Memorandum submitted by ConstructionSkills
ConstructionSkills is pleased to submit evidence
to the Committee's inquiry into the role and remit of the Skills
Funding Agency.
As the industry training board and the sector
skills council for the construction industry, we have an informed
perspective on the role of the new agency. Therefore we have responded
briefly to each specific area you set out in the inquiry remit.
Transitional arrangements currently in place between
the LSC and the Skills Funding Agency (including legacy issues)
Over the years, ConstructionSkills has worked
well with the Learning Skills Council. The funding crisis, which
came in 2009, has caused some problems with regard to financing
issues. However, there are lessons that the Skills Funding Agency
needs to learn and address with some urgency. These include:
— Getting to grips with providing up-to-date
information on the outcomes from investment in the further education
sector so that it is easier to judge if money is well spent and
if some programmes run under the "apprenticeship" badge
are really employer based—as opposed to training provider
driven.
— The Compact with sectors where there
was a reluctance to be really radical in developing joint investment
plans aimed at raising skills levels. On numerous occasions, we
were asked to submit evidence on how we would manage this, but
none of the suggestions that were made were accepted, rather the
decision making process seemed overly complex and it was unclear
who ultimately made the decisions.
— Capital investment where the construction
industry and our own college were badly let down by the mismanagement
of this fund.
— Readiness to respond to Sector Skills
Council initiatives and interventions to support the industry
during the economic downturn and prevent the creation of the next
generation of NEET.
In your call for evidence you specifically ask
for examples of "legacy issues surrounding funding problems
experienced by the LSC in respect of its management of the capital
programme". The case of our main construction college in
Norfolk, which we set out below, is a good example of the way
in which our organisation worked with the LSC in our attempt to
ensure that agreed funding was delivered.
Since then we have worked with the LSC through
the funding crisis as it moves towards its new status as the Skills
Funding Agency.
The transitional arrangements per se have not
been responsible for our difficulties but we nevertheless feel
that we have a stake in a strengthened new agency.
We would be happy to elaborate on the experience
for the Committee if necessary.
National Construction College (NCC East)
NCC East is the direct training arm of ConstructionSkills.
The College plays a key role by delivering over 150 courses
in highly specialist skills to support the construction industry.
Nationally, no other college is capable of providing the facilities,
space, specialist equipment and teaching expertise to deliver
this type of training. NCC East is also the country's foremost
training provider of specialist apprentices, typically training
the majority of the 700 apprentices a year for which the
NCC is responsible.
Our industry stakeholders are agreed that this
70 year old former RAF base was in need of a major infrastructure
overall if it was to continue to prepare young trainees for the
world of work in the industry and comply with safeguarding regulations.
In addition the redeveloped NCC East campus, when completed, was
to act as the National Skills Academy for Construction (NSAfC)
National Specialist Training Hub.
NCC East is a unique institution, offering a
diverse range of training and courses that cannot be equalled
anywhere in the UK. The College delivers training to 30,000 students
a year to support the construction industry. If NCC East were
forced to close, not only would students in Norfolk suffer; the
UK construction industry would lose one of its most valuable and
productive colleges.
Moreover, NCC East is also the country's foremost
training provider of specialist apprentices, typically training
the majority of the 700 apprentices a year for which the
NCC is responsible. We were clear that at a time when the Government
is publically reaffirming its commitment to support apprenticeships
and the skills agenda more generally, a failure to support NCC
East would undermine both the further education sector and industry
leaders who support and invest in apprentices.
Background to our bid
— Back in early 2009 Sir Andrew Foster's
independent review of the Learning and Skills Council (LSC)'s
Further Education Capital Programme listed the NCC redevelopment
project as one of the 79 projects which received approval
in principle from the LSC.
— The National Construction College (NCC)
East project met the LSC's value criteria by delivering a unique
package of national and industry-based benefits as well as helping
to support the local and regional economy.
— The project also met all the LSC's "readiness
to start building" criteria—with full planning permission,
a strong design team, detailed build designs and all other funding
sources in place for a planned start on site of Autumn 2009.
— Planning and design for the NCC redevelopment
project was at an advanced stage. The College had received full
planning permission for the detailed design and was able to submit
its Application in Detail to the LSC in June 2008 [CHECK]—along
with the economic, education, property and social case for the
project.
— The remainder of funding—outside
the LSC's contribution—was in place and included funds already
set aside by the NCC from prior land sales and grant money from
the East of England Development Agency (EEDA).
— The final bid funding requirement from
the LSC was for capital funding of approximately £21 million.
— The College was then entirely caught
up in the funding crisis—our bid was put on hold indefinitely.
We fought hard for the future of the College
over the intervening months and, despite being repeatedly knocked
back, we have no other option but to agree to an interim package
of staged funding of £2.03 million from the National
Skills Academy bid—this amount allows us to unlock £2 million
in matched funding from the East of England Development Agency
(EEDA) and another £2 million from the industry to enable
the first stage of the project to go ahead.
Legacy issues
Our engagement with the LSC has shown that there
needs to be a more nuanced understanding of the FE sector—not
all colleges are the same. We recognise that our example is very
industry specific but it is worth stating that we want to the
new agency to understand that:
— Whilst we want to be included in the
FE agenda we are significantly different. For example we cannot
borrow money like other FE colleges and our training ratios and
space requirements do not fit the FE model (a good example here
is plant operative training, which requires significant practical
training areas and has instructor to learner ratios of 1-4, along
with high capital investment costs).
— Our training is, therefore, more expensive
and revenue funding needs to increase in order to pay for the
full cost of the training we deliver plus accommodation, catering,
travel, welfare etc
— One of our strengths is our contact with
employers and making connections to jobs. At the moment we are
penalised for this because of an "industry should pay"
mentality.
We are, of course, very pleased that we have
been able to move forward and secure even a very minimal amount
of funding to make good some of the key areas of the College.
That said we will want to work very closely with the new SFA to
ensure that the future of the College is secured for the long
term. We were very close, we feel, to losing a very valuable national
institution and we want to ensure that the new body really understands
what is at stake for the construction industry should the College
be neglected.
How the Skills Funding Agency will oversee the
FE budget through its relationship with the UK Commission for
Employment and Skills, the National Employer Services and the
National Apprenticeship Service
Greater consideration needs to be put into how
learners can progress from FE into Higher Education. Thought needs
to be given to the potential of better aligning FE and HE funding
streams to help providers and learners alike. The current separate
HE framework and funding councils make it difficult to deliver
programmes involving NVQs and foundation degrees.
There is a need to better consider how volumes
of learners on each qualification can be planned. ConstructionSkills
has been concerned for some time over the mismatch between NVQ
Level 1 starts and progression to NVQ Level 2. Providers
must profile learners correctly and put them straight onto a Level
they can genuinely achieve. Unnecessary achievement of a lower
level qualification is an abuse of the funding system and should
not be allowed. There is also need to ensure that funding is available
for specialist occupations that will have a small qualification
population take up. There is currently pressure to get rid of
qualifications with low take up rates but which are essential
to our industry. ConstructionSkills is currently working with
all relevant stakeholders to align its LMI information to supply
side data in order to be able to provide robust information on
volumes and priority qualifications.
Careful consideration is required around how
the new Qualifications and Credit Framework will be funded. The
funding methodology must encourage the achievement of full qualifications
that reflect employer's skills requirements. ConstructionSkills
has lobbied hard to retain NVQs within the QCF. These qualifications
have been designed by our employers and reflect full occupational
competence and the QCF funding methodology should encourage and
allow for their achievement.
The delivery role that is envisaged for local
authorities and the RDAs
There is a need to strengthen the role of the
employer led sector bodies, alongside moves to devolve responsibilities
to Local Authorities and City Regions. This will reduce the risk
of confusing employers and will make the system more cost efficient.
This is particularly important in sectors, like construction where
their employers and their labour work in highly mobile teams across
national and local borders.
In these financially constrained times, we believe
that we must support employers and encourage them to invest more
of their own resources in training and ensure that the public
investment is concentrated on where it can have most impact. In
the regions, Local Authorities and RDAs need to look for opportunities
to co-finance training to support areas such as future skills
via company supply chains, rather than ploughing funds into courses
that do not lead to employment and are potentially oversubscribed.
We believe that the National Apprenticeship
Service, SFA and the YPA need to work with bodies such as ConstructionSkills
and Local Authorities/RDAs to ensure there is a coherent approach
to agreeing the volume of apprentices that will be funded across
England. We are responding by ensuring we have data available
at regional level looking at the demand for skills. We are also
developing our capacity to analyse supply side data. We need to
ensure that there is a proper and meaningful dialogue about what
this means for investment in our sector. It will not help employers
or individuals if we do not try and get the demand and supply
side as well matched as possible.
The new Skills Funding Agency also provides
the opportunity to address the problems caused by the differential
funding for those aged 19+. Many specialist apprenticeships require
people above the age of 19 but the funding rates make it
uneconomic for employers to take on apprentices.
Our Board strongly advocated raising the rates
for those aged 19 and 20 so that we are able to support
both employers and the growing number of young people that becoming
NEET (the lost generation).
There are also lessons that we can learn from
the devolved nations who seem to have less layers of bureaucracy
and are more agile in responding to employers needs. A useful
example is the Proact and React Schemes in Wales. In Scotland,
the Scottish Government reduced bureaucracy by creating Skills
Development Scotland (SDS). SDS brings together the skills elements
of Scottish Enterprise and Highlands & Islands Enterprise
allowing these organisations to concentrate on business growth.
It also included Careers Scotland and LearnDirect Scotland in
one body which gives a one stop shop for all skills issues. The
same approach was also used in Wales where the two main Funding
bodies were Dcells and/DE and T are assembly bodies, rather than
being an outside organisation.
Indeed, in Scotland, ConstructionSkills has
been influential in the creation of funding initiatives through
SDS under the ScotAction programmes. The current programmes give
policy levers to the Scottish Government to provide funding for
the necessary skills for employment, incorporating employer's
needs, and this has had an impact on the supply side of the employment
equation.
11 January 2010
| 
