Examination of Witnesses (Questions 580--599)
BILL RAMMELL
AND PHIL
HOPE
24 APRIL 2006
Q580 Mr Wilson: You do not agree
with me that there is a mixed reaction but certainly some of the
reactions we have seen have said it was mixed. There have been
some good reactions but there have been some like the NIACE who
have said it was a " . . . missed opportunity to address
the balance of investment between full and part-time students
as well as people preparing to enter the labour market, returners
to it, those seeking mobility in it and those who have left paid
employment". That is pretty mixed, is it not?
Bill Rammell: I think there is
an issue. We have very good relations with NIACE but there is
a fundamental debate about where you spend money within the system.
I make no apology for the fact that this Government has significantly
increased funding to the further education sector by something
like 48% in real terms over the last nine years. We are rightly
focusing expenditure on the key priority which is 16-19-year-olds
with adult basic skills and the roll out of the national employer
training programme. That does mean that there are not, relatively,
as many funds as were previously the case to fund other forms
of adult education. Phil might want to comment upon this. That
is one of the issues that we proactively debate.
Phil Hope: One of the areas where
there is a lot of agreement is around personal and community development
where we have a ring-fenced fund of £210 million. We are
rolling out now a series of new partnerships led by the LSC at
a local level to energise not just the spend of that £210
million, which is not a ceiling but a floor for capturing more
resource from local authorities—indeed the health expenditure
is about raising people's awareness and education around health
matters, voluntary organisations, community groups and many others
at a local level—to take what is at the moment quite a patchy
and incoherent programme of work at a local level into a much
more coherent organised strategy and hopefully capture more resource
into a coherent strategy at a local level. That is something that
is large in the White Paper and which I know NIACE are very keen,
in particular, to play an active role in helping us to deliver.
Q581 Mr Wilson: I spoke to my local
principal at the Thames Valley University, which is in my constituency,
and he raised three specific areas in which he has concerns. The
first of which is that this is going to be too heavy on failing
colleges; secondly, he is worried about the proposed expansion
of sixth forms and concern about the schools drifting into more
and more vocational subjects and, finally, about cutting back
on adult learning which Thames Valley University has done already
and is being viewed generally as a much lower priority.
Bill Rammell: Let us try and address
each of those in turn. Too heavy on failing colleges, this is
similar to the debate we had within the schools area, and the
way I normally respond to that is by saying if you had your child
or someone within your family going to an organisation that was
consistently failing I think you would want something done about
it. We are, in a very real sense, mirroring the reforms put forward
within schools within this reform package and saying that there
will be a 12-month period, a notice for either a college that
is inadequate or one that is barely satisfactory or coasting and
that we do in those 12-months expect improvements.
Q582 Mr Wilson: To be fair to him
I think he was concerned that there are only 4% in this category,
whereas around 50% of school pupils leave school without a full
Level 2 achievement. I think he was comparing the two and schools
do not seem to be getting the same hard time that perhaps the
FE colleges do.
Bill Rammell: I think if you go
and talk to teachers or head teachers within schools they might
take a different view to that. To get the figures into context
between the first inspection round and the second inspection round
there has been an improvement in terms of the numbers of colleges
that were deemed to be inadequate. It started at 19, that figure
is now down to eight. However, there is a broader group of colleges
that according to the inspection evidence are either barely satisfactory
or coasting, which is defined as satisfactory but not improving.
There are about 50 of those colleges, which is about 12-15% of
the total. I think it is right and proper that we do not just
focus on the ones at the very bottom but the group above it, we
want to see improvements in that area as well and that is why
we are saying in those circumstances there would be intervention.
There would be very strong support, particularly through the newly
established QIA, to help those colleges develop but I think that
is the right focus. On the second criticism in terms of the expansion
of school sixth forms, one of the things that we have done within
the White Paper is very much to level the playing field because
we made the policy announcement last year that there would be
a sixth form presumption for a successful specialist school to
be able to expand and take on a sixth form. We have now said within
this White Paper that for a successful FE college, particularly
to meet the demands of the 14-19 agenda, and the need for diplomas,
there will be an equivalent ability to expand. Again my very strong
sense, talking around the FE sector, is that levelling of the
playing field has been very strongly welcomed. Thirdly, in terms
of adult learning, there is a balance to be struck and when we
talk about the dramatic and significant expansion of Train to
Gain, the national employer training programme, focusing upon
people who have been left behind, who are in the workplace and
do not have the equivalent of their first full Level 2, I think
it is absolutely right that we do focus attention and resources
upon those people. That will mean that there is not as much money
as historically has been available within other areas and that
is where we do need a better balance of contributions between
the state, the employer and the individual. Phil, do you want
to comment?
Phil Hope: Just on that point.
Certainly courses that will be under pressure are the short courses
that do not lead to qualifications. I would emphasise that in
those areas where people value those courses, whether it is individual
learners or employers, an increased contribution from fees, indeed
full cost recovery courses where they are valued, can continue
and we would want them to continue to be run. Certain colleges
have taken that challenge on through communication, through the
work they have been doing with their communities, I am thinking
of City College Brighton and Hove, for example, that has managed
to sustain increases in fees and increased numbers of learners.
This is the challenge and the fee guidance that we put out suggests
good practice for different colleges to respond in that way to
those adult learning courses that may not be able to qualify because
they do not fit the priorities the Bill has outlined. I just want
to pick up the second point about expansion of sixth forms. You
mentioned the development of vocational courses, and presumably
you are referring there to the new diplomas. I do not want to
get into the territory of the Bill which currently four of us,
at least, sitting in this Committee will be taking when we get
to clauses 61 and 62 of the legislation, Chairman, but we will
be looking very long and hard at the importance of these new 14
specialised diplomas that have to be delivered through a partnership,
the 14-19 strategy between schools and colleges to make sure that
every young person has that choice of a specialised diploma which
meets their needs to be delivered by colleges and schools working
collaboratively together at a local level. I think that is, frankly,
a fantastic opportunity. As I say, I do not want to rehearse the
arguments that we will go through in Committee but I think that
is a very important part of the new direction colleges will take
at a local level in working with other partners.
Q583 Mr Wilson: Just to tell you
the effect that these policies have had on Thames Valley University.
It has resulted in them closing all their community location venues,
of which there were about 15 in Greater Reading, and withdrawing
all their ICT outreach venues in the town and they have had to
pull 250 full-time equivalent student places which is saving about
a million pounds. That is the effect.
Phil Hope: As I say, Chairman,
the issue here is about the opportunity the colleges have got
to take the courses that they were previously running and to market
those courses with an increased contribution in fees from those
taking part. As we focus on the priorities of 16-18s of Level
2 qualifications within the adult workforce planning things like
skills for life, Chairman, and an expectation that there will
be an increased contribution up to 50% by 2010 from individuals
to pay for their courses that do not lead to these qualifications,
we know that colleges which go out in the community, market in
that way and sell those courses in that way, those courses that
are valued by employers and individuals can continue to run. I
think it is very important that the Committee appreciate the importance
as we steer down these new priorities that colleges take these
opportunities. We had evidence from a Mori opinion poll that showed
that learners and the community out there do say they expect to
pay a 50% contribution towards the cost of a new course, actually
most people do not even know they are going on courses which are
heavily subsidised to the tune of 75% or 72.5% already. When this
is explained and talked about and comparisons given people say,
"Well fair enough, we should be paying more as a contribution
towards courses." They may be short courses for people's
leisure learning or courses of that kind, the opinion poll definitely
showed it is reasonable to expect a higher contribution. The challenge
for the colleges is to carry on running those courses at higher
fee levels or, indeed, full cost recovery levels by going out
to the community to explain the value that the courses have and
the funding requirements for them.
Bill Rammell: Can I add one word
to that. There is about £100 million at the moment nationally
that colleges forego in terms of fees that they could raise. One
would imagine, given that figure, that there would be a link between—for
want of a better phrase—between the socio-economic level
of prosperity within a local area and a lower level of fees contribution.
In fact, if you look at the evidence across the country that is
not the case. I think part of this is a real determination on
the part of the college to proactively go out and sell and communicate
its fee strategy. The Brighton College example is a very interesting
one. They have doubled their fees at the same time as year-on-year
increasing significantly their learner numbers. They have done
it through going out into the community, actively consulting and
actually making real comparisons with, for example, things like
water charges and the amount of money that an individual pays
to a further education course. I think if the college is determined
you can make this work.
Q584 Chairman: We will be coming
back to those in a moment. It is interesting that none of your
reactions in terms of the broader picture mention Leitch at all,
either the intermediate report or what might be the point of having
Leitch reporting after the White Paper came out or before legislation.
How does Leitch fit into it all?
Phil Hope: In a way, Chairman,
it is the difference between supply side and demand side, if I
can put it that way.
Q585 Chairman: Yes.
Phil Hope: The White Paper is
primarily around the supply side of that. How we make FE ready
to be able to respond positively to what I think Leitch is going
to be talking about, has already talked about in his interim report,
but when his final report comes out later this year about the
skills challenge, frankly the skills mountain that we have, both
in terms of skills gaps and shortages in this country, and the
graphs that we all know about plus comparisons with what is happening
in France, India, China, the United States, that would be the
demand side measures that we expect to flow from what Sandy Leitch
is going to talk to us about. The importance about the FE White
Paper is can we put further education into a position where it
is the engine room for delivering that skills agenda? Is it fit
for purpose and what do we need to do to make it more fit for
that purpose? As I said earlier, the importance of colleges being
able to engage with employers and respond positively to what employers
will demand through the new funding mechanisms for courses that
are relevant, that are at a time and place when those employers
need them and are delivering the kinds of skills and qualifications
that their workforce require, having built a platform of employability
through the focus we have on the 16-18s and on the Level 2 qualifications
through the entitlement to Train to Gain, if we get that supply
side right when Sandy Leitch's second report comes out, I think
we will see how the supply and demand side meet together.
Q586 Chairman: Will you have a White
Paper Mark II?
Phil Hope: Whether we have a White
Paper in response to Sandy Leitch is not for me to be able to
say at this moment in time.
Q587 Chairman: There is a logical
consistency that might have argued you have a report on the supply
side and the demand side and then you write a White Paper.
Phil Hope: All I would say to
you is we know we have a skills mountain to climb, the interim
report has told us that. We wanted to make sure we had the supply
side in good order with these changes to raise quality, to put
the focus of government spend where government spend needs to
be, on skills for life, on Level 2 qualifications, on the employability
of the workforce in a good position, so that when Sandy Leitch's
report comes out the sector knows the direction of travel, the
role it has to play in raising the skill levels of this country.
Bill Rammell: I think as well,
Chairman, it is one of these situations where you are damned if
you do and damned if you do not. If we had said "Okay, we
are going to hold back on the FE White Paper until the summer
when Sandy Leitch brings forward his very important report"
I think we would have then been open to criticism, "It has
been since October last year that Andrew Foster had come forward
with his report and the Department is silent". Sometimes
you cannot get it right.
Q588 Chairman: Does the Department
have an historic memory?
Phil Hope: In what respect?
Q589 Chairman: A memory of the recent
history. When the Dearing Report came out, which if you remember
was about FE and HE, the principles were right, were they not,
that the contribution should come—we argued this as much
in terms of HE, top up fees and all that—from the individual
who benefits from education, it should come from the employer
and also from the state representing society. Some of the early
pilots that are coming in Train to Gain are almost suggesting,
on the one hand, you are charging people more money as individuals
to do courses that do not lead to qualifications and, on the other,
you are replacing the funding that the employers were paying for
training in the first place. You are substituting state money,
Government money for what employers were putting in in the first
place.
Phil Hope: No, that is absolutely
right. So in the roll-out of the pilots into the full Train to
Gain that started in those 20 areas from 1 April already and will
roll-out nationally on 1 August, the lessons we have learnt from
the pilots about ensuring we minimise that dead weight, which
I think is what you are referring to, Chairman, are absolutely
critical. The important point here is that we need to engage with
two groups that we were not engaged with before. The first are
employers who have not traditionally trained at all, the hard
to reach employers, and the new brokerage system as a result of
learning from the pilots is giving specific and clear guidance
about how they go about doing their business to engage with those
hard to reach employers. Moreover, for employers who are already
engaged in training are we reaching the hard to reach employees,
those employees that those employers currently training are not
reaching either. Those are two major priorities that are out in
the guidance to the brokers as we roll-out the Train to Gain programme
to eliminate the problem that you have described. What is crucially
important about the whole picture of that is just getting more
employer investment into training. We think the brokerage system,
the Train to Gain, the offer for the Level 2, it is right that
where there is market failure at Level 2 that is where government
subsidy should go but Train to Gain is not just going to be about
Level 2, I have to say, it is a training service to employers
to raise their whole game, whether it is apprenticeships, Level
3 indeed as well as Level 2, to really capture and gain employer
investment in training their own staff and to realise the benefits
to sell, market, understand the benefits that training your own
workforce can deliver. Train to Gain is not just about Level 2,
it is a complete service to employers to raise that total investment
across the piece. I am hoping Sandy Leitch will see and reinforce
the importance of those kinds of programmes and the importance,
indeed, of public and private sector employers investing more
in their workforce.
Chairman: Thank you for that. Let us
drill down a bit more on adult learning. Gordon.
Q590 Mr Marsden: I want to keep the
focus on adult learning not least because we have taken a very
strong evidence base not just from NIACE, who were referred to
earlier, but also from the Association of Colleges, the Association
of Learning Providers and others who are really quite deeply concerned—and
I stress it is the unintended consequences, there is no criticism
of the intention of Government—about the unintended consequences
of your funding priorities perhaps being too narrowly focused
on young people. What I would like to explore with you is, you
have already said today about the expectations about the changes
in the funding elements between employee, employer and the individual.
Those are very broad percentage figures. They are not going to
be replicated in the same way in the same places on the same courses
and yet the implications of getting that wrong in terms of courses
laid off never to be recovered, significant groups of people on
the edge of social exclusion, dropping out of the system equally,
perhaps, never to be recovered are profound. What I would like
to ask is what are you going to do if some of the forms of adult
learning that concern has been expressed about do tail off and
tail off very rapidly and adults are either unwilling or unable
to make greater contributions? Do you have any form of contingency
plan for dealing with it?
Phil Hope: First of all, I would
disagree that there is such a thing as a too narrow focus on young
people. This is not about either/or, it is both/and. We both have
to stem the flow into the workforce of under qualified young people,
young people without basic skills, indeed young people without
the equivalent of a Level 2, five good GCSEs going into the workforce.
I think that is absolutely critical and we have to raise participation
rates for 17-year-olds from the 75% we have at the moment, which
I think is unacceptable, up to a target of 90% by 2015. It is
a big challenge, and that is what we have to do. Indeed, we have
to make sure that there is not that cliff when they leave at 18,
and that is part of the Level 3 entitlement for 19-25-year-olds,
so we get a 16-25 entitlement where young people can see real
pathways of learning right the way through. I have to say expenditure
on adult learning is something around £2.8/2.9 billion and
has been rising and, therefore, a significant part, just under
50% of the budget goes on adults. The question is what is the
focus of that budget. We have made very clear what we think the
focus of the budget should be for adult learning, the priorities
for that being a full Level 2 qualification. There is that Level
2 entitlement and there is the Train to Gain that will roll-out
to deliver hundreds of thousands of Level 2 qualifications in
the workforce to meet employers' needs. Your question is, okay,
if that has that effect, what is the effect on other adult learning
courses that are being delivered? We made the point earlier that
we believe those courses, if they are valued by learners and by
employers, can continue because they can be run by colleges and
other providers at a higher fee level or it can be a full cost
recovery level for those employers. There is, of course, full
fee remission for those particular individuals in the community
who are on income related benefits, and we know that is a very
important part for the kinds of communities you are referring
to, Gordon, around the individual communities and their needs.
There is another group of course—I am sorry if I am answering
at length, Chairman, but I think it is important we understand
the importance of this.
Q591 Chairman: We did have a bit
of trouble with Ivan Lewis with long answers, you are following
in a good tradition, Minister.
Phil Hope: I apologise. A final
point I want to make is about what I call stepping stone provision.
For many of the communities that we are describing it is very
important that if individuals start a course, a short course,
a literacy or numeracy course, an ESOL course, that course leads
somewhere. We are quite concerned, I think we say this in the
White Paper, that a number of those courses do not add up to a
point of progression. People do a course and it does not create
for them added-value as an individual. It does not provide them
with what they describe as a stepping stone, it is not a stepping
stone on to progression on to Level 1 or, indeed, Level 2 qualifications.
Now that is part of the change that we want to see happen, either
through the way the PCDL might be developed but also through the
development of the foundation learning tier that we talk about
in the White Paper which provides—and that will be built
into the framework for achievement of new qualifications—a
coherent package so that when individuals begin the course they
know that the course develops their basic skills, adapts their
needs and also leads on to higher qualifications. There is a genuine
vocational pathway on the way through. That is the challenge for
all of us nationally and locally.
Q592 Mr Marsden: I think many of
those points are entirely reasonable and particularly the stepping
stones point. It is, of course, however, the case at the moment
that a number of courses which are effectively stepping stones
courses are either not marketed effectively as such, or alternatively,
in some cases, not recognised as such by the LSC. If you talk
to parliamentary colleagues they will give you numerous examples
from their own casework of those sorts of situations. Under the
new dispensation that you are outlining, what are you going to
do, first of all, to make that assistance and, if you like, to
have a dialogue with the LSC to make sure that stepping stone
courses do lead somewhere and, secondly, to make sure that the
LSCs themselves are flexible enough in their recognition of what
are enabling courses to get people who have been on the social
margins or people who have been out there back into that progress?
One of the things which concerns me is that we are talking time
lag here. This funding mechanism is to some extent a super tanker,
it is very difficult to turn it around. You have to get it right
as early as possible because what you will get to start with is
the perception that all these courses are going and there is nowhere
to sign up for them and all the rest of it. Once those courses
have gone it will be very difficult to get them back in the frame
even if they are marketed effectively at that stage. There needs
to be some early intervention, does there not, to make sure that
courses which are genuinely stepping stone courses are not lost
from the mix because of the increased fees?
Phil Hope: I think I would agree
with that, Chairman. I think the issue is quality, a judgment
by the LSC of the quality of the courses that have been delivered
to know that they are doing what we all would agree is required,
that these courses are genuine, that they do add up to a coherent
package that provides people with qualifications which when accumulated
together arrive at and can help towards that magic key of the
full Level 2 equivalent qualification. It is that job at a local
level. Now I believe that is where we have to do a whole lot of
work to ensure that at a local level we do challenge providers
to demonstrate that is what those courses are delivering within
local communities. I think that the way that courses are developed
and marketed and link together is a challenge for the providers
and the LSC to work at a local level. That is a matter of judgment,
Chairman. I will not deny we cannot make that judgment necessarily
from the centre but what we can do is create the foundation learning
tier framework which provides the opportunity for people at a
local level to see how in terms of the national framework they
can develop the provision and the service particularly for those
people, perhaps not those who qualify for fee remission—although
it is a major marketing job to ensure those people do take up
those courses—but those who are just above fee remission
levels to ensure that they see the actual value for them and their
progress both in their personal lives and also in the opportunities
to get jobs that pay better because they have undertaken these
courses.
Bill Rammell: Can I just add a
word to that. I do take your point about the danger of unintended
consequences and politically over the last year, as this process
has been going through, one of the things we have held very firmly
to is the need to rationalise and sort out what happens below
Level 2. I have consistently been making the argument that has
been going up and down the country that if you properly map provision
against the national framework then it gets funded. What one begins
to recognise is that there is both good and bad both within the
framework and outside of it and we do need a much better system
to determine what really does lead to progression in terms of
the stepping stone provision through to Level 2. What we set out
for the first time in the White Paper is a commitment, overtime
and resources allowing, that we would turn that into an entitlement.
If we can achieve that I think that is a really radical step forward.
Q593 Mr Marsden: The White Paper
talks about the LSCs having negotiated income from fee targets
with colleges to make sure that fee income is raised rather than
learning opportunities cut or simply under-funded. Obviously that
is a laudable intention. What are you going to expect the LSCs
to take if providers do not manage to meet their agreed income
from fee targets? Are you just going to allow those providers
to cut those courses?
Phil Hope: Frankly the market
will work in that way. If the college does not raise the fees
it will not have the income to run the courses. The pressure will
be from the LSC to say, "Live up to your targets" but
actually if they do not get their targets for raising the fees
they will not have the money and that will be the key that will
drive those colleges to either do better at marketing to raise
their fee income and to make choices about which courses they
offer. It will be the very fact that they are not getting their
fee, it will not be the LSC, "you have not reached your target
that is going to be the pressure", it is going to be if they
have not raised the cash from fees that will be the pressure and
change the performance and behaviour of the college.
Q594 Mr Marsden: You have accepted
the analysis of the City & Guilds and others about the impact
of the demographic gap on skills certainly in the next 10 years,
let alone the next 15 years. Are you confident again that the
structure you outline in the White Paper and the priorities you
outline in the White Paper will give you enough wiggle room over
the next few years to be able to meet that skills gap from a larger
and larger percentage of older, lesser skilled or, in some cases,
unskilled people?
Phil Hope: We have some very challenging
PSA targets to achieve on exactly that point, particularly in
terms of those achieving Level 2 qualifications. Now by 2010 we
are expecting 500,000 individuals to be getting a Level 2 qualification,
that is a very big target. We are on target for that at the moment
but I think we will have to look very carefully, which is why
we are focusing and ensuring that Government expenditure is increasingly
delivering that Level 2 outcome. It is that employability that
is absolutely critical because the more they get to achieve their
Level 2 qualification, firstly people have got a Level 2 qualification,
they are better employees, they are more productive, they are
more profitable, if I can put it that way, and they are making
more money themselves; secondly, they are into learning and the
possibility of them wishing then to go on to Level 3 qualifications
and to carry on developing their skills in the workforce is much
more likely. Achieving that Level 2 target is an absolutely critical
part of what we are trying to achieve. In terms of demography,
in terms of young people, of course, even though the demography
means there will be fewer young people coming through, we want
to increase the participation rates.
Q595 Mr Marsden: Of course.
Phil Hope: And we think that will
roughly balance off.
Q596 Mr Marsden: Presumably an important
part of that strategy for older learners over the next five to
ten years is going to be encouraging them to take part in their
own funding. Obviously the White Paper has talked about the trialling
of the new learner accounts and we know the history of that but
I think most Members of this Committee would welcome the fact
that you have returned to that as an initiative. I think the initiative,
and the principles behind it, speaking for myself, were extremely
laudable and sound. Obviously the devil is in the detail and everyone
is going to be looking at the detail. Are you in a position today
to give us any indications as to what a learner account is going
to look like and how will payments be made to individuals and
how providers will draw down the money?
Phil Hope: We cannot give a lot
of detail at this moment, Chairman. Certainly we are going to
take it very carefully so we do not repeat the mistakes of the
past. A number of lessons have been learnt from how the old ILA
system was operating to ensure that we do not fall into those
traps, if I can put it that way. We are going to be piloting the
Level 3 learner accounts in two regions—and we have not
yet chosen the regions before that question gets asked, Chairman—to
make sure that we do this in a way that engages learners. You
are absolutely right to suggest that if we give individuals, in
the way that we know from the past, an account and a feeling that
this is theirs to spend on their development we know that raises
demand. We have chosen Level 3 because that is where we know the
information is coming to us that the next demand for skills in
the economy is going to be required. We will choose two regions,
we have not chosen them yet, to pilot this in so we can ensure
that it comes through individual learning accounts. We have not
designed all the detail yet but it is not going to be cash in
a bank account that they spend in that way, it will be money that
they know is theirs to spend on their learning. The critical thing
is whether we can maximise all the opportunities so that not only
is there that learner account money that is theirs, a proportion
to spend on their Level 3, but other resources that are around
as well can be added, things like adult learning grants and so
on, so that an individual can really see what they have available
to them that really will unlock the opportunity for them to engage
in Level 3 learning.
Q597 Mr Marsden: When do you expect
to be able to say something more about the pilots and the details?
It would obviously be helpful to the Committee in finalising its
report to be able to say something further in that respect. I
wondered if you could give, not a timetable that we would hold
you to, but any broad indication?
Phil Hope: We are looking at it
actively now, Chair, as you can imagine, so this autumn is when
we are hoping to be able to publish more details about how we
expect the pilots to look and how we will go about delivering
so we really capture both the full benefit that the learning accounts
can bring, as well as safeguarding against the potential abuse
we have experienced in the past.
Q598 Mr Marsden: Have you made any
decisions yet about how learner accounts are going to be operated?
We know of course that the original ILAs were administered by
Capita; can we take it that Capita will not be administering the
new scheme?
Phil Hope: I think we can say
we have not made any choices yet, Chair, about how we are going
to do it but we are not going to repeat the mistakes of the past.
Bill Rammell: It will be the tried
and tested payments system that we have at the moment, and not
a new bespoke system, which was the mistake that was made under
ILAs.
Q599 Mr Marsden: Can I ask about
groups of people that particularly need to be reached. There is
the welcome initiative in the White Paper, and you referred to
a pilot scheme of £5 million, which will be operated across
eleven districts, particularly addressing the needs of women learners.
If those pilots proved successful, will you want to roll that
principle and that target group of women out at a fairly early
date to a much broader group of people?
Phil Hope: There is a total of
£20 million that has been allocated to some of the recommendations
that came out of the Women and Work Commission report, Chair.
Obviously, if a pilot is successful, then we will want to see
ways that we can learn the lessons from that and roll it out more
widely. Obviously, questions of resource come into that, but it
is vital that we get more women coming in to training, and, I
have to say, into non-stereotype, non-gender specific forms of
training, skills and employment. That is part of the real challenge
that we want to make some real progress on.
|
