Written evidence from Chris Stanton, former
Head of Policy for Employment and Skills at Surrey Economic Partnership
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The proposal to replace Regional Development
Agencies with Local Enterprise Boards is broadly welcomed. I cannot
comment on transitional arrangements, timetables or legislative
frameworks that may be necessary but I have three main areas of
concern that I hope the Committee will consider:
— that Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs)
are given powers to set local strategy and enabled in that role
through delegated budgets, local accountability and "light-touch"
government with none of the dithering and inertia which characterised
the proposals to create Employment and Skills Boards following
the Leitch Review of Skills (2006); — that the Coalition
Government will allow only a limited role for LEPs in respect
of transport and infrastructure priorities—while it is right
that LEPs should focus on local needs it is more appropriate for
national leadership on transport infrastructural issues, albeit
informed by consultation with and collaboration between LEPs to
ensure maximum the benefits at sub-regional, regional or national
levels of the economy;
— that LEPs will be given a greater say in
education policy within the local economic context so that the
education system is able to equip young people with the skills
and understanding that they will need to succeed in the workplace—to
this end it is recommended that the Secretaries of State for Business,
Innovation and Skills and Communities and Local Government should
consult with the Secretary of State for Education to create a
new education-into-work vision for the 21st Century: "Education-Enterprise-Economy";
and
— the eventual introduction of a universal
"learning-related work" year as part of secondary education
to ensure that students have a better understanding of the world
of work and can make better, informed choices about GCSE subjects
and their relevance to future career prospects, at the same time
addressing important issues such as disaffection and youth unemployment.
INTRODUCTION
1. I welcome the opportunity to comment
on the proposals before the Select Committee, not least because
from 2008 I had concluded that my work in employment and skills
would have greater effect in the context of a sub-regional economic
focus (in my case Surrey) with the private, public and third sectors
working together, rather than in the regional framework we have
seen since 1997.
2. It is a strange irony that the funding
for my role as Policy Manager for Employment and Skills at Surrey
Economic Partnership should be withdrawn by, of all organisations,
SEEDA—the South East England Development Agency. As a result
I was made redundant on 31 December 2009 and submit these comments
as an economically inactive citizen aged 57 with little to offer
the country, it seems, other than 40 years of experience.
3. This experience has embraced both public
(Education and Health) and private sectors and included work in
a multinational corporation, a small business and as a sole trader—a
distinctive variety of work situations that enables me to speak
with some authority, I believe.
MY LOCAL
ECONOMY (2008-09)
4. In Surrey I consulted with local employers
and established a demand-led employment and skills board along
the lines proposed by Lord Leitch in his 2006 Review of Skills.
I was always quite clear about the potential for a business-led
body whose membership included key players such as the Chambers
of Commerce, Federation of Small Businesses and Institute of Directors
but also large local public sector employers like Surrey County
Council and representatives from Higher and Further Education.
By involving Surrey Community Action I was also able to ensure
that a strong voice for the voluntary, community and faith sectors
was heard. There were other strategic partners as well.
5. My vision for employment and skills in
Surrey required the employment and skills board to:
— Provide strategic direction for employment
and skills policy in Surrey, based on evidence of need among Surrey
employers for skills that will improve productivity in the existing
workforce and ensure that young people are better prepared by
education for life and work.
— Identify, through engagement of employers,
skills gaps that can be filled through suitable existing training
provision or, where none exists, to work with providers and other
partners to create appropriate programmes.
— Facilitate dialogue between all individuals
and organisations engaged in education, skills and/or employment
by promoting best practice to businesses, supporting partners
and training providers and communicating the priorities, activities
and achievements of this partnership to the wider public.
6. As for the deliverables, I identified
the following as priorities:
— engagement of businesses through events,
forums and other media to address key enterprise and skills issues;
— development of employer and entrepreneur
leadership, management and business excellence capabilities;
— promotion of the Business Link brand
and associated services—including focus on higher level
skills needs;
— focus on implementation of national and
regional strategic economic priorities such as R&D, Innovation,
Skills and Sustainability, with particular emphasis on the Gatwick
Diamond and Heathrow influenced parts of Surrey;
— support for integration of public employment
and skills services to tackle the effects of recession, deliver
sustainable employment, address issues of labour supply and enable
more disadvantaged people to gain skills and find work;
— promotion of dialogue and collaboration
between business and education (secondary schools, FE and HE)
and working with Surrey's strategic education partners to deliver
a choice of educational progression routes; and
— supporting the identification of solutions
for NEETs—those not in education, employment or training—complementing
the work of the Childrens Trust, 14-19 strategy group and Local
Area Agreement targets for this priority client group.
7. Most of these deliverables would fit
very well with the economic goals of a Local Enterprise Partnership.
Sadly I was unable to see this to fruition, partly because of
my own redundancy when funding was withdrawn but largely because
of Government inertia following the Leitch recommendations for
demand-led employment and skills boards. The debate within the
ailing Labour Government over delegated powers and budgets for
employment and skills boards favoured the City Region model so
Surrey's board—perfectly formed though it may have been—lacked
both money and teeth. Consequently it also lacked an identity
and a diminished role in the eyes of the local employers who had
contributed to its formation.
RECOMMENDATION 1
Government inertia, whether within the Civil
Service or among Ministers, causes lasting damage to business
trust and commitment. It is important that Local Enterprise Partnerships
(LEPs) are given powers to set local strategy and enabled in that
role through delegated budgets. Like Employment and Skills Boards,
they offer great potential but they must be allowed to deliver.
THE FUTURE
ECONOMY UNDER
LOCAL ENTERPRISE
PARTNERSHIPS
8. The Coalition Government has very difficult
choices to make and I am not qualified to comment on the aims
of the new Regional Growth Fund in respect of regions beyond the
South East where my working career has been based. While the South
East has been described by some as the engine room of the UK economy
I would argue that at a sub-regional level Surrey could make a
good claim to be the gearbox.
9. However, the importance of our local
contributions to UK plc have, historically, been at best understated
and at worst ignored. Surrey is perceived as a prosperous county
with no problems, yet within its towns there are extremes of poverty
and affluence sitting side by side.
10. Such iniquities are best tackled in
future at local level and I see LEPs as the means to achieve this.
Links between LEPs are also important and cross-boundary collaboration
was something that worked well for me and my five counterparts
in the SE region as we tried to implement the Leitch recommendations
for employment and skills boards in the absence of real Government
interest or RDA commitment. The south east consists of a variety
of economic extremes, ranging from the high-tech, high-growth
industries around Oxford and the M4 corridor to the depressed
areas of Thanet or the Isle of Wight. Whilst each area will be
aware of its own economic strengths there will be some issues
such as transport infrastructure that may require a more strategic
approach. Knowing how long it has taken to get the A3 Hindhead
Tunnel built I am sure that other much-needed routes (eg Dover-Southampton)
would benefit from national leadership by Ministers, imposing
decisions on local communities if the national interest will be
better served by so doing.
RECOMMENDATION 2
The letter dated 29 June 2010 that was sent
to Local Authority Leaders and Business Leaders jointly by the
Secretaries of State for Business, Innovation and Skills and Communities
and Local Government should allow only a limited role for LEPs
in deciding transport and infrastructure priorities—LEPs
should of course focus on local needs but there is an important
role for national leadership, informed by consultation and collaboration
between LEPs to ensure maximum benefit at sub-regional, regional
or national levels of the economy. If necessary, decisions should
be imposed if these are deemed to better serve the national interest.
LOCAL AUTHORITIES
ALSO DELIVER
EDUCATION
11. The main reason for making this personal
submission to the Select Committee is to ensure that the opportunity
to promote dialogue and collaboration between business and education
(secondary schools, FE and HE) is made the most of.
12. As a secondary school governor with
a special interest in the curriculum and careers guidance I am
saddened that the separation of education and the world of work
still continues when, in my view, learning should be seen as a
continuum that begins in the early years and ends around retirement.
13. The employment and skills strategy that
I produced for Surrey, embracing all the bullet points shown above,
was entitled Education-Enterprise-Economy as a deliberate re-working
of Tony Blair's education mantra with which New Labour came to
power in 1997. I am not convinced—and nor are many employers
that I have spoken to—that our education system is equipping
young people with the skills and understanding that they will
need to succeed in the workplace. For this reason I would hope
to see LEPs having a greater say in education policy within the
local economic context. That may mean adopting or facilitating
the move towards the new Academies or Free Schools but equally
it may not—and I think it is wrong for the Secretary of
State for Education to be pushing ahead with such a potentially
huge change to the education system without proper consultation
of all those with an interest, especially parents and teachers.
14. Laying aside the political rights or
wrongs of the Coalition Government's education policy I think
national priorities need to be entrusted to local communities,
with LEPs drawing on the combined strengths and talents of local
education authorities (County or Unitary) and their business and
community partners. It is time to move away from the notion that
education "ends" at age 16, 18 or 21 to be replaced
by a "career"—instead, I hope that LEPs will be
able to demonstrate radically different thinking and provide innovative
leadership that recognises and emphasises the contribution of
mainstream education (not just FE/HE) to a successful and vibrant
economy, locally and nationally.
RECOMMENDATION 3
Bearing in mind the aims of the afore-mentioned
Surrey employment and skills strategy Education-Enterprise-Economy
the Secretaries of State for Business, Innovation and Skills and
Communities and Local Government should consult with the Secretary
of State for Education to ensure that lifelong learning is properly
organised as a continual progression by each individual which
enables them to fulfil their potential as productive and economically
active citizens. (NB: I have found widespread support for a proposal
to pause education for one year at age 15 (Year 10 in secondary
schools) so that students can experience "learning-related
work" and commit themselves to GCSE study choices having
had some experience of the workplace on which to make those choices.
Such a scheme would have the added benefit of allowing some young
people to stay in the workplace if they feel that education does
not work for them. On the other hand, such disaffection may be
minimised or removed altogether if the individual has a better
understanding of the world of work and is motivated through that
experience to return to education and complete their studies in
new Years 11-14).
13 August 2010
| 
