Our last post confirmed and welcomed the agreement reached in the Brexit negotiations about the rights of EU nationals who had moved from other nations to work in the UK.
The Prime Minister has written an open letter to all people outlining what has been agreed and we reproduce it below for the benefit of those who have not seen it elsewhere:
I know our country would be poorer if you left and I want you to stay
As Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, I am proud that more than three million EU citizens have chosen to make your homes and livelihoods here in our country.
I greatly value the depth of the contributions you make – enriching every part of our economy, our society, our culture and our national life. I know our country would be poorer if you left and I want you to stay.So from the very beginning of the UK’s negotiations to leave the European Union I have consistently said that protecting your rights – together with the rights of UK nationals living in EU countries – has been my first priority.
You made your decision to live here without any expectation that the UK would leave the EU. So I have said that I want you to be able carry on living your lives as before.
But I know that on an issue of such significance for you and your families, there has been an underlying anxiety which could only be addressed when the fine details of some very complex and technical issues had been worked through and the foundations for a formal agreement secured.
When we leave the European Union, you will have your rights written into UK law. So I am delighted that in concluding the first phase of the negotiations that is exactly what we have achieved.
The details are set out in the Joint Report on progress published on Friday by the UK government and the European Commission.When we leave the European Union, you will have your rights written into UK law.
This will be done through the Withdrawal Agreement and Implementation Bill which we will bring forward after we have completed negotiations on the Withdrawal Agreement itself.
Your rights will then be enforced by UK courts. Where appropriate, our courts will pay due regard to relevant ECJ case law, and we have also agreed that for a period of eight years – where existing case law is not clear – our courts will be able to choose to ask the ECJ for an interpretation prior to reaching their own decision.
So as we take back control of our laws, you can be confident not only that your rights will be protected in our courts, but that there will be a consistent interpretation of these rights in the UK and in the European Union.
We have agreed with the European Commission that we will introduce a new settled status scheme under UK law for EU citizens and their family members, covered by the Withdrawal Agreement.
If you already have five years of continuous residence in the UK at the point we leave the EU – on 29 March 2019 – you will be eligible for settled status. And if you have been here for less than five years you will be able to stay until you have reached the five year threshold.
As a result of the agreement we have reached in the negotiations, with settled status, your close family members will be free to join you here in the UK after we have left the EU. This includes existing spouses, unmarried partners, children, dependent parents and grandparents, as well as children born or adopted outside of the UK after 29th March 2019.
Your healthcare rights, pension and other benefit provisions will remain the same as they are today. This means that those of you who have paid into the UK system – and indeed UK nationals who have paid into the system of an EU Member State – can benefit from what you have put in and continue to benefit from existing co-ordination rules for future contributions.
We have also agreed to protect the rights of those who are in a cross-border situation at the point of our withdrawal and entitled to a UK European Health Insurance Card. This includes, for example, tourists for the duration of their stay, students for the duration of their course and UK nationals resident in another EU Member State.
The agreement we have reached includes reciprocal rules to protect existing decisions to recognise professional qualifications – for example for doctors and architects.
And it also enables you to be absent from the UK for up to five years without losing your settled status – more than double the period allowed under current EU law.There will be a transparent, smooth and streamlined process to enable you to apply for settled status from the second half of next year. It will cost no more than applying for a passport. And if you already have a valid permanent resident document you will be able to have your status converted to settled status free of charge.
We are also working closely with Switzerland and EEA Member States to ensure their citizens in the UK also benefit from these arrangements.I have spent many hours discussing these issues with all of the other 27 EU leaders over the last eighteen months as well as with President Juncker, President Tusk and the EU’s Chief Negotiator Michel Barnier.
I am confident that when the European Council meets later this week it will agree to proceed on this basis. And I will do everything I can to ensure that we do.
So right now, you do not have to do anything at all.
You can look forward, safe in the knowledge that there is now a detailed agreement on the table in which the UK and the EU have set out how we intend to preserve your rights – as well as the rights of UK nationals living in EU countries.
For we have ensured that these negotiations put people first.
That is what I promised to do and that is what I will continue to do at every stage of this process.
I wish you and all your families a great Christmas and a very happy New Year.
Our last post confirmed and welcomed the agreement reached in the Brexit negotiations about the rights of EU nationals who had moved from other nations to work in the UK. Read More...
This morning, the Prime Minister flew to Brussels to meet President of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker. At a later press conference, it was announced that agreement had been reached on the three areas covered by the first phase of Brexit negotiations.
There will be plenty of comment about the ins and outs of the deal that has been reached. However, the key element that will have most impact on the construction sector was always that of the right of citizens of other EU nations who have already come to the UK to make their lives and careers to remain in this country after Brexit.
Despite the reassurance that has consistently been given by members of the Government about a desire to let people remain in the UK, there has been inevitable uncertainty for those who were affected. This has been similar for people from the UK who have chosen to live and work – or retire – in the rest of the EU.
It is pleasing to note, therefore, the issues have been settled and that people who are here will be able to continue contributing to the UK economy – particularly when it comes to construction.
Every six months the CSkills Quality Assurance team come and check that all of our work meets their standards and yesterday we had such a visit. They told us that many training centres across the country had seen fewer people from other EU nations coming in for assessment over the past few months. That is no doubt because some people have returned home – but probably more have put off getting their qualifications whilst they wait to find out if the Brexit is going to mean they face an uncertain future.
We are delighted this reassurance has been given today – not because of what we do – but because we had noticed the difficulty some of our colleagues were facing.
Uncertainty is no good for anyone. It’s great to know this has been overcome and everyone can get on with building the houses and infrastructure the country needs.
This morning, the Prime Minister flew to Brussels to meet President of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker. At a later press conference, it was announced that agreement had been reached on the three areas covered by the first phase of Brexit negotiations. There will be plenty of comment about the ins and outs of the […] Read More...
The Royal Institute of British Architects is a fine institution, with many decades of history demonstrating we have the finest Architects in the world. Yet today, the newspapers have a dim view of it. Why so? The Institute has chosen their “House Of The Year” for 2017.
This is always going to receive a similar response as that we have become used to with regard to Art prizes, such as the Turner. Everyone remembers the pile of bricks, or the unmade bed. The judges are subjected to the highest level of rage the tabloid newspapers can produce. I have to say I don’t get that type of art either. I went to a Dali exhibition years ago and came away regarding him as a deeply troubled man.
Given there is an expectation that RIBA will be unable to please all of the people all of the time, one may be unsurprised at some rejecting the winner of this year’s competition. However, I think on this occasion they may well have a point.
First of all, let’s look at the nominees (people who want to see all of them in detail should go to the excellent Kevin McGuire’s series of television programmes about them). The eventual winner, Caring Wood in Kent, took its inspiration from the oasthouses for which that county is renowned. The design was to bring an extended family together, with a complex of individual living spaces. The others were equally ambitious – combining state of the art materials, fixtures and fittings. The common factor was an enormous price tag.
Here is the rub – should “house of the year” be something that is simply beyond the reach of all but the wealthiest? Should the Institute be driving the development of the construction sector by valuing the creation of the most affordable and most energy saving houses? Should they be – if not steering – nudging the profession in the direction house-building may benefit most from?
There is no “politics of envy” in this. There is no doubt young people in particular are being disadvantaged in their pursuit of independent living at least and home ownership at most by the dysfunctional prices born of the nation’s housing shortage.
RIBA describe the winning oasthouse, with three generations living within the same space as “able to inspire house-building” in the future, but I don’t buy that. Multi-generational living exists already – and in three generations regularly. But not in the 85 acres that surround Caring Wood. And not in circumstances that each family has an individual living space that would be the envy of the majority of people. In many cases, they manage within one house and with two generations only having one bedroom to call their own.
Perhaps the Royal Institute of British Architects can set different parameters for next year’s judging round and celebrate the smaller, more realistic properties that may provide quickly built, simply constructed dwellings that may be produced in high volumes at affordable prices.
The Royal Institute of British Architects is a fine institution, with many decades of history demonstrating we have the finest Architects in the world. Yet today, the newspapers have a dim view of it. Why so? The Institute has chosen their “House Of The Year” for 2017. Read More...
This post is reproduced with the permission of the author Angela Dapper, an award-winning Architect and Partner with Denton Corker Marshall. It was originally published in Architect’s Journal, November 2017.
It was written following the Construction Sector’s biggest trade show of the year – UK Construction Week – where an exhibitor’s stand featured a group of showgirls. Angela’s views were shared by many who attended and the exhibitors concerned have apologised. The show organisers have committed to making sure the circumstances are not repeated.
Angela has, however, captured the underlying issue that would lead to a company having the crass idea that sexist displays will be good for business – continuing dated attitudes within the construction sector.
“Showgirls were an inappropriate choice of entertainment for UK Construction Week”
Angela Dapper
“I don’t have a problem with showgirls. I do have an issue when an overtly sexualised image is used for marketing my industry.
We should be aspiring towards an industry that is welcoming, diverse and supportive. The use of showgirls at a construction event achieves the opposite, it reinforces that construction is a man’s world.
There are many reasons why it is not okay.
Women are still sexualised in construction.
It is still awkward to be a female on a construction site. Although it is less common than a decade ago, jeers and wolf-whistles still occur on site. During a recent visit to a high-profile construction site, I managed to get no less than six cat calls / wolf whistles during my one-hour tour. It is not only awkward and embarrassing but it undermines the concept of women as equals. Being subjected to this continual low-level harassment as a result of my gender, subverts my professional role.
It is a male dominated industry.
Being a male dominated industry does not mean it should be unwelcoming towards women. However, the use of showgirls as ‘entertainment’ perpetuates a perception of women that we should be steering away from. It is a reflection of the days of the nude calendar in the canteen (it was in the print room in my first office). More should be done to make the construction industry friendly and welcoming for women.
Sex and discussion about sex, shouldn’t have a place in a work environment.
Not everyone is comfortable talking about sex. If this kind of entertainment further marginalises certain groups of people in the construction industry, then it is clearly inappropriate.
This choice of entertainment appears to be in response to a gender stereotype of our industry. We need to carefully consider what image our industry outwardly presents. Architecture as a profession has been working hard to establish gender equality. The Architects’ Journal’s Women in Architecture campaign annually highlights the struggle to retain women in architecture and inequality in pay. I applaud all they do, but am saddened that sexism nevertheless continues year on year.
We are currently amidst an international uprising against sexual harassment, enabling people to become empowered to raise awareness of their experiences. The construction industry should respond positively to this movement. Victims of harassment should not be expected to raise their own experiences of harassment, there should be a supportive culture where harassment is not only not tolerated but is named as such.
Industry leaders should be making a stand not only about sexual harassment but about equality and diversity. Construction institutions should be stepping up to set a positive culture for all who work in construction now and in the future. This is a great opportunity to reframe how we move forward in the industry to encourage more equality and diversity.
I have had numerous positive experiences in the construction industry and also on site, previously one of the more challenging contexts, far outweigh the negatives. Our recent and current contractors have been great to work with and very rarely is gender or equality raised as an issue. In a few, very isolated instances, where sexism has been experienced on site, the contractors have literally leapt into action in response to inappropriate comments.
The use of showgirls as entertainment is not an image that we should use to represent the construction industry, but I don’t want to see apologies from the organisers, I want to hear the industry jump in response with a resounding “No, this is not okay.” I would hope that the construction industry would see showgirls as a mark of where we have been, not where we are at, or where we are going.
The construction industry should create a fair and just environment which is welcoming, diverse and supportive for all.”
This post is reproduced with the permission of the author Angela Dapper, an award-winning Architect and Partner with Denton Corker Marshall. It was originally published in Architect’s Journal, November 2017. It was written following the Construction Sector’s biggest trade show of the year – UK Construction Week – where an exhibitor’s stand featured a group […] Read More...
It’s not often we have guest Blog posts, but this, about Solutions to Homelessness and the Housing Crisis, from Kevin Hollinrake, is a worthy exception for two reasons.
Firstly, Kevin is the Member of Parliament for Thirsk & Malton our local constituency and has been a real friend to our business since he was elected. It’s not just people who need a good constituency MP – businesses need them too.
Secondly – and perhaps unusually for a politician talking about the construction sector – he knows what he is talking about – he developed Hunters – one of the biggest Estate Agencies in the Yorkshire area – before he became an MP.
It’s hardly surprising therefore, that when we asked if we could re-post his personal Blog, we were delighted he said “Yes”.
Read on to see Kevin Hollinrakes’ thoughts on “Solutions to Homelessness and the Housing Crisis”:
“The only way we are going to tackle the worrying increase in homelessness and the wider housing crisis is by building more homes. That was a key point in my recent speech in Parliament during the debate on Temporary Accommodation. There are currently 78,000 people in temporary accommodation, including hostels and bed and B&B’s, that’s an increase of 63% on the 2010 figure, although, mercifully, less than its peak of 100,000 in 2003.
We need more affordable houses and more social homes and we need to move people out of temporary accommodation into decent permanent housing.
The Government is already doing a great deal by allocating £550 million to homelessness reduction by 2020, supporting the Homeless Reduction Act, which was introduced by my excellent colleague Bob Blackman MP, aiming to half homelessness by 2022 and to eradicate it by 2027. I also welcome its actions on Supported Housing (a category which includes homeless hostels and refuges for women fleeing domestic violence) and was pleased that it listened to the recommendations of the report by the Joint Communities and Local Government and Work and Pensions Committee, on which I served.
But there is still more that can be done and that means building more homes and more affordable homes. The Government has already announced an extra £2bn for social housing, homes provided at a rental level at least 50% below market value, bringing the total taxpayer contribution to affordable homes to £9bn by 2020. Local authorities and housing associations are also part of the solution and we should allow those bodies who have suitable plans for development to borrow more money and provide grants to develop more truly affordable homes.
On average, government policies are delivering around 50,000 affordable homes every year – a creditable performance but we need to do much more – but his cannot all be the responsibility of the taxpayer. Many homes are delivered by requiring new developments to provide a suitable percentage of affordable homes on each site. However, many developers are able to game the system by using ‘viability assessments’ to argue that they cannot afford to provide them on a specific site. According to recent research by Shelter, 79% of the affordable homes that should have been provided have been avoided by using these assessments.
In my view, we should consider a new policy for contributions from developers to pay for affordable homes and social homes to rent. I favour a simple system of tariffs, a cash amount per bedroom or per square foot, which can vary by local authority to take into account local prices and need.
Another idea we might consider is to allow investors to put residential homes into a self-invested personal pension (SIPP), provided they are prepared to let these out long-term at a social rent. The properties would be contractually managed by local authorities or housing associations and would offer much-needed, good-quality, ultra-affordable accommodation, a good long-term investment return and allow the better-off to help the less well-off all at the same time. What’s not to like?
Most landlords are very responsible in delivering of decent-quality accommodation in the private rented sector but some do not and I believe we should consider introducing a clear, well-enforced national property rental standard. The draft Tenant Fees Bill, currently before Parliament, may provide this opportunity and could also encourage longer tenancies on a voluntary basis with attractive incentives, such as an exemption from the new rules that limit tax relief on mortgage interest.”
You can see more of Kevin Hollinrake’s views on policy issues and his work in Parliament here
It’s not often we have guest Blog posts, but this, about Solutions to Homelessness and the Housing Crisis, from Kevin Hollinrake, is a worthy exception for two reasons. Firstly, Kevin is the Member of Parliament for Thirsk & Malton our local constituency and has been a real friend to our business since he was elected. It’s […] Read More...
Robert Halfon’s reforms to apprenticeships have the potential to transform the manner in which the nation’s workforce is trained.
Robert Halfon MP – The Diving Force Behind Apprenticeships
This is why a general welcome has been reflected back to Ministers by training providers.
Where concerns have been identified, they have been communicated effectively and with evidence based on previous experience. It seems to me the Association of Employment Learning Provider’s approach has been “That’ll work – but this will work better” in their dealings with Ministers and officials. However, responsibility for apprenticeships moved relatively recently from BIS to DfE. It may be the latter Department’s officials are so used to the intransigence displayed by the “Blob” within education more widely, they have trouble responding to constructive feedback from people who are actually trying to “help get water out of the canoe”.
Real progress has been made – yesterday saw the publication of the Register Of Approved Apprenticeship Training Providers – following a huge procurement exercise conducted by the Skills Funding Agency. There are now over 1700 training providers for Levy-paying employers to choose from.
The Institute For Apprenticeships – a new body created by the Government as part of these reforms – has been set up and published a Draft Operational Plan for consultation.
Work continues on Apprenticeship Standards – with new ones being published as they are approved.
A discussion point remains the expectation those 16 – 18 year olds who start an apprenticeship having obtained a “D” grade for Maths or English at GCSE should be put through a resit rather than gain their Level 2 via the “Functional Skills” route.
The latter option focuses the Math and English at those elements required to be an effective worker. There is a strong argument for saying if after eleven years of education a Grade “C” has not been obtained, there is a good reason and six months with a new provider is setting these youngsters up to fail. That group produces far higher success rates with Functional Skills.
Perhaps Ministers will change their position, or experience will provide the evidence either way. It is unlikely to be resolved in the short term.
Apprenticeships Will Provide Highly Skilled Staff At All Levels
The best employers – particularly those likely to pay the Levy – will by now be planning how to transform their staff development programmes, to harness the money that will be available in their Digital Accounts.
They are right to get on with it – the funds taken in April will be lost in 2019 and completing the training required for an Apprenticeship Standard takes at least twelve months.
They will be looking at the entry-level (Level 2) apprenticeships for their receptionists, call-takers, mechanics, shop staff, warehouse operatives. Level 3 apprenticeships for people who are taking their first steps into supervision and management – the Office Managers, HR Policy Advisers, Team Leaders. Accountants will perhaps be taking somebody through a Level 4 Higher Apprenticeship in Tax to broaden the range of services they offer.
The College of Policing supports apprenticeships – we could see Inspectors undergoing Level 5 Higher Apprenticeships in Leadership and Management.
Want to be a Lawyer, but would prefer a Debt Free Degree? How about taking a Level 6 Chartered Legal Executive Apprenticeship and following up at Level 7 to become a Solicitor? See here.
And when you look at that list of examples, remember just how powerful these opportunities will be as a tool for social mobility.
This is a policy that builds upon past success, using a strong brand, well known for supporting training. Robert Halfon and his team have done outstanding work – and covered the hard yards – to make it happen.
Apprenticeships are entirely consistent with the Government’s stated aim of creating a country that works for everyone. These reforms deserve commendation for the way they will enable the nation’s historic and embedded skills shortage become a thing of the past.
Robert Halfon's reforms to apprenticeships have the potential to transform the manner in which the nation’s workforce is trained. Read More...
The “Gig” economy isn’t that new – but it is expanding. Do we need to change Apprenticeships to meet the challenge?
Can Apprenticeships Be “Delivered” In The “Gig” Economy?
An area where further work may be needed with the reform of apprenticeships is that of the so-called “Gig” economy – where people are self-employed, but effectively work full time doing the same thing for the same enterprise.
At the risk of disappointing millennials and media people who see this as something new, it’s not. Yes, Uber, Deliveroo and some courier firms have brought the issue to the fore, but the construction sector has depended on self-employment for decades. In fact, the practice is so widespread in construction that HMRC developed a scheme by which self-employment would be catered for in the PAYE system.
Many companies now utilise staff supplied by agencies – Sports Direct is a good example – to the extent they effectively have two banks of staff, those on contract and those they call for when required. The NHS relies heavily on agency staff – the merits of which are debatable, but in this context it serves to demonstrate just how flexible the relationship between employer and workforce is these days.
Apprentices Must Be Employed – But Maritime Fishing Is All “Self-Employed”
One of the key components of an apprenticeship is the apprentice must be an “employee” in every sense of the word. Somewhat surprisingly and in a decision Mark Dawe of the Association of Employment Learning Providers describes as “Outrageous”, the Department for Education has come down firmly on the side of this strict definition.
Dawe’s reaction is based in particular on the impact this will have on some existing apprenticeships. The best example is Sea Fishing. These have always been non-employed apprenticeships, recognising that seafarers who earn their living in the fishing industry do so purely on the basis of taking a share of the catch. No fish, no money. Unable to get out to sea because of the weather, no work.
Whilst the examples of construction and sea fishing seem to be those of industry culture coming up against the hard reality of needing a coherent structure to deliver a policy, there is no doubt need for flexibility.
For young people, an apprenticeship in construction is hard to come by. I regularly encounter employers who refuse point blank to have somebody “on the books”, even when enquiring about apprenticeships.
However, I was shocked to learn recently the Construction Industry Training Board, which issues the certification at the end of a completed apprenticeship, did so for only 9000 apprentices last year.
There are 2.1 million jobs in the construction sector. Last year’s number was the same as the year before. The figures are tracking up slightly now towards 11000 as the sector moves forward, but even in the “boom” of the early 2000’s there were only 20,000 certifications a year.
I’m not alone in seeing a correlation between the employment requirement and the lack of apprenticeship opportunities in construction – and it is not just in the “Trades” – the higher level jobs are subject to the same considerations. Yet any construction employer and every Housing Minister who comments on the subject points out the shortage of skills as a key inhibitor to housing growth.
The recent White Paper echoes it again. The CITB regards the requirement as needing 40,000 newly trained workers a year. Clearly something needs to be done and it is uncertain whether the Apprenticeship Levy will impact on the “indirect” payroll of larger construction companies that goes to their self-employed sub-contractors. If it does, this may drive the necessary changes.
It may be that Employment Tribunals may come to the Government’s rescue in this regard. However, recent cases seem to have been about people who were content in their relationship with the enterprise until their personal circumstances changed and most of their colleagues remain quite happy with their position.
Charlie Mullins – Leading Advocate For Apprenticeships
The Pimlico Plumbers case is an exemplar in this respect – not least because Charlie Mullins is probably the greatest ambassador for apprenticeships in the country.
Charlie has a highly successful business and many employees on his direct payroll. His sub-contractors can earn in some cases over £100k. If they are direct employees, they earn about £40k. The Court of Appeal declared the “self” employed worker to be an employee.
The Pimlico case and others may yet be appealed, but if it emerges the sub-contract worker is regarded as an employee in these circumstances, then they may also be apprentices.
These issues are relevant – and not just in construction – where higher skilled occupations are concerned, such as management consultancy, design and the digital sector, self-employment is also prevalent. There is no doubt an opportunity for reconsideration of the definition of employment in apprenticeships and an argument for greater flexibility as new employment models emerge.
The "Gig" economy isn't that new - but it is expanding. Do we need to change Apprenticeships to meet the challenge? Scroll down to see more Read More...
Apprenticeships provide a ladder of opportunity that offers real social mobility. Schools and Colleges need to improve the quality of their advice
Career Guidance Needs To Be Of High Quality In Schools & Colleges
We are on the cusp of a fundamental change in the way apprenticeships are funded and delivered, together with simplification of the approach and far more relevance to the modern workplace. The Levy, Apprenticeship Standards, the drive for quality with independent End Point Assessment, Higher and Degree Level apprenticeships – all these will enable people to enter the workplace and develop within it to the highest levels.
Yet there are still areas that need further development. Speaking at Westminster Academy last month, Robert Halfon described the advantages that could be gained in terms of social justice and mobility through excellent careers advice in schools and colleges. The Government has already provided financial support to promote better careers guidance and will be publishing a comprehensive careers strategy later this year.
Government intervention is absolutely essential, because far too many schools and colleges are simply not good enough in regard to career guidance. The Minister described a college that had an unqualified receptionist who was responsible for it. A friend of mine has a son at the local grammar school where, he says, that unless you are going into Law or Medicine, the careers guidance is “useless”.
Mark Dawe – Career guidance is “Not good enough”
This view is echoed by Mark Dawe of the Association of Employment and Learning Providers, who thinks it is “not good enough” and says too many school heads do not regard apprenticeship as a “positive outcome” in terms of the next step for their students. However, he does not subscribe to the view that schools would prefer to keep young people with them for the sixth form, rather than depart to apprenticeship – although many training providers and colleges express that view. Dawe describes this as “lazy thinking”.
Nonetheless, there is still a perception problem with apprenticeships, amongst school teachers and perhaps more importantly, parents. A massive effort is needed to change this, focusing in particular on Higher and Degree Level apprenticeships.
It may be the realisation that a “Debt Free Degree” is achievable will change the view of young people and their parents. “Earn While You Learn” has worked well with Level 2 and Level 3 apprenticeships in the past, whilst at the same time the peers of apprentices have discovered in many cases they have had a great
Would Mum’s Smile Be Bigger With A Debt-Free Degree?
three years, perhaps even an excellent learning experience, but now face having to actually get a job and start paying down a Student Loan of thirty or forty thousand pounds.
Really effective advice in schools and colleges about Higher Level and Degree Level apprenticeships, effective advertising to parents about the contrast for their youngsters of having a Debt Free Degree and a job throughout the process. These are real advantages and a fundamental feature of the changes that are coming.
And what better tool for social mobility than a Debt Free Degree? I’ve been working with youngsters from deprived backgrounds for the last few years and they would not have considered university as a place for them. Talk of university would always be met with the response they couldn’t afford it. However, without exception they would jump at the chance of a good job where they were valued and were developing new skills. A Higher or Degree Level apprenticeship is a means by which they can strike off the shackles of their upbringing and move into a place where they can forge a better future.
Apprenticeships provide a ladder of opportunity that offers real social mobility. Schools and Colleges need to improve the quality of their advice Read More...
A key change to Apprenticeships is the introduction of the Apprenticeship Levy. This third article in our series explains how it will work.
Apprenticeship Levy Is 0.5% Of Payroll Over £3m
From 6 April, employers with a total payroll of over £3m (there are about 22000, according to HMRC) will start to pay the Apprenticeship Levy. This is payroll tax of 0.5%, collected via the PAYE system, with a £15k allowance, thereby exempting those employers whose payroll is less than £3m.
The Government will top up the levy with a 10% contribution and the total sum will be held in a digital account, to be used by the employer in paying for apprenticeship training.
These funds expire after 24 months, indicating a clear desire from Ministers for employers to step up to the plate when it comes to training new employees and their existing workforce.
Employers with a payroll of less than £3m will not have digital accounts at this stage of the reforms. However, they will pay a “co-investment” of 10% of the cost of the training if they have more than fifty employees. Smaller employers will be able to receive 100% funding for apprentices aged 16 -18. The Government has retained additional support for these young people – all employers will receive an additional £1000 to help with the additional costs of training a 16 – 18-year-old.
Whilst there are “Funding Bands” for the different apprenticeship standards, it has to be said that overall, the funding regime has been simplified. This is because employers will be able to negotiate the price of the training directly with the providers. You can access the details of the Apprenticeship Levy here.
This price negotiation also applies to the selection of End Point Assessment providers by Levy paying employers.
Mark Dawe – CEO Of The Association Of Employment Learning Providers
The Association of Employment Learning Providers has some reservations about the impact this might have on quality, particularly as smaller providers work on fairly tight margins. The present standardised funding regime has made revenue streams fairly predictable for providers and they will probably need to become more astute to operate effectively within the new system.
Similar reservations exist with regard to the selection of End Point Assessment provision not only because cheap may not always be good, but for reasons of integrity. Will the provider ensure the Standard has been achieved if that means they may not be selected to conduct the assessments next time?
However, the ability for employers to negotiate price will deliver the key thrusts of the reforms – the improvement in quality and above all, greater control over the process by the employer training the apprentice. These are welcome changes indeed.
There is no doubt the Levy will concentrate the minds of employers about moving more staff onto apprenticeship training – not just at entry level. The development of Higher and Degree Level apprenticeships – the highest funding band delivers £27000 worth of training – and the ability for new Standards to emerge and be approved, means training by way of apprenticeship can become the strand that runs throughout organisations at all levels.
I confess to being a little surprised to learn last year that Public Sector organisations would be subject to the Levy. (It turned out I was less surprised than some people I know in Local Government.) However, Jeremy Hunt recently announced Nursing apprenticeship training and the College of Policing commented on the potential for creating Degee Level apprenticeships.
Media reaction to both these announcements was disappointing. It demonstrated clear misunderstanding of the purpose of the changes to apprenticeships. Reservations about an “apprentice nurse” treating patients (as if) and disbelief that a “Policeman” (there are still no women in the police in some people’s eyes) needed a Degree at all.
Reflecting on this reaction brought the realisation that if you are still living with a 1970’s mind-set, you probably have missed the changes in apprenticeships referred to earlier. However, that probably also places you amongst the employers who have not viewed staff development as a priority, preferring to recruit in skills rather than train in house.
There is a middle ground, obviously. From personal experience, talking about apprenticeships to business leaders reveals a lack of knowledge about their scope and potential, the range of qualifications offered and the level of achievement that can be supported.
This is not through lack of action by Ministers. Once you start to look, the information about the new arrangements is easy to find – everything employers or would-be apprentices need to know is readily available online and responds to obvious searches.
A cultural shift needs to take place if these reforms are to succeed. Ministers have wisely realised the quickest route to concentrating minds is via the pocket. The balance between giving employers greater control and encouraging them by means of the Levy is well struck.
A key change to Apprenticeships is the introduction of the Apprenticeship Levy. This third article in our series explains how it will work. Read More...
In our second article about changes to Apprenticeship Training, we discuss the present position and contrast it with the future arrangements
Apprenticeship Training – A Ladder To Help You Succeed!
The best way to describe the changes to apprenticeship training may be to outline the present position – one where a Framework of training and learning has to be completed, with qualifications relevant to the sector; Functional Skills in English and Mathematics or GCSE’s; Employment Rights and Responsibilities and Personal Learning and Thinking Skills.
Coupled with both on-the-job and off-the-job training, the candidate should at the end of the programme, be able to function effectively as a member of the workforce and have specific job skills relevant to the role. The job skills should be sufficient that he or she can undertake the relevant job to a standard set within the Framework.
For the Framework to be certified as complete, it must meet legislative requirements within the Specification of Apprenticeship Standards for England – underpinned by Statutory Instrument.
A significant change taking place is the total replacement of the Frameworks over the next few years. These will be replaced by Apprenticeship Standards – which will define an Apprenticeship that lasts a minimum of twelve months; be linked to a specific occupational level; respond to employers needs in defining the knowledge, skills and behaviours required for a specific job role and designed to prepare the apprentice for “end point assessment”, this being the point at which certification will take place.
Two crucial parts to this – the removal of a specific qualification unless a License to Practice is needed and the independent End Point Assessment evidence just how radical Ministers have been prepared to be in making the changes.
Presently, every apprentice has generally undergone exactly the same training – regardless of the skills he or she may have at the outset. There have been some opportunities to recognise prior learning, but in practice they have not been taken up. Reducing the elements of the qualification delivered is difficult to evidence to the satisfaction of awarding bodies and providers have a financial interest in delivering the whole programme.
Shifting the emphasis to the skills and capabilities required at the end of the process gets away from what can be a “tick box” approach, trudging through Units of a qualification regardless of relevance.
Which Is The Apprentice? Answer: Either Of Them!
The emphasis being transferred to employers driving the Standards will ensure irrelevant material is removed from the training, up-to-date methods can be incorporated and employers can be assured the outcome will enhance productivity.
At this time, people undergoing apprenticeships are assessed as their training progresses by the training provider. This is a classic example of providers being able to “mark their own homework” – especially as they are both paid by the Skills Funding Agency and inspected by Ofsted on the achievement rates they produce. There is rigorous oversight by awarding bodies, but a shift to independent End Point Assessment, where the candidate’s skills and capabilities are judged as a whole is both timely and welcome.
Also to be welcomed is the employer playing a more active role in the outcome. This is to be undertaken by the candidate going through a Gateway process, where the employer and the training provider agree he or she is ready to undertake the End Point Assessment. This crucial element will leave behind the position where the training programme ends, the employee is qualified, but much work remains to really get the worker providing a business benefit.
Ownership of the apprentice’s development involving all three parties, apprentice, employer and provider is obviously of great benefit in achieving better outcomes and the apprenticeship reforms are designed to deliver just that.
The Government has sensibly avoided the charge of “throwing baby out with the bathwater” by resisting the urge to do so. The standards are being set by Trailblazer groups chaired by employers, which will be regulated by the newly formed Institute for Apprenticeships.
Early evaluation indicates the Trailblazers have been welcomed and employers have made a positive contribution to progress. Much use has been made of existing “National Occupational Standards” for evolution and refinement. However, some groups have needed to start from a new position, reflecting the adoption of new approaches, products and methods.
Some difficulty has been experienced by Trailblazers as they moved from defining the Key Skills and Behaviours required for employees to devising methods of assessing them. Flexible approaches and input from qualification awarding bodies have been helpful in this regard.
Another skill being demonstrated by Robert Halfon and his colleagues – rarely witnessed in the past – has been that of pragmatism, wanting to get the reforms right, rather than arbitrarily chasing a fixed timescale against all the odds. This is a programme of change that will evolve over the next few years and the Apprenticeship Standards will also retain flexibility and be reviewed in the light of experience and changes to workplace practice, new products and methods.
It is unusual for change being welcomed by those on the receiving end, but there has been a positive response from providers for the thrust of these reforms – especially from Independent Training Providers who have wanted greater flexibility and linkage of apprenticeships to business outcome for some time.
Mark Dawe, Chief Executive of the Association of Employment and Learning Providers wrote recently “There are many great things about the apprenticeship policy….that we all support, and if done right, it will embed apprenticeships at the heart of England’s skills solution for many years to come”. Commendation indeed.
In our second article about changes to Apprenticeship Training, we discuss the present position and contrast it with the future arrangements. Scroll to see more. Read More...
prizes, such as the Turner. Everyone remembers the pile of bricks, or the unmade bed. The judges are subjected to the highest level of rage the tabloid newspapers can produce. I have to say I don’t get that type of art either. I went to a Dali exhibition years ago and came away regarding him as a deeply troubled man.
First of all, let’s look at the nominees (people who want to see all of them in detail should go to the excellent Kevin McGuire’s series of television programmes about them). The eventual winner, Caring Wood in Kent, took its inspiration from the oasthouses for which that county is renowned. The design was to bring an extended family together, with a complex of individual living spaces. The others were equally ambitious – combining state of the art materials, fixtures and fittings. The common factor was an enormous price tag.
We need more affordable houses and more social homes and we need to move people out of temporary accommodation into decent permanent housing.
much more – but his cannot all be the responsibility of the taxpayer. Many homes are delivered by requiring new developments to provide a suitable percentage of affordable homes on each site. However, many developers are able to game the system by using ‘viability assessments’ to argue that they cannot afford to provide them on a specific site. According to recent research by Shelter, 79% of the affordable homes that should have been provided have been avoided by using these assessments.
