Newsletter & Bids 26 2016

 In bids

Dear Members


Many thanks for this week’s Bids, Grants and Funds from EEVT Ltd (EEVT) and SLIC International Ltd. This week’s bids attachment has some 61 plus pages.  We go out to over 4,000 organisations and decision makers welcome to 11 new readers this week. To get your own copy then e-mail


Now we know we are OUT. Many people having been in touch and asked me to give an overview of how it will affect the industry, in truth I cannot do this and many more who know more than me cannot, why you ask?

Well I will at the end of the newsletter give some true facts we perhaps need to think about, but let’s get on with the here and now.


Fair Train is pleased to announce the appointment of three new trustees to its board.

Elaine Morgan, deputy CEO at Develop EBP; Richard Freeman, freelance consultant with expertise in the creative sector; and Fran Parry, freelance consultant with an employability background; join Fair Train’s existing trustees to take the board members to seven.

Fair Train’s trustees will support the growth of the charity and provide strategic direction for the future.

Beth Gardner, CEO of Fair Train said: “I am delighted to welcome Elaine, Richard and Fran to Fair Train. Their valuable skills and experience will help us strengthen our relationship with voluntary sector organisations and ensure that more employers and learning providers are able to offer high quality workforce development opportunities.”


RE Paul Joyce has written to FE Week to defend Ofsted’s recent ratings spree, which has seen 10 colleges receive the lowest possible rating since the new common inspection framework was launched in September.

All 10 were slammed by inspectors for their English and maths provision, and sector leaders had expressed concern in last week’s issue that increased government expectation on delivering good results these subjects was dragging down overall ratings.

Mr Joyce wrote: “While inspectors rightly place much importance on these subjects, they do not, as suggested, exercise an ‘overriding influence’ on the overall judgement of a college.”

He said that “a plethora of weaknesses” had been highlighted in the inadequate reports, adding: “I want to reassure colleagues working in the sector that we will never make a decision about overall effectiveness based solely on English and maths provision”.

Last week, Mark Dawe, the chief executive of the Association of Employment and Learning Providers, hit out at Ofsted’s inspection methods of traineeships in last week’s issue.



More confusion and concern over the Apprentice Levy. A major new report from the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) has revealed that two thirds of employers are broadly opposed to the levy, citing cost and bureaucracy as their main concerns.

In terms of knowledge levels and organisations that understand the plans, public sector organisations are most likely to report they will have to pay the levy (41%), followed by private sector employers (31%) and those in the non-profit sector (23%). Just 7% of small organisations expect to pay the levy compared with just over half of large employers.

“The levy is a tax” For those opposed to the levy, the reasons vary. However, one respondent, described as the head of education and skills at a large international electricity and
gas company summed up many of the concerns, saying “It [the levy] will impose a significant cost on business and will create deadweight activity as all organisations try to recover the cost of the levy. Put simply, the levy is a tax – a way of recycling employers’ money.

“Even after reclaiming allowable costs through the voucher system, the levy is going to create a further cost burden of around £1 million a year for our business, and it could be higher!’ However, despite these misgivings, he believes that ‘it is with us now and we should play our part to help make it work effectively.”

Non-profit organisations are much more likely to support the apprenticeship levy (43%) than public sector (35%) or private sector organisations (34%). There is little difference in the level of support for the levy between the views of SMEs and larger employers.

Critically, the research also shows that almost 30% of employers do not expect to use levy funding to develop or enhance apprenticeship programmes, while 40% don’t know where they stand on it.

For those in favour, the top reason cited by organisations for supporting the apprenticeship levy is that ‘it will benefit young people in the UK’, with eight out of ten respondents identifying this as a reason for their support.


Scepticism over chances of success

But a worrying figure emerges when respondents give their view of the chances of success. Just under a third of organisations that support the levy believe it will have a positive impact upon business in their sector, with only a fifth of employers agreeing the Digital Apprenticeship Service will make it easier to access funding and just 10% think the system will become less bureaucratic.

SMEs are less likely than larger employers to agree that the Digital Apprenticeship Service will make it easier to access funding (10% versus 23%) or that the system will become less bureaucratic (5% versus 13%).

For its part, the CIPD says the research suggests that significant reform of the existing plans may be in order. Peter Cheese, chief executive of the CIPD, said: “We share the government’s ambition to increase the number and quality of apprenticeships in the UK. However, our research suggests while the levy will boost apprenticeship numbers among some employers, the majority of organisations, particularly SMEs, are unlikely to use levy funding to improve apprenticeship provision.

‘A blunt instrument’

Our research also finds that the levy could have damaging, unintended consequences. For example, taking investment away from other equally valuable forms of training and development and causing organisations to effectively re-badge existing training schemes as apprenticeships simply in order to reclaim levy funding. Many large employers, particularly in low margin sectors and the public sector, will have to make significant cuts to their training budgets as a result of the levy, or will simply write it off as a tax.

“These findings highlight that the levy is a blunt instrument providing employers with a ‘one size fits all approach’ to training, forcing many larger employers to make a net contribution to a scheme that our research shows will suit only relatively few. We therefore believe a much broader, more flexible Training Levy should be developed to ensure that the system is genuinely employer-owned and meets the skills requirements of organisations. This would enable employers to draw down levy funding, with appropriate criteria, for a wider range of training activities, as well as for apprenticeships.”


Ok Friday after the IN or Out the SFA sent out around 10 new bids, all ESF so even they were not told to hold back but to go forward.

The Big Lottery sent out this message

“Building Better Opportunities is jointly funded by the Big Lottery Fund and the European Social Fund. The Big Lottery Fund remains committed to the Building Better Opportunities programme until delivery is complete in 2020. We look forward to working with grant holders on local projects that will tackle poverty and promote social inclusion”


The DWP sent out a letter which said

Dear Provider,

EU Referendum Result and DWP Contracted Employment Provision

You will have all seen the result from yesterday’s referendum on the United Kingdom’s membership of the European Union.

The result is likely to have implications for the Department and specifically our ESF funded contracted employment provision.

I am not in a position to comment further on what exactly this might mean in practical terms but want to assure you that the Department will communicate further when it is appropriate to do so.

Should you have any questions in the meantime please direct them through the Bravo system.

Yours sincerely

Matt Thurstan

 Department for Work and Pensions


A new Prime Minister who ever they may be has to push the button on Article 50 which looks like Jan 2017 the Article 50 says:

Article 50

  1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.

    4. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it.

    A qualified majority shall be defined in accordance with Article 238(3)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

    5. If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks to re-join, its request shall be subject to the procedure referred to in Article 49.

So if we ask to go on January 2 2017 it will not take place until or may not take place until January 2 2019, but actually could be delayed by a year to 2020. Also if more than 20 of the 27 countries say no we have to start the negotiations all over again on the sticking points.


All ESF funding in this round should go ahead I am told; however a note of caution the DWP say wait and we will let you know. They sent out a letter to this effect on Friday.


Wider concerns re Houses prices, Pensions, and many more remain very typical and topical going forward so what do we need.


A strong Leader who says hold on a minute let’s think about this and let me talk to the EU again prior to pushing the button, also we feel we are in this on our own many around the 27 other nations like Greece, Spain and Holland have thoughts on things we have stood up as a Nation and voted on.


We cannot do nothing we need to make the very best of it and keep going a young potential Apprenticed wants a job, a young mother wants to return to the workplace, and we have to work within the rules as they are and they change every few months in or out we have had more changes in the past year than Kyle Minogue has at 12 concerts.


From the Team have a great week and keep training Steve you can follow us on  in Groups EEVT Limited  On Facebook

On our website at

Also via Twitter at

Recent Posts

Start typing and press Enter to search