Budget 2024 vis-à-vis skills and growth

Since listening to the first female Chancellor of the Exchequer deliver the first Labour Government budget in 14 years, I have taken time to consider the implications on my field of interest: higher level technical and professional education, and higher and degree apprenticeships. Prior to the budget statement there has been plenty to consider in terms of planned policy reform to skills and apprenticeships that affect the position of higher level skills, but without the specific details need to truly assess impact. Like others, I make the same statement of support, as chief executive of University Vocational Awards Council (UVAC) , to Westminster Government, its new construct ‘Skills England’, the introduction of a Growth and Skills Levy and, the launch of the Industrial Strategy, to help inform and influence decision making. I note the Chancellor’s decisions around delays to the introduction of the Lifelong Learning Entitlement (LLE), the promise of a ‘Get Britain Working’ white paper to include a ‘youth guarantee’ for 18-21 year olds, the increase in the minimum apprentice wage, devolution aspects and the ￡40m for shorter and foundation apprenticeships. But, the autumn budget 2024 provides for me, in essence, just additional context to England’s necessarily complex skills landscape and follows the announcement at Labour’s National Conference in September of plans to restrict employers’ use of levy funds on level 7 higher and degree apprenticeships so that more funds could be spent on young people. For me, a key policy failure of previous governments in this area was the failure to sufficiently grow higher and degree apprenticeships.

The first line of the Government’s Industrial Strategy states that: “Growth is the number one mission of this Government” and the government intends Skills England to be “the driving force” in up-skilling to meet the needs of the economy which is why it is disappointing that there is no mention today of changing the levy parameters as one way of dealing with a funding shortfall is to raise more funds and by changing the way the new levy is collected. University Vocational Awards Council (UVAC) is preparing a report on navigating the Growth and Skills Levy and Skills England and suggests it is 'cakeism' to assume that apprenticeship and skills policy can be focused on young people and entry-level roles, while at the same time maximising its contribution to the delivery of Westminster Government’s five missions. Given that the levy is a Treasury policy responsibility and that apprenticeships should play a key role across government in the delivery of the Industrial Strategy, migration, health, green energy and policing policy, it makes better sense for apprenticeships and skills to also be an HMT led policy.

Although the number of higher and degree apprenticeship starts at level 6 and level 7 is relatively small, they could, as an all age programme, make a massive contribution to the delivery of the Government’s Industrial Strategy.

In an advanced economy such as the UK, skills gaps and shortages at higher levels are particularly apparent. With 174 occupational standards developed at level 6 and level 7, government already has programmes in place to deliver its priorities. Skills England, working with appropriate government departments, the Industrial Strategy Advisory Council and the Migration Advisory Committee needs to decide how to turbo charge the use of specific apprenticeship standards that will deliver the Government’s policy priorities. Over 80% of the 2030 workforce are already in work, today. Higher and degree apprenticeships and higher level skills programmes must have a key role in developing the skills of the adult workforce. Government will not deliver its five missions or its Industrial Strategy by focusing apprenticeship and skills investment overly on young people alone. Government must be clear as to its detailed policy objectives and priorities for the Skills and Growth Levy in the context of today’s budget, the Government’s five missions and Industrial Strategy. Given its title, productivity and economic growth would seem the priority objective, wouldn't it?

?

?

?