance on foreign workers, and now they’ve decided to cripple that latter stream of workers.
Meanwhile, it has become increasingly clear that over-use of under-qualified staff like HCAs will continue to result in worse outcomes as critical mistakes are made through inexperience.
The solution is to support training to higher levels of competence so that we can reduce our reliance on either foreign or under-qualified workers. It’s mystifying, then, why the government would simultaneously also remove one of the main routes to removing that dependence.
I would argue that we need to reduce the vacancy rate in roles through allowing the right migrants in, still, and only turn off that route once we have more qualified domestic staff coming on-stream through training efforts, but if we’re taking away funding for those training pathways then that new domestic capacity isn’t coming at all.
Education gives people the tools to criticise the government. Can’t have that.
Education enables people to outsmart AI. Can’t have that.
According to Gemini AI, the sector is worth around $15 trillion to the economy (translation: billionaires will get richer)
Thank you, Richard.
The mind boggles.
In the 1970s and 1980s, dad taught some science classes on Thursday evenings in Luton. At the same time, civil servant mum learnt German at a school after work. Some of dad’s younger colleagues also had day release or evening classes. The shopkeeper had these scrapped by the late 1980s.
Two or three decades later, I was involved with initiatives to replicate the German system of apprenticeships and banking for the mittelstand. There were many of us from the City with good intentions. It was a shame that Vince Cable wasn’t interested.
Much to agree with.
My own speciality, HR, may give a good reason why Level 7 apprenticeships need regulating.
Prior to apprenticeships at level 7 many HR professionals, particularly in local authorities, continued to study and develop, with full support from their employers, to the equivalent of Level 7.
At the same time apprenticeships for Level 2 and 3 provided opportunities for those who never had the opportunity to develop during their time in eduation.
When Level 7 apprenticeships came in an enormous number or HR professionals applied for and got Level 7 apprenticeships, because they knew about them. That reduced the number of Level 2 and 3 apprenticeships for those who had struggled at school becasue the cost of Level 7 is much, much higher than the cost of Level 2 or 3. All the money got used.
While employers were happy to develop senior staff without state support to do so, there was never the same attitude to the lower levels. Using all the money on senior people was never sensible. But it happened extensively.
But, nationally, money is available.
So I am not convinced by that argument, Cyndy. That just says money has to go to the people who can use the money, and it clearly is not.
“Money has to go to the people who can use it.”
Isn’t that the fundamental problem with this country in every sphere? It jut does not happen.
Money should go to families on low incomes who cannot afford their bills.
Money should go to 16 year olds who cannot aford to stay in education (because they don’t have the money for fares to get there).
Money should go to universities so they can research cures (not palliatives) for diseases.
Money should go where it is needed, full stop. But while it does not, can we, at least try and prioritise those who need it most?
I completely agree
Interesting article.
One area of degree level (including PG degree) apprenticeships that doesn’t seem to get as much attention as I think it deserves, is that these opportunities are likely to be taken up by the most advantaged groups, more so than those from disadvantaged backgrounds. This goes against the idea that degree airbrushing would open up routes for those out off by the fees and uncertain job outcomes at the end of the course. The following excellent article presents the data. https://wonkhe.com/wonk-corner/who-really-does-apprenticeships/
If it were up to me, Higher Education would be free to the student, but sadly that is not the case, other than through degree apprenticeships. As such, I think it’s a really significant issue that these fantastic opportunities are not being taken up by those from the poorest backgrounds.
Thanks
And good point
Near the start of the post I think ‘differ’ is a typo for ‘suffer’.
Thanks. Corrected.
When I worked in Manchester in the 1960s the large company I worked for had 2000 apprentices in just the one factory. Other companies all over the country had similar schemes.
And they were real apprenticeships.
Yes and paid for by the company out of self interest.