Conclusions and recommendations
A welcome policy focus on skills
1. The
publication of the two Skills Strategy White Papers, the Further
Education White Paper, and the commissioning of the Leitch Report
represent a heightened policy interest in skills. The Committee
commends the Government for its sustained focus on this area.
It is imperative that in the new Departmental structure, skills
policy remains a central concern and that higher education is
not allowed to dominate. A premium should also be placed on joined-up
working between the Department for Children, Schools and Families
and the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills, particularly
considering that overall 14-19 policy and funding falls within
the remit of the former, but apprenticeship funding will sit with
the latter. (Paragraph 6)
The National Skills Strategy and the Leitch Report
2. The
relationship between skills and prosperity is more complex than
is acknowledged in recent skills strategy documents or in the
Leitch Report. Proceeding down a policy route which treats skills
as an 'independent variable' is unlikely to lead to the hoped
for levels of economic prosperity and sustainability. What is
urgently needed is support for employers to develop their businesses
as a whole, addressing skills needs alongside wider sustainability
issues such as capital investment, innovation and workforce planning.
Colleges and other providers should be further encouraged to develop
more comprehensive support for their local businesses. Also needed
is a stronger focus on developing management skills per se—an
area our witnesses have identified as particularly weak in the
UK and largely neglected to date in policy. (Paragraph 8)
3. The targeting of
funding on particular kinds of full qualification-bearing courses
makes it difficult for providers to offer the kinds of learning
employers often say they want. While there may be clear reasons
for maintaining a commitment to well-defined qualification-bearing
courses—not least issues of quality and portability for
employees—a more flexible way of targeting funding is needed
urgently, allowing the accumulation of 'bite-sized' learning which
can be built up into a portfolio over time. In this respect, the
move toward a credit-based system is very welcome and should
be accompanied by parallel changes in terms of what is fundable.
(Paragraph 11)
4. Predicting skills
needs to 2020 is not a simple task—some would argue it is
impossible to do with any degree of accuracy. It is imperative
that policy decisions taken on the basis of the Leitch analysis
are sufficiently flexible to accommodate a wide variety of skills
requirements that are present at local and sectoral levels. Also,
if the decision is taken to refocus in the long-term on level
three, the rights of individuals who are still a very long way
from this point must be protected, and the temptation to achieve
'quick wins' by rapidly 'qualifying' those near the threshold
must be avoided. (Paragraph 15)
5. The Government
should also look urgently at the practicalities of introducing
more provision at levels three and four, especially in light of
evidence from London and the South East on the difficulties of
establishing an acceptable level of cost-sharing between employers,
individuals and the state. There also needs to be a recognition
of the need for closer working at the regional and sub-regional
levels with Regional Development Agencies, in order for differing
local priorities to be met, and further devolution of funding
to ensure sufficient flexibility to meet local needs. (Paragraph
16)
6. We believe the
Government's promise to maintain current levels of expenditure
on personal and community development learning, and on other 'first-step',
non-qualification-bearing provision, falls far short of what is
required and will do nothing to redress the recent substantial
fall in the number of adults learning. We are particularly concerned
about the potential negative impact on the most disadvantaged
individuals, including disabled people and those with the very
lowest level of skills. There needs to be an urgent review of
how to best support the development of soft and enabling skills
for older learners. This is important in promoting equity and
equality, facilitating progression, and meeting the demanding
targets Leitch and others have identified for 2020. The demographic
situation is such that adult learning and up-skilling will be
a very important means of meeting these targets. (Paragraph 18)
7. One of the unintended
consequences of level two targets appears to have been a contraction
of ESOL provision in some areas; the new funding rules for September
2007 risk putting ESOL classes beyond the reach of some other
individuals. This is deeply concerning and we urge the Government
to review the funding arrangements for ESOL as a matter of urgency.
(Paragraph 19)
The skills 'system'
8. We
accept that a degree of organisational complexity in the skills
system is unavoidable, but there is still work to be done to reduce
overlaps between different bodies, and tackling the resulting
inefficiency and duplication of effort. While the Leitch Report
has addressed this issue in part, we believe there would be merit
in a more comprehensive review to map functions and funding flows
across agencies, along with a value-for-money analysis. This need
not necessarily pave the way for further major institutional upheaval,
but could assist in the process of making incremental, evidence-based
improvements and releasing money over a period of time to tackle
skill needs more effectively. (Paragraph 23)
9. We are deeply concerned
by some of the evidence we have received on Train to Gain brokerage,
which raises questions about quality and suggests that in some
cases brokers may be succeeding only in adding an extra, unwelcome,
layer of bureaucracy to the process. We are also concerned that
much of what is being funded under Train to Gain might otherwise
be paid for by employers. The fact that key partners—including
some colleges—appear unconvinced by the substantial reliance
on the Train to Gain model should serve as a strong warning sign
that changes may be required. It is not clear how brokers assist
in the process of developing close and sustainable relationships
between providers and their local businesses. These types of relationships
are likely to be vital for raising skills levels in local communities
and while Train to Gain clearly has a role to play, any tendency
to depict the scheme as the main means of engaging with businesses
should be resisted. (Paragraph 25)
10. As we noted earlier,
it is crucial that funding of the skills 'infrastructure'—including
brokers—is carefully targeted and demonstrably adding value.
The Government and the LSC need to make explicit the criteria
by which they are assessing the work of Train to Gain brokers,
and ensure there is adequate training in place for brokers to
maximise their effectiveness. We also consider that progress on
reducing bureaucracy and paperwork accompanying the sign-up and
monitoring of new learners needs to be significantly accelerated.
(Paragraph 26)
11. Our evidence suggests
that finding one's way around the skills system is often far from
straightforward; comprehensive Information, Advice and Guidance
(IAG) is vitally important, but currently many people have little
or no access to it. We therefore warmly welcome the Leitch Report's
proposals to improve the system of adult IAG, through the Learndirect
brand, and the Government's response to it. This is the most recent
in a very long line of reports that have identified significant
weaknesses in the IAG system and so it is essential that the Government
now moves quickly toward implementation. The Union Learning Representative
system also deserves continued support, in recognition of its
crucial role in liaising with employers, signposting, and encouraging
employees in the workplace, and, if effectively linked in, could
play a crucial role in the remodelled and expanded IAG service.
(Paragraph 29)
A demand-led and employer-led system?
12. The
Government aspires to a 'demand-led' skills system. While mechanisms
for making the system more employer-facing such as Train to Gain
are welcome in principle, they cannot unconditionally be described
as 'demand-led', given the strict constraints on what is currently
fundable. Also at issue is raising, as well as responding to,
demand from employers and individuals—and the early experiences
of the level three Train to Gain pilots appear to demonstrate
the challenges inherent in this. (Paragraph 33)
13. Sector Skills
Councils face real challenges in representing the views and needs
of very diverse sectors, and of small and medium-sized employers
in particular. As such, they are unlikely to serve as an alternative
to direct engagement between providers and businesses at the local
level; this must be the subject of continued and coherent support
from Government. We received some evidence that Sector Skills
Councils were sometimes struggling to maintain engagement locally
and regionally. If they are to have credibility with employers,
Sector Skills Councils must be appropriately resourced to do their
jobs rather than having to spend significant amounts of time on
peripheral revenue-raising activities. This is especially true
as they take on the extra responsibilities which Leitch proposed
for them. (Paragraph 36)
14. We see an inherent
risk that requiring Sector Skills Councils to sign off vocational
qualifications could actually act to make the system more bureaucratic
and consequently less responsive to employer needs. The Government
should lay out how this process is likely to work in practice,
and the timescales involved. We also urge the new Commission for
Employment and Skills to keep this area under review. (Paragraph
37)
15. We recommend that
the Innovation, Universities and Skills Committee continues on
our inquiry, taking concluding oral evidence as necessary, and
producing a report focusing on issues not covered in depth to
date, including: Apprenticeships, including adult apprenticeships;
up-skilling and re-skilling of adults in general; the regional
dimensions of skills policy; in-house company training schemes;
funding of skills provision; and policy on the development of
management skills. (Paragraph 38)
| 
