CONTENTS

Memorandum 1: Note of meeting held by Gordon Marsden MPMemorandum 2: Submission from the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills, with input from the Departments for Communities and Local Government, Children, Schools and Families, Work and Pensions, and from the Learning and Skills CouncilMemorandum 3: Submission from the University of SheffieldMemorandum 4: Submission from Research Councils UK (RCUK)Memorandum 5: Submission from the Royal Academy of EngineeringMemorandum 6: Submission from the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry (ABPI)AnnexMemorandum 7: Submission from the Learning and Skills Council (LSC)Annex 1 Targets and ImpactMemorandum 8: Submission from EEFMemorandum 9: Submission from the 157 GroupMemorandum 10: Submission from the Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management Memorandum 11: Submission from the Engineering Professors' CouncilMemorandum 12: Submission from Skill: National Bureau for Students with DisabilitiesMemorandum 13: Submission from the Institution of Chemical EngineersMemorandum 14: Submission from the Association of Accounting TechniciansMemorandum 15: Submission from the Open College Network, Yorkshire and Humber RegionMemorandum 16: Submission from Energy & Utility SkillsMemorandum 17: Submission from the City & Guilds Centre for Skills DevelopmentMemorandum 18: Submission from the Association for NutritionMemorandum 19: Submission from the Alliance Employment & Skills Board Memorandum 20: Submission from the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE)Memorandum 21: Submission from UfiMemorandum 22: Submission from CRAC: The Career Development OrganisationMemorandum 23: Submission from the Council for the Mathematical Sciences (CMS) Memorandum 24: Submission from the University of Hertfordshire and Oaklands College (CMS)Memorandum 25: Submission from the Council for Industry and Higher Education (CIHE)Memorandum 26: Submission from the Humanities Subject Centres of the Higher Education AcademyMemorandum 27: Submission from the University of Central LancashireMemorandum 28: Submission from YWCA England and WalesMemorandum 29: Submission from the Academy for Sustainable CommunitiesAnnex AAfter Leitch: Implementing Skills and Training PoliciesMemorandum 30: Submission from the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD)Memorandum 31: Submission from SemtaMemorandum 32: Submission from the Open UniversityMemorandum 33: Submission from the Entertainment and Leisure Software Publishers Association (ELSPA)Memorandum 34: Submission from Age ConcernMemorandum 35: Submission from the Lifelong Learning Networks in the Yorkshire and Humber RegionMemorandum 36: Submission from the Regional Development Agencies (RDAs)Memorandum 37: Submission from Million+Memorandum 38: Submission from UNITE and Civil Service Pensioners' Alliance (CSPA)Memorandum 39: Submission from GoSkillsMemorandum 40: Submission from the Centre for Enterprise (CFE)Memorandum 41: Submission from the National Institute of Adult Continuing Education (NIACE)Memorandum 42: Submission from Birkbeck College, University of LondonMemorandum 43: Submission from Lifelong Learning UK (LLUK)Memorandum 44: Submission from the Association for Science EducationMemorandum 45: Submission from Skillset Executive Summary AppendixMemorandum 46: Submission from the Association of Colleges (AoC)College Success RatesMemorandum 47: Submission from Universities UKMemorandum 48: Submission from Barry Johnson, Learning Partners LtdMemorandum 49: Submission from the Design Council

Memorandum 50: Submission from ConstructionSkillsAnnex 1The Sector Skills Council for ConstructionMemorandum 51: Submission from the Equality and Human Rights CommissionAnnex 1Skills issues and challenges for particular groups Memorandum 52: Submission from the Alliance of Sector Skills CouncilsMemorandum 53: Submission from the Federation of Small Businesses (FSB)Memorandum 54: Submission from Yorkshire ForwardMemorandum 55: Submission from Rolls-RoyceMemorandum 56: Supplementary evidence from Dr Roger Bennett, Principal, North Lindsey College following oral evidence session on 14 May 2008Memorandum 57: Submission from TUCMemorandum 58: Submission from Unite the Union Memorandum 59: Submission from NUSMemorandum 60: Supplementary submission from the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE)Memorandum 61: Supplementary evidence from Million+Memorandum 62: Submission from Electronics YorkshireMemorandum 63: Supplementary evidence from the Alliance Employment & Skills Board following oral evidence session on 25 June 2008Memorandum 64: Supplementary evidence from the Alliance Employment and Skills Board following the evidence session on Wednesday 25 June 2008Memorandum 65: Submission from the UK Commission for Employment and SkillsMemorandum 66: Updated submission from the GovernmentMemorandum 67: Letter from Lord Young of Norwood Green, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Skills and ApprenticeshipsMemorandum 68: Supplementary submission from the Higher Education Funding Council for EnglandMemorandum 69: Supplementary evidence from the Government following the evidence session on Wednesday 8 October 2008Memorandum 70: Submission from Kevin O'Leary, Education Management Consultant

Memorandum 1

Note of meeting held by Gordon Marsden MP

REPORT BY GORDON MARSDEN MP ON SATELITE MEETING IN WARRINGTON IUSSC 3 OCTOBER 2008 “AFTER LEITCH"

WARRINGTON BUSINESS SCHOOL

PRESENT:

@UL@Gordon Marsden MP (GM)@/UL@

@UL@Chris Webb—Office of Gordon Marsden@/UL@

@UL@Alison Hill—Minute-taker@/UL@

WITNESSES:

@UL@— Dr Lis Smith—North West Development Agency@/UL@

@UL@— Kevin Bonnett—Deputy Vice-Chancellor, Manchester Metropolitan University@/UL@

@UL@— Keith Burnley—Executive Director, North West Universities Association@/UL@

@UL@— Tricia Hartley—Director, Campaign for Learning@/UL@

@UL@— David Brennan—LSC, Regional Skills Director@/UL@

@UL@— Jaine Chisholm Caunt—Stakeholder & Policy Director, Cogent Sector Skills Council@/UL@

@UL@— Pat Bacon—Principal, St Helens College@/UL@

@UL@— Moira Tattersall—Principal, Carlisle College@/UL@

@UL@— Susannah Tyson—Assistant Principal, Warrington Business School@/UL@

@UL@— Mark Currie—Managing Director, Manchester Training@/UL@INTRODUCTION

Gordon Marsden welcomed everyone to the IUSSC Session

The first evidence session of the After Leitch Inquiry was launched in Leeds on 14 May 2008—with a range of regional contributions from Yorkshire and Humberside—members had agreed that this regional input had been very informative and to take views from other regions before the final evidence Select Committee on Wednesday 8 October 2008. This North-West session was designed to facilitate this.

FIRST SESSION1. Developments in the Skills Agenda in the NW

Gordon Marsden opened, outlining some key findings of Leitch:

@UL@— 95% of adults to achieve basic skills of functional literacy and numeracy.@/UL@

@UL@— Shifting the balance of intermediate skills from Level 2 to Level 3.@/UL@

@UL@— Exceeding 40% of adults qualified to Level 4 and above, with a commitment to continue progression.@/UL@

GM then asked—what has changed since the interim of Leitch in the planning and delivery of skills in this region?

David Brennan commented on the process changes:

@UL@— Planning is more about an efficiency to respond to employer demand.@/UL@

@UL@— In practice, there has been a large shift in the delivery at level 2 and first full level 2 qualifications.@/UL@

@UL@— Provider base has a good record of engaging with employers, this is in part due to the Employer Training Pilots in Lancashire and Manchester.@/UL@

@UL@— North-West region has highest numbers of traditional apprenticeships.@/UL@

@UL@— Train to Gain (T2G) came in part to build on the above.@/UL@

Mark Currie:

@UL@— Huge targets set for T2G—with no real chance of reaching it.@/UL@

@UL@— T2G target will not be met this year.@/UL@

@UL@— In the last round a lot of new providers with no experience of delivering NVQs—this is “diluting the quality".@/UL@

Susannah Tyson queried:

@UL@— How are providers getting away with this, as the level of audit is extremely high?@/UL@

Mark Currie:

@UL@— “There is evidence of one provider delivering an NVQ in a day"—are such deliveries only about recognising skills already in the workplace.@/UL@

@UL@— 2003—40% of providers achieved Grade 4.@/UL@

@UL@— To achieve targets LSC is under pressure to increase provider base.@/UL@

Pat Bacon:

@UL@— Leitch was about improving learning, not providing them with a certificate for something that they already have.@/UL@

@UL@— Need to better address the balance of the individual's need.@/UL@

@UL@— A best practice example is The SkillWorks Programme (funded through ESF) delivered in Merseyside offering independent advice and guidance on training interventions that address a company's training needs and helps to find the most appropriate provider. There's up to 60% funding towards the training costs.@/UL@

@UL@— We are in danger of losing the balance between skills and qualifications.@/UL@

Tricia Hartley:

@UL@— We have to distinguish between skills and qualifications and clarify what the individual wants.@/UL@

Lis Smith:

@UL@— Leitch talks about levels with a broad vision—”but the PSA targets that civil servants have drafted are too mechanistic".@/UL@

@UL@— PSA targets have got translated into qualifications as they are measurable.@/UL@

@UL@— How do we measure skills in a robust and consistent way.@/UL@

Moira Tattershall:

@UL@— “I am not so worried about variation across private providers|"@/UL@

@UL@— Poor Providers will be exposed eventually.@/UL@

@UL@— Evidence that NVQs are being operated as a tick box activity by some providers and employers being offered financial reward/incentives.@/UL@

GM asked about Skills Infrastructure—Is it too complicated? Do we need a regional dimension.

Lis Smith:

@UL@— We have to differentiate between economic demand and Social Inclusion.@/UL@

@UL@— The Regional Employment Strategy provides a clear strategy to grow the regional economy.@/UL@

@UL@— Loss of a regional influence would remove the key drivers for Innovation and Enterprise.@/UL@

@UL@— Important to have a clear understanding of the difference between delivery and strategic influence—”do local labour markets see the big picture."@/UL@

Pat Bacon:

@UL@— NW has a strong purpose of place and of the need to raise our game over skills training.@/UL@

@UL@— Basic skills—best place for delivery is community/local/workplace.@/UL@

@UL@— Intermediate skills—11% of the HE places delivered in FE working with HE partners in and out of the region, including international ones.@/UL@

@UL@— International—there is interest in the internationally competency based system delivered through NVQs.@/UL@

Jaine Chisholm Caunt:

@UL@— Leitch is a UK challenge not just an England challenge. How do we deliver at a UK level for employers?@/UL@

@UL@— Cogent SSC has to operate across all the nations and regions—”this is an incredibly complicated landscape".@/UL@

@UL@— Do all the priorities across the nine regions add up to the England priorities?@/UL@

Mark Currie:

@UL@— “In the logistics sector, where I specialise we plan on a regional basis, using local providers."@/UL@

@UL@— Good connectivity with Trade Associations, SSC and RDA for planning on a regional basis.@/UL@

Keith Burley:

@UL@— The key question is how and where do we turn strategy into delivery?@/UL@

Dave Brennan:

@UL@— Regional Skills and Employment Board would talk about linking need and opportunity and linking to the worklessness agenda.@/UL@

@UL@— “What is the reality on the ground?"@/UL@

@UL@— “Sub-regional approaches can be appropriate as they often mirror travel to work areas".@/UL@

Pat Bacon:

@UL@— Some issues such as NEET hotspots and graduate retention are local issues for Merseyside but may not be priorities for the region.@/UL@

@UL@— Geographical areas—we at St. Helens attract students from a wider area than the sub region, in which location, reputation and travel time play a key part.@/UL@

Moira Tattershall:

@UL@— Discussion over Regional Assemblies caused much adverse discussion and debate in Cumbria but the regional structure of skills has worked well for Cumbria and has made a big difference—”We now see ourselves as part of a bigger pattern".@/UL@

2. Co-operation in the Northwest

GM asked—Are there too many bodies involved?

Are the under employed under represented?

How will the new sub-regional bodies on Employment and skills fit into the picture?

Lis Smith:

@UL@— Skills and Employment Boards—at sub regional they are there for a variety of reasons. Liverpool and Manchester are built on the City Employment Strategies which have a emphasis to get individuals into employment supporting worklessness—”it is very much a bottom-up approach."@/UL@

@UL@— Cheshire and Warrington SEB is an Economic Alliance.@/UL@

@UL@— In the region we have five difference models, which demonstrates that one model does not work for all circumstances.@/UL@

@UL@— SEBs must address Innovation, Enterprise and Social Inclusion.@/UL@

@UL@— The sub regional SEBs have a connection to the RSEB.@/UL@

@UL@— How do they fit with the Commission?@/UL@

@UL@— Limited information has been circulated about the Skills Funding Agency and the implications at regional level. There is a feeling that this is being worked up behind closed doors.@/UL@

What is the outcome? Drive up— InnovationEnterpriseSocial Capital

Kevin Bonnett:

@UL@— We do find ways to co-operate, in Greater Manchester is this done through the Greater Manchester Strategic Alliance.@/UL@

@UL@— Challenge for us all is “learning needs to be flexible".@/UL@

@UL@— Lifelong professional learning, must be responsive to employers needs.@/UL@

@UL@— A warning—”How many jobless people may come into the highly qualified skills/qualifications area post-credit crunch".@/UL@

Tricia Hartley:

@UL@— Some individuals may be excited by provision at level 3/4, rather than assuming a start at level 1 how we engage?@/UL@

@UL@— Linking funding pots together is really important and is starting to work—and is getting people into work, time must allowed for this to embed.@/UL@

@UL@— Leitch has to keep a strong social inclusion focus.@/UL@

Jaine Chisholm Caunt:

@UL@— Alliance for SSC working closely with RDA and LSC and will play an important role.@/UL@

@UL@— There is a tendency to see learners in groups such as NEET, 14-19 rather than looking to individual needs—concerns about how the National Apprenticeship Service will work in the regions.@/UL@

3. Plans, Targets & Apprenticeships

GM asked if Leitch targets are achievable in the North West?

Dave Brennan:

@UL@— Level 2 targets are achievable.@/UL@

@UL@— Level 4 targets are very challenging, HE will need to develop different ways of engaging with those in the workplace, but “Leitch is consistent with NWDA projections".@/UL@

On Volume of Apprenticeships

@UL@— The demand from individuals is in line with Leitch, but demand from employers is not consistent with Leitch targets.@/UL@

GM asked, how do we drive up demand from employers?

Mark Currie:

@UL@— Its always difficult to recruit good employers, this is becoming more difficult in the current climate—”especially on 16-18 apprenticeships".@/UL@

@UL@— No problem recruiting learners.@/UL@

Moira Tattershall:

@UL@— New Apprenticeship Bill—states that the LSC will provide a place for all apprenticeships—”But the LSC simply can't ensure that every apprentice will have an employer."@/UL@

Pat Bacon:

@UL@— “My college at St. Helens is a big deliverer of apprenticeships—600 a year".@/UL@

@UL@— The NHS Cadet programme provides a structured NVQ training along with a series of high quality work placements under an Apprenticeship Framework. It is great that the NHS and Social Care Sectors work to provide practical learning for young people, the programme piloted in the northwest is to become a national model. Students either progress into HE or into the workplace.@/UL@

@UL@— Money cannot be vired across the age groups so if a student, for example, transfers from apprenticeship to FE this is recorded as a failure, even though the individual may succeed on the different route.@/UL@

Jaine Chisholm Caunt:

@UL@— On Cogent Apprenticeship's—in the past the large companies within the Cogent footprint have taken on large numbers of apprenticeships. Cogent have developed a community based apprenticeship programme by bringing together smaller employers together. The LSC has been very supportive and flexible with the funding which has helped this happen.@/UL@

GM asked about sectors not identified as a priority—are they disadvantaged from accessing the system? What is the difference between up-skilling and re-skilling and how do we prioritise.

Lis Smith:

@UL@— Sectors are important to economic growth for different reasons, priority sectors because of their contribution to GVA and the high employment sectors helping people into jobs.@/UL@

@UL@— Where should RDAs intervene? RDA funding should be focused where there is currently no other public money.@/UL@

Re-skilling/Upskilling—Lack of understanding of what is meant by the terms—eg L2/L3 qualifications and definitions.

1st NVQ—more flexibility but a balance between 1st NVQ or re-skilling—very complicated. Culture has shifted. Some individuals want to upskill and some adults are doing this but are not telling their employers as they are scared they will lose their jobs.

If serious about reskilling at higher level—funding for pt students.

Pat Bacon:

@UL@— “There is now greater flexibility on re-skilling funding."@/UL@

Kevin Bonnett:

@UL@— “There remain substantial issues around re-skilling—ELQs could hobble this."@/UL@SECOND SESSION4. Employer Engagement

GM asked, SMEs—are they difficult to engage with? How are you trying to reach employers not already involved on the skills agenda?

Mark Currie:

@UL@— Family owned transport businesses are very open to bringing in young people into the sector, which often is not the case with larger companies, Mark believed that for logistics sector, SMEs were easy to engage with.@/UL@

@UL@— “But other SMEs could find it too difficult—no economies of scale."@/UL@

@UL@— Warehousing companies—more difficult to engage with, getting employers to engage with apprenticeship is difficult and secondly expensive.@/UL@

Jaine Chisholm Caunt:

@UL@— SMEs are generally more difficult to engage—often to do with turnover, size of business, and engaging with them to invest in skills needs is more resource intensive.@/UL@

@UL@— Cogent works with employers through National Skills Academies. The nuclear sector tends to be large business and engagement is excellent. The Process industries sector is made up of smaller companies but the NSA also has excellent engagement from business.@/UL@

@UL@— The Community based apprenticeship has been welcomed by the small businesses but it is resource intensive.@/UL@

Susannah Tyson:

@UL@— SMEs engage with T2G, more difficult to engage with small employers—not efficient for General FE colleges to engage with small numbers. Economies of scale—eg United Utilities, provision delivered in the workplace.@/UL@

@UL@— Process to gain accreditation is long winded and time consuming.@/UL@

@UL@— L&M qualifications currently deliver NVQ 4 and 5 but employers want short, sharp sessions—”Soft skills rather than a full NVQ."@/UL@

@UL@— Soft skills enabling skills. More flexibility in funding, not enough money in T2G—”there ahs been a big issue for colleges with this".@/UL@

@UL@— T2G does allow flexible delivery, over arching course delivered with additional short accredited programmes@/UL@

Mark Currie:

@UL@— How about an option on apprenticeships where Government might fund a first year's wages with the employer taking over in years 2 or 3."@/UL@

@UL@— In this current difficult climate more flexibility, funding of learners wages in year 1 with employers funding future years.@/UL@

Pat Bacon:

@UL@— We can provider tailor-made programmes for employer's but employers' money will not substitute public monies—”our market in St Helens has been muddied by previous Objective 1 and free training money. I see no evidence employers will do more co-funding."@/UL@

@UL@— Colleges are involved in curriculum building, for example an NVQ for management for change, qualification written by St Helens for Jaguar, becomes available for others to use.@/UL@

GM asked about take up of Skills Pledge in the region?

David Brennan:

@UL@— Estimated that the employers covered by Skills Pledges in the region equates to one in eight employers in the Northwest which equates to half a million employees.@/UL@

@UL@— “But the pledge is seen by employers as only matching Level 2 standards and often a PSA by other means."@/UL@

Lis Smith:

@UL@— There have been lost opportunities—is a public Pledge from employers committing to the development of their staff? It has been interpreted as up-skilling employees to level 2 to meet PSA targets rather than exploring the individual's needs.@/UL@

@UL@— Missed opportunity, the SSCs have consulted with employers in the development of their Sector Skills Agreements and the Skills Pledge has not featured in the action plans.@/UL@

Mark Currie:

@UL@— The Skills Pledge is a great opportunity to reach public sector employers as they have made a public commitment to training employees.@/UL@

@UL@— Providers could specialise as Skills Pledge Brokers.@/UL@

@UL@— Link Skills Pledge to other awards such at IiP.@/UL@

5. Higher Education—Further Education

GM asked about how well HE and FE in the North-West interacted with each other and with regional skills partnerships:

Keith Burnley:

@UL@— No regional planning body but examples of good collaboration across the region including the Manchester Strategic Alliance—”Links between HE institutions and FE in North West are very strong."@/UL@

@UL@— The regional has successfully developed and delivered the Higher level Skills Pathfinder, which has included AoC as a steering group member.@/UL@

@UL@— Lifelong Learning networks work with FE and HE partners to increase opportunities in vocational areas for part time and full- time learners to progress to higher education.@/UL@

@UL@— Employer engagement is done via the SSC's with significant collaboration across the region.@/UL@

Kevin Bonnett:

@UL@— “Cheshire FE connections with HE in Greater Manchester/Merseyside particularly important."@/UL@

@UL@— Foundation Degree developed with Tesco which can be used by other retailers.@/UL@

@UL@— We need the curriculum to be flexible and responsive, made to measure provision including bite size learning with the involvement of employers.@/UL@

Tricia Hartley:

@UL@— Relationships with FE/HE is very patchy countrywide. It is good in the NW as people tend to stay, but often based on relationships.@/UL@

@UL@— “Proper signposting of IAG for learners is crucial."@/UL@

Lis Smith:

@UL@— HEFCE—don't have a regional policy, so no regional structure—University Challenge is an example of HEFCE's limited consultation with regional partners, who will be expected to fund the regional initiatives.@/UL@

Dave Brennan:

@UL@— There are problems with HE/FE connections.@/UL@

@UL@— How easy is it to move from L3 to higher level provision.@/UL@

@UL@— No regional planning body at level 4 and the RSEB will only take a view but will not take decisions regarding higher level provision.@/UL@

Pat Bacon:

@UL@— Worked hard at local level to raise awareness of Apprenticeships, government must allow time for initiatives to embed.@/UL@

@UL@— “Key questions—have we got capacity and flexibility—current arrangements can sometimes be destabilising."@/UL@

6. Impact on Students

GM asked about potentially excluded groups?

Tricia Hartley:

@UL@— There remains a fundamental contradiction in Leitch encouraging employer demand led provision versus a requirement to achieve targets.@/UL@

@UL@— “This can mean we don't always touch excluded groups who need to be involved."@/UL@

Lis Smith:

@UL@— “I am more optimistic about our reaching broader learner groups if tackling worklessness is included in the skills strategy."@/UL@@HR25@

Memorandum 2

Submission from the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills, with input from the Departments for Communities and Local Government, Children, Schools and Families, Work

and Pensions, and from the Learning and Skills Council

CONTENTS:@UL@1. Introduction@/UL@

@UL@2. The Government's world class skills ambitions@/UL@

@UL@3. The role of RDAs and the Regions in achieving our skills ambitions@/UL@

@UL@4. Skills Strategy at sub-regional level@/UL@

@UL@5. The roles of the LSC and SSCs@/UL@

@UL@6. The roles and coordination of the FE and HE sectors@/UL@

@UL@7. Summary@/UL@

@UL@Statistical Annex@/UL@1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 The Government welcomes the opportunity to report to the Committee on the progress it has made in realising the world class skills ambition described by Lord Leitch.

1.2 A nation that is able to unlock the talents and get the best out of its people will be able to take on new challenges and harness new opportunities with confidence. And a nation that can help more people to find work, stay in work and progress will be well equipped to succeed. To compete effectively in the global economy we need a workforce with world-class skills, from basic literacy and numeracy through to higher level qualifications. Our vision for the workforce of the future is of one unrivalled in its skills, dynamism, equity and inclusiveness.

1.3 The creation of the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills brings together three closely-linked strands of policy that are critical to determining Britain's future economic and social wellbeing. Britain can only succeed in a changing world if we develop our skills to the fullest possible extent, carry out world-class research, and apply knowledge to create innovative products, services and companies.

1.4 A more highly skilled workforce tends to be a more productive workforce, better able to innovate, and adapt to and maximize the impact of new technologies and business practices. DIUS is working closely with the Department for Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (BERR), and with employers through the new UK Commission for Employment and Skills and the network of Sector Skills Councils to ensure that the skills delivered are those which businesses need to raise productivity and competitiveness.

1.5 Developing skills is also one of the key ways of enabling people to find jobs and progress in work, and to creating a cohesive, engaged society. DIUS is working in partnership with the Department for Work and Pensions to create an integrated employment and skills service which provides low skilled and unemployed adults with the support they need to develop their skills, find and progress in work.

1.6 Following the publication of Lord Leitch's review in December 2006, the Government set out detailed plans for implementing the recommendations and realising the world class skills ambition he set in World Class Skills: Implementing the Leitch Review of Skills in England, published in July 2007. And since the publication of World Class Skills, further detailed plans have been put in place through a number of important documents:

@UL@— Adult Learning and Skills—investing in the first steps, published in November 2007 alongside the LSC's Statement of Priorities and Grant Letter, set out on how, with our partners, we can accomplish our ambitions to deliver economic prosperity, social justice and stronger communities.@/UL@

@UL@— Opportunity, Employment and Progression: Making skills work, published in November 2007 put forward further detailed plans to support the integration of employment and skills services. @/UL@

@UL@— Train to Gain: A Plan for Growth, published in November 2007, set out how Government would build on the experience of Train to Gain's first full year of national operation, to continue to expand and improve the service to help employers identify and address their skills needs. @/UL@

@UL@— Raising Expectations: Staying in education and training post-16—from policy to legislation, published by the Department for Children, Schools and Families in November 2007 announced detailed proposals for raising the participation age to 18, following the consultation, and identified which aspects would require legislation, ahead of the introduction of the Education and Skills Bill to Parliament. @/UL@

@UL@— Informal Adult Learning—Shaping the Way Ahead, was published in January 2008. This consultation starts a discussion that will lead to a new vision for informal adult learning for the 21st century.@/UL@

@UL@— World Class Apprenticeships, unlocking talent, building skills for all: The Government's strategy for the future of Apprenticeships in England, published in January 2008 set out the Government's plans for reforming and expanding the Apprenticeships service.@/UL@

@UL@— Focussing English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) on Community Cohesion, published in January 2008, initiated a consultation on our plans to prioritise ESOL provision in support of social cohesion.@/UL@

@UL@— Ready to Work, Skilled For Work: Unlocking Britain's Talent, published in January 2008, described how the Government wants to work with employers to support them in tackling their recruitment and skills challenges.@/UL@

@UL@— An analytical discussion paper: Life Chances: supporting people to get on in the labour market, was published in February 2008 to stimulate a debate on how best to support adults to develop their skills, find and progress in work.@/UL@

@UL@— Raising Expectations, enabling the system to deliver, published in March 2008, initiated a consultation on the transfer of planning and funding responsibilities for 16-19 year olds from the Learning and Skills Council to Local Authorities, and proposals for reforming the post-19 skills landscape.@/UL@

@UL@— Higher Education at Work: High Skills—High Value, published in April 2008, initiated a consultation that will seek views from employers, students, colleges and universities on how to raise the skills of those already in work and also ensure graduates are equipped with the knowledge and abilities that businesses need to compete globally.@/UL@2. THE GOVERNMENT'S WORLD CLASS SKILLS AMBITIONS

2.1 Improving skills and supporting individuals to unlock their talents has a number of important benefits for individuals, businesses and the economy as a whole. As set out in the recent analytical discussion paper: Life Chances: supporting people to get on in the Labour Market,1 improving skills provides benefits to individuals in terms of improved employment prospects, labour market progression and social mobility. For example, recent evidence shows:

@UL@— A first degree can add an average of 25-30% to annual earnings;@/UL@

1 Life Chances, Supporting People to get on in the Labour Market, an analytical discussion paper, March 2008 (DIUS, DWP, Cabinet Office Strategy Unit).

@UL@— Achieving 5 good GCSEs (A*-C) can lead to increases in earnings of up to 30%;@/UL@

@UL@— Apprenticeships produce strong increases in earnings potential at levels 2 and 3. Completing an advanced apprenticeship produces an average wage return of 35%; and@/UL@

@UL@— Basic numeracy and literacy skills can explain up to 10% of wage differentials.@/UL@

2.2 Gaining skills also benefits individuals in a wide range of other ways:

@UL@— More skilled people are less likely to suffer from depression, obesity and respiratory problems2;@/UL@

@UL@— Improved learning levels in a community are associated with enhanced cohesion and social capital. 3 Half of learners in FE felt it had encouraged them to take part in voluntary and community activities4; and@/UL@

@UL@— Gaining skills leads to increased political participation: 37% of those with a Level 2 or less did not vote in the 2005 General election compared to 24% of those with a level 3 qualification or above.5@/UL@

Progress so far

2.3 DIUS and its partners have already made significant progress towards the world class skills ambition that Lord Leitch recommended:

@UL@— The total number of 16-18 year olds in education and training increased by 15,500 to 1,547,000 at end 2006. @/UL@

@UL@— In 2007, 73.0% of young people aged 19 were qualified to at least level 2—an increase of 7.5 percentage points compared with 2004 and exceeding the 2008 target a year early.@/UL@

@UL@— An increasing proportion of 19 year olds are qualified to level 3—48.0% of young people achieved at this level in 2007 compared with 42% in 2004.@/UL@

@UL@— Since 2001, 1.76 million learners have achieved their first Skills for Life qualifications, with the Government meeting its target of 1.5 million achievements by 2007 ahead of schedule. @/UL@

@UL@— 74% of adults in the workforce aged 18 and over are now qualified to at least full level 2. That means 1.34 million adults have up-skilled since the end of 2002, meeting the interim target of 1 million by 2006. @/UL@

@UL@— Apprenticeship completion rates reached an all time high in 2006-07 of 63% compared to 24% in 2001-02. Apprenticeship starts increased from 65,000 in 1996-97 to 180,000 in 2006-07.@/UL@

@UL@— Train to Gain has engaged almost 83,000 employers (of whom more than 76% hard to reach); over 390,000 learners started a learning programme and almost 185,000 have achieved a qualification.@/UL@

2 Centre for Research on the Wider Benefits of Learning3 Feinstein et al 2003, and Green et al 2003.4 LSC (2008) The impact of Learning on Employability5 Sanders et al (2007)

@UL@— At the end of March 2008, 2585 employers had made the Skills Pledge, covering over 3.7 million employees. @/UL@

@UL@— FE college success rates are up, from 59% in 2000-01 to 77% in 2005-06. @/UL@

@UL@— Six National Skills Academies have been fully approved, and 6 more are in business planning. We are on course to meet Government's aspiration to have 12 NSAs in place by the end of 2008.@/UL@

@UL@— There are now 18,000 Union Learning Representatives—28 times as many as the 700 in 1998, and a 40% increase on the 14,200 just two years ago. @/UL@

@UL@— 26 organisations have achieved the new standard for employer responsiveness and vocational excellence.@/UL@

@UL@— Since 1998, the national advice telephone has handled almost 8.3 million telephone enquiries and the web-delivered advice service has registered around 27.6 million sessions. 185,000 sessions are delivered every week.@/UL@

@UL@— The National Employers Skills Survey (2005)6 showed that 65% of employers had provided some training in the last 12 months, up from 59% in 2003. The number of employees trained per 1000 rose from 567 in 2003 to 609 in 2005. Total employer expenditure on training amounted to some £33.3 billion.@/UL@

The way ahead

2.4 While we are making substantial progress, there is much more to do. Lord Leitch argued that we must “raise our game" on skills, if we are to compete in the global economy. The Government has set stretching targets to achieve a step change in skills levels across the board.

2.5 The ambition articulated by Lord Leitch, and to which the Government is committed, is that by 2020:

@UL@— 95% of working age adults to have functional (level 1) literacy and (entry level 3) numeracy skills;@/UL@

@UL@— More than 90% of working age adults qualified to level 2, with a commitment to achieve 95% as soon as possible;@/UL@

@UL@— 68% of working age adults qualified to level 3; @/UL@

@UL@— Average number in learning of 500,000 apprenticeships in the UK; and@/UL@

@UL@— Over 40% of working age adults qualified to level 4 and above.@/UL@

2.6 By 2011 the Government aims that:

@UL@— 597,000 more individuals should have recorded level 1 literacy achievements and 390,000 entry level 3 numeracy achievements;@/UL@

@UL@— 79% of adults (aged 19- state pension age) should be qualified to at least full level 2. That means 1.2 million first full level 2 achievements over three years;@/UL@

@UL@— 56% of adults should be qualified to at least full level 3;@/UL@

@UL@— 34% of adults should be qualified to level 4 (by 2010-11).@/UL@

Creating a world class skills system.

6 The NESS 2007 is due for publication later in Spring 2008.

2.7 World Class Skills set out how the Government would implement Lord Leitch's recommendation to reform the skills system, ensuring that it is demand driven, responsive to the needs of employers and individuals, and to create an integrated employment and skills system. A programme of reforms is in train to achieve these goals, and significant steps have already been taken.

Employers leading the way

2.8 The new UK Commission for Employment and Skills (UKCES), led by BT Chair Sir Michael Rake with the support of former City and Guilds Director Chris Humphries, has been set up jointly by the governments of the UK, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to advise them on whether employment and skills systems across the UK are flexible enough to respond to competitive challenges, changing employment trends and employer demand. Its members each have an outstanding track record of delivery in their field and collectively represent employers across the private, public and third sectors as well as trade unions.

2.9 The Commission will publish an annual state of the nation report assessing progress towards making the UK a world leader in employment and skills by 2020. In 2010 it will report on whether a more radical change might be needed to integrate employment and skills and whether an entitlement to workplace training might be appropriate to deliver an integrated service that meets the needs of employers and individuals. In the meantime, its priorities are to offer a holistic view of how employment and skills systems (including higher education) might better meet employer and individual need, to advise the UK Government on making access to the systems in place in England simpler, and, in particular, to make substantial progress on the reform and relicensing of Sector Skills Councils.

2.10 The Commission is also responsible for making recommendations to Government on the re-licensing of Sector Skills Councils. Re-licensed Sector Skills Councils will have a new remit sharply focussed on raising employer investment, articulating the future skills needs of their sector, and ensuring that the supply of skills and qualifications is driven by employers.

2.11 Through SSCs, employers have a leading role in reforming vocational qualifications for their sector. We are making it easier for employers to have their own training programmes nationally recognised and accredited. More than 30 have had their training accredited and a further 4 employers have been accredited as awarding bodies in their own right. SSCs have also been asked to include consideration of the needs of 14-19 learners in their Sector Qualifications Strategies as part of the development of clear qualifications routes for young learners which support their achievement and progression.

2.12 Many employers are making the public commitment to investing in the skills of their employees by signing the Skills Pledge. Between its launch by the Prime Minister in June 2006 and the end of March 2008, 2585 employers have signed the Skills Pledge and now over 3.7 million employees are covered.

2.13 The Government is creating more National Skills Academies. Six have been approved in the construction, manufacturing, financial services, food and drink manufacture, nuclear and process industries. Six more are in business planning. The Government is investing around £23.5 million in the first six NSAs. These are expected to generate employer investment of around £13.5million. We expect similar levels of employer investment from future NSAs.

Expanding Apprenticeships

2.14 The Government has undertaken a fundamental review of Apprenticeships. World Class Apprenticeships: Unlocking Talent, Building Skills for All sets out the Government's strategy for strengthening and expanding Apprenticeships in England. Over 130,000 employers offer apprenticeship places. But we need many more to do so if we are to meet the goal set by Lord Leitch of expanding the number of apprentices in learning to 400,000 in England by 2020; and to honour the entitlement to an apprenticeship place for all school leavers who meet the criteria by 2013. The review announced plans for a National Apprenticeships Service, which will be responsible for the

delivery of Apprenticeships. This will have a significant regional and sub-regional role, working in partnership with local authorities to fulfill their obligations to young people.

2.15 World Class Apprenticeships also announced that in expanding the Apprenticeships programme, the Government will move from focussing on a single volume measure of the average number of apprentices in learning, to counting the number of people starting an apprenticeship in the year (starts) and the percentage that complete an apprenticeship (completions). Starts are an easily understood concept and express the growth challenge for the programme for a year. Completion rates are a mechanism for driving up the quality of the system. The Government will continue to collect and monitor data on the number of apprentices in learning in order to ensure that we continue to monitor our progress towards meeting the ambition set out by Lord Leitch.

Train to Gain

2.16 Train to Gain is the Government's flagship service to support employers in England, of all sizes and in all sectors, to improve the skills of their employees, unlock talent and drive improved business performance.

2.17 Since it was fully rolled out in the autumn of 2006, nearly 83,000 employers have engaged with Train to Gain, with 76% being “hard to reach", exceeding the 51% target. Almost 185,000 learners have achieved a qualification.

2.18 Funding for Train to Gain will increase from £520 million in 2007-08 to over £1 billion by 2010-11. This makes a significant contribution towards the Government commitment to increasing the proportion of adult skills funding that is delivered through demand-led routes. In addition, by 2010-11, we expect adult learners with Skills Accounts to be able to access £500 million of adult funding, increasing to around £1.5 billion.

2.19 But we need to go further still. Train to Gain: A Plan for Growth, published in November 2007, describes how we will make the service more flexible to ensure it meets the needs of employers and employees.

2.20 Through Train to Gain, employers can now access:

@UL@— Government funding, to sit alongside their own financial contribution, including a subsidy of up to 100% for certain training;@/UL@

@UL@— quality-assured, impartial advice from skills brokers with expertise in the employer's business area to help identify skills needs at all levels;@/UL@

@UL@— help in identifying and sourcing the training and qualifications that will best address those needs;@/UL@

@UL@— advice on wider business needs, provided by the Business Link network, into which the Train to Gain brokerage service will be integrated from April 2009; and@/UL@

@UL@— high-quality, vocational skills training, delivered at a time and place to suit the employer, from a wide range of further education and other providers. @/UL@

Supporting individuals

2.21 Skills Accounts, to be rolled out from 2010, will give individuals greater ownership and choice over their learning, giving them greater purchasing power to ensure that provision responds to their needs. By 2015 we expect Skills Accounts to become the key mechanism via which all adults access learning outside Train to Gain, working hand in hand with the adult advancement and careers service to enable individuals to realise their talents and advance in learning and work over a lifetime.

2.22 Skills Accounts will be rolled out across the country from 2010, with individuals accessing £500 million of individual responsiveness funding by that year, rising to nearly £1.5 billion

by 2015. Trials of Skills Accounts will begin in 2008. The Accounts will put purchasing power into the hands of individuals by offering a new “virtual voucher" of state funding representing their entitlement to purchase relevant learning at an accredited, quality assured provider of their choice. A Skills Account will also give individuals access to a range of other services through the adult advancement and careers service, and an online record on which to store their qualifications and achievements.

2.23 The adult advancement and careers service will deliver a tailored employment and skills advice and support, empowering individuals with the information they need to identify the training and gain the skills that will enable them both to find jobs and to advance in their careers.

2.24 The new service will provide more coherent support for individuals, merging the advice services of learndirect and next step and working in partnership with Jobcentre Plus. The careers service will have a key role in supporting the delivery of Skills Accounts, and will provide an integrated service for identifying individuals training needs through Skills Health Checks. Key elements of the service will be trialled progressively from 2008-2009 to 2010.

2.25 The Education and Skills Bill, was introduced to the House of Commons on 28 November where it has completed its committee stage. The Bill includes provisions to raise the participation age to 17 in 2013 and 18 in 2015. Other measures are included to ensure that all adults have access to proper free provision for basic literacy, numeracy and first full level 2 courses, as well as free access for 19-25 year olds to first full level 3 courses. The Bill was introduced to the House of Commons on the 28 November 2007 where it has completed the Public Bill Committee Stage.

Integrating Employment and Skills

2.26 As set out in World Class Skills and in Opportunity Employment and Progression DIUS and DWP are working closely together to create an integrated welfare and skills system.

2.27 This will give low-skilled and unemployed adults the support they need to find sustained employment and progress. Opportunity, Employment and Progression: making skills work (November 2007) set out the next steps in developing an integrated employment and skills services. Ready to work, skilled for work: Unlocking Britain's Talent, published on 28 January sets out how Government will work with employers to build a new employment and skills partnership for the future.

2.28 Local Employment Partnerships (LEPs) will offer employers a range of support to increase the effectiveness of their recruitment processes, which can include wider use of Work Trials to enable people to demonstrate suitability for a job and tailored pre recruitment training to give people the skills employers need. The Government's objective through LEPs is to help 250,000 people into work by the end of 2010. We have made a good start, with 619 employers committed and 370 working with Government on detailed implementation plans.

The Olympics

2.29 We are working to ensure that policies and delivery partners cohere to meet the skills demands and opportunities offered by the 2012 Olympics. We will use the 2012 Games as a lever to develop high quality demand led provision to meet the needs of individual learners and employers and to strengthen London's skills base and boost job prospects in the long term.

2.30 For example, all companies that win construction contracts from the Olympic Delivery Authority will be encouraged to sign a Local Employment Partnership, committing to considering applicants from the least advantaged backgrounds in exchange for support for their recruitment needs. Relevant SSCs are making detailed plans in preparation for the demands of 2012. Building on the Employer Accord in London, the LSC and Jobcentre Plus are working with Olympic partners to ensure that recruitment services, working with Train to Gain brokerage, can give tailored provision to help employers who have won Olympic contracts. There are dedicated centres producing workers with the right skills, like the new Plant Training Site at the Olympic Park, which will help meet the needs of construction companies.

Lifelong Learning

2.31 The Government is firmly committed to lifelong learning. It is imperative to create the conditions to enable adults to continue to learn and progress. Around three quarters of the 2020 workforce have already left compulsory education, and with the global economy demanding an ever higher level of skills, we need to pursue reforms that support progression for all. We want learners to have the skills and qualifications they need to enter and progress in work, and to build fulfilling lives for themselves and their families.

2.32 In January 2008 the Government launched Shaping the Way Ahead, initiating a consultation on how the Government can most successfully promote Informal Adult Learning, in an age where learning is not simply promoted in classrooms or lecture theatres, but can also be stimulated by a television programme prompting a museum visit or an internet search bringing together a group of like minded learners

2.33 In April 2008 the Government published Adult Learning: Investing in the First Steps, setting out the Government's plans to invest £1.5 billion on first steps training for adults who have yet to gain basic skills. The Government is particularly keen to ensure that the consultation reaches out to as many learners and potential learners as possible, alongside the special interest groups and networks they belong to.

2.34 The Government's ESOL policy has helped 2 million people to improve their English language skills and take vital steps towards employment and social inclusion. Between 2001 and 2004 ESOL spending tripled, and is now just under £300m. We propose that ESOL funding should be more specifically targeted to foster community cohesion and integration in our communities. This is a radical move and will need local, regional and national partners to work closely together.

2.35 We remain committed to ensuring the continued availability of a wide range of learning opportunities for adults despite the rightful focus for public funding for adult learning on those without a foundation of employability skills. We are committing £210 million in 2007-08 for learning for its own intrinsic value, for personal and community development. We expect to maintain this from 2008-09 to 2010-2011.

Ensuring a flow of skilled young people into the workforce

2.36 In meeting the challenges laid out by Lord Leitch, improving the skills of adults already in the workforce is crucial. But we also need to continue to drive improvements in the skills of young people entering the labour force.

2.37 Wider reforms to the qualification and curriculum system for young people are designed to ensure that they are equipped to meet the needs of employers and higher education. New functional skills qualifications are being developed which all young people will take whatever learning route they follow. Young people and adults alike will be able to progress more easily up the qualifications ladder with the creation of the Foundation Learning Tier for provision below level 2. The introduction of an extended project for A-level and level 3 Diploma Students, and reforms to A levels to introduce greater stretch for the very able will help young people to develop and test the learning and thinking skills that employers and HE value.

2.38 The new Diplomas have been designed by Diploma Development Partnerships, led by the relevant Sector Skills Councils working with the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA). Diplomas will offer learners a new route into skilled employment or higher education, supporting more young people to gain higher level skills. Diplomas also have support from employers both nationally and locally, and a Diploma Employers Champions network has been established led by Sir Alan Jones, Chairman Emeritus of Toyota Europe, to increase this support.

2.39 At least one of the first five Diplomas will be taught in 146 groups (consortia) of schools and colleges from this September, as the first stage in the full roll-out of all Diplomas by 2011. 72% of secondary schools and 88% of colleges will be involved with consortia teaching Diplomas by 2009. From 2013, there will be an entitlement to the first 14 diplomas and in the

consultation on 14-19 qualifications—Promoting Achievement, valuing success: a strategy for 14-19 qualifications—DCSF have proposed that for 16-18 year old students the national entitlement should be extended to include all 17 Diplomas from 2013.

2.40 Delivery of the whole 14-19 reform programme requires local flexibility and collaboration to address local circumstances: it will be for local areas to decide who provides which courses, the curriculum framework, the local delivery model, and transport arrangements. The government will ensure there are sufficient facilities and provision in place across the country building on existing successful provision.

3. THE ROLE OF REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCIES (RDAS) AND THE REGIONS IN ACHIEVING OUR SKILLS AMBITIONS

3.1 The Government recognises that the regions have a key, strategic role in achieving our skills ambitions, and is committed to ensuring that the recommendations in the Sub National Review (SNR) are implemented. Skills and training are essential components of economic development at both a regional and a local level, and they need to be integrated with other local priorities in order to deliver growth and drive productivity.

3.2 RDAs have welcomed the Government's decision to transfer the responsibility for skills brokerage from the LSC to create, from April 2009, a new integrated brokerage service for employers which is coherent and supports the identification and fulfilment of their training needs. DIUS, BERR and the LSC are working closely with RDAs to ensure a smooth transfer. The result should be a simpler experience for employers, providing them with one channel for accessing support for their skills and wider business needs leading to an increase in the number of businesses reached and support for the Government's skills targets. Through the Sponsorship Framework RDAs are required to report on their regions achievement of basic, intermediate and high level skills.

3.3 The RDAs expressed strong support for the Leitch vision and World Class Skills. They welcome the move to a more demand led approach that meets regional economic needs, having been concerned that the system in the past was too supply side driven.

3.4 RDAs work closely with regional partners such as the LSC, Jobcentre Plus, Sector Skills Councils and higher education institutions, to ensure that their region has the skills it needs for economic success. RDAs led the development of Regional Skills Partnerships (RSPs) in which the partners align their funding in support of agreed priorities that support the regional economic strategy. This is an important part of our strategy to ensure there is no duplication or overlap in skills provision. The goal is to ensure that the range of support available for businesses in tacking their growth needs is effectively implemented.

3.5 One example of an RDA establishing an effective system of cooperation through a Regional Skills Partnership is Advantage West Midlands (AWM). Evidence provided by AWM's West Midlands Regional Observatory on the demand for skills in the construction sector, resulted in the LSC shifting its emphasis from commissioning Level 1 bricklaying, to funding level 2 construction. This closer cooperation has also led to AWM altering its own pattern of investment in order to eliminate duplication with training funded by the LSC and Jobcentre Plus. Instead AWM has been able to focus its funding on other regional priorities, such as developing leadership and management skills.

3.6 RDAs are now playing an important part in reviewing the role of RSPs and how they can better support the Employment and Skills Boards emerging in some of our larger cities. They also wish to develop a dialogue with the UK Commission for Employment and Skills in order to have influence over decisions made around Sector Skills Councils, the integration of employment and skills agendas and the reform of qualifications.

3.7 RDAs put a strong emphasis on achieving increased productivity through higher level skills. They will have an important role in delivering the High Level Skills Strategy which will provide the framework for greater alignment between HE, business demand and regional need. They are also looking to increase the ability of business leaders to be innovative and enterprising, which should also drive demand for skills.

3.8 The RDAs are currently developing their corporate plans for the next three years. Driving up the skills in their regions is one of the central themes of all of them, with a strong emphasis on Leadership and Management and high level skills.

4. SKILLS STRATEGY AT A SUB-REGIONAL LEVEL4.1 It is important to ensure that partners at sectoral, regional, sub-regional and local

level are involved in identifying skills priorities and there is a good deal of flexibility within the current system to support alignment of skills priorities at all these levels. Government is very supportive of Local and Multi Area Agreements (LAAs and MAAs) and of the role of Employment and Skills Boards which we believe map naturally onto MAA areas. It is important, however, that the setting of priorities takes place within the framework of the national skills strategy and that we maintain our focus on those important national priorities.

4.2 Multi-Area Agreements provide a means to facilitate councils and their partners (including local businesses, to collaborate at sub-regional level to drive economic prosperity, focussing on key issues related to economic growth, such as worklessness, skills, housing and transport. Government is working with a number of sub-regions on the development of an MAA. The first of these will be signed in June alongside LAAs. The vast majority of developing MAAs have identified skills as a key priority, and are developing ambitious skills targets based on cross-boundary collaboration.

4.3 The London Skills and Employment Board (LSEB) chaired by the Mayor of London is one example of how skills and employment policies can be integrated at a regional and sub-regional level. The Board is due to publish its employment and skills strategy by the end of May. The LSC will be under a statutory duty to implement the skills aspects of this plan. The Board is committed to ensuring that skills provision in London meets London's particular needs and the objectives set out in the strategy will also help us to achieve the broader Leitch vision for world class skills.

4.4 In many areas Employment and Skills Boards, are emerging to support and coordinate local priority setting and decision making. There are particularly strong proposals in regions such as Manchester and South Hampshire, which are looking to see how they might benefit from the London model established in 2007. ESBs have the potential to play an important role in coordinating the activities of local authorities, JCP and the LSC at a local level and in promoting strong employer involvement and investment in skills.

4.5 We are strengthening our involvement with Local Authorities through Local Area Agreements in which skills indicators will figure prominently—Local Authorities have an important economic development role which skills underpins. The LSC's partnership teams intentionally map on to local authority boundaries, and the LSC works closely with local authorities in delivering skills priorities.

4.6 In the most deprived areas there is a particular need to develop skills to facilitate progression into employment. In December 2007 the DCLG and DWP jointly launched the Working Neighbourhoods Fund (WNF). The Working Neighbourhoods Fund element of the Area Based Grant has been allocated to local authority areas which the evidence indicates face particularly significant challenges as a result of high numbers of people being out of work and low levels of skills and enterprise. As the Area Based Grant is not ring fenced, eligible areas have the flexibility to use their WNF allocations in innovative ways to tackle local priorities, including programmes aimed at improving skills levels among people in the most deprived areas.

5. THE ROLES OF THE LSC AND SSCS5.1 The LSC welcomed the Leitch report and its focus on skills as central to both

improving economic productivity and enhancing social inclusion. This agenda has been at the heart of its work with local authorities, RDAs and the wider FE sector, in particular to drive up performance on Train to Gain and in developing skills accounts and as a means of engaging more people in learning.

5.2 In the long run, fundamental changes to the learning and skills infrastructure are needed, to ensure high-quality education and training for young people and adults, and to build on a

strong foundation to meet the stretching ambitions set out by Lord Leitch. The Government's White Paper: Raising Expectations: enabling the system to deliver, published on 17 March 2008 therefore sets out proposals for delivering more substantial transformation of the system.

5.3 The White Paper proposes to transfer responsibility for 16-19 funding to local authorities, supported by a new Young People's Learning Agency. Local Authorities will come together in sub-regional groupings to plan and commission the full range of 16-19 provision enabling them to meet the challenges involved in raising the participation age and to deliver the new entitlement to Diplomas, Apprenticeships and the Foundation Learning Tier. There will also be regional groups—co-chaired by the RDA—to help ensure Local Authority and sub-regional plans meet regional skills needs. For young people, the demand for apprenticeships will be aggregated at a sub-regional and regional level to agree requirements with the new National Apprenticeship Service.

5.4 Raising Expectations also set out plans for the reform of the adult skills infrastructure, creating a new Skills Funding Agency (SFA) which will have a key role in supporting the move to demand-led funding. The SFA will have a national and regional presence and will be responsible for joining up delivery of the system and services at every level to respond to the demands of users. This will be through the delivery of Train to Gain for employers and through Skills Accounts for individual learners. The latter will also be linked to the new adult advancement and careers service to ensure that more people have access to high quality information and guidance to enable them to get the skills they need to enter into and progress within employment.

5.5 The SFA will work with RDAs, Regional Skills Partnerships and other regional partners to ensure that the integrated regional strategy sets the context for action on skills, in support of shared priorities for economic development. It will also have oversight of the sufficiency of colleges and providers to meet a region's needs; and will have capability to operate at sub-regional level.

5.6 The proposed changes to the 14-19 and post-19 delivery structures will be implemented over a number of years. The precise impact and timeline will depend on the outcome of this consultation. The changes we propose will require legislation, and we will not be able to give effect to the full legislative changes until the academic year 2010--11. In the three full academic years between now and then, the LSC will retain the legal responsibility for securing and funding all forms of post-16 education and training outside higher education.

5.7 The LSC has a crucial job to do over the next 2—3 years—investing over £36 billion, and working with partners to implement the 14-19 and Leitch reforms. It has demonstrated a powerful focus on delivery and an excellent record in the management of public funds. In the interests of learners, schools and colleges, continuing that high performance will remain essential as we work through to the new organisational arrangements.

Sector Skills Councils

5.8 The Government is clear that a highly effective network of Sector Skills Councils is crucial to the successful implementation of its long term skills strategy. Since the publication of World Class Skills, Government has been working with key stakeholders to develop an approach to re-licensing which the new UK Commission for Employment and Skills will implement. As an early priority, it is intended that the UK Commission for Employment and Skills will issue a re-licensing prospectus to all SSCs, setting out a refocused remit and the challenges they have to meet to be re-licensed. The UKCES will make recommendations to Government on which SSCs should receive a new licence, and we expect that all new licences should be issued by the end of 2009.

5.9 All SSCs have now completed their first full Sector Skills Agreements (SSAs). These are a key mechanism for setting out the skills needs of each sector, and help underpin the move to a more demand-led system. They provide the framework for SSCs to work with employers, key delivery agencies like the LSC, and with Government to address priority skills issues in their sectors. SSCs' work in developing SSAs provides a platform for working with SSCs on how their identified skills needs can in future better be met through the Train to Gain service. Discussions on this are taking place with a number of SSCs with the intention of agreeing with them compacts to tailor Train to Gain to meet the needs of employers in their sector and thus boost skills and improve

productivity. In developing their SSAs, SSCs recognise the increasingly important role played by the English regions in the skills agenda. Regional Development Agencies contribute sectoral intelligence held in the regions and provide examples of good practice in sector development work that have already been tested in the regions.

6. THE ROLES AND COORDINATION OF THE FE AND HE SECTORSFurther Education

6.1 FE Colleges and providers are crucial to delivering the Government's ambition for world class skills locally, regionally and nationally, and the creation of DIUS and its sponsorship of the FE system has enabled a greater focus on FE as a route to achieving these goals.

6.2 Performance in the FE system has improved year on year and we are making good progress on our targets for young people and adults. FE success rates rose from 55% in 1999-00 to 77% in 2005-06 and more young people are succeeding in apprenticeships—60% achieving a full framework of NVQ in 2005-06 increasing from 53%.

6.3 To help ensure that there is sufficient capacity, to deliver specialised skills and to respond to the needs of particular sectors the Government is investing to modernise the college estate and develop the National Skills Academies and specialist networks of vocational excellence. Over £2 billion has been invested in the FE sector's buildings and facilities since 1997-98 and a further £694 million will be spent in 2008-09, £820 million in 2009-10 and £850 million in 2010-11.

6.4 To ensure this investment directly supports our skills ambitions, the Learning and Skills Council will be requiring all contractors working on publicly-funded college projects to have in place formal training programmes, to maximise access to apprenticeships, work-based learning and other training opportunities.

6.5 The Government is committed to driving forward changes to create an FE system with a strengthened focus on skills and employability, alongside a much more responsive service to individuals and employers. Our comprehensive programme of FE reform, the move towards a demand-led system and the system change proposals set out in Raising Expectations: enabling the system to deliver, will ensure that FE is equipped to deliver the Leitch agenda, including setting out a clear role for the further education sector in developing regional skills strategies.

Developing links and promoting progression from FE to HE

6.6 There is already much close working between FE and HE with over 150 FE colleges currently providing HE and around 190,000 students taking HE options in FE colleges. In taking up the powers to award Foundation Degrees colleges will need to continue working with other institutions, particularly at a local and regional level, to make sure that students can identify progression routes if they wish to go on to further higher-level study.

6.7 A prime example of successful collaboration between FE and HE is in the West Midlands, where the sectors have developed progression agreements through Lifelong Learning networks. The LSC has strengthened this process by appointing a Train to Gain HE coordinator within each LLN in the region to facilitate better understanding of the HE offer, and to develop links between employers, the brokerage service and FE.

6.8 The University of Brighton has developed particularly successful progression routes with an FE college: the University's campus linking to the college with which it has developed joint curriculum planning and cross institutional partnership.

Higher Education

6.9 As was set out in Higher Education at Work: High Skills—High Value, Higher Education (HE) makes a significant contribution to the Leitch agenda. Our latest information indicates that around three-quarters of the 2020 workforce have already left compulsory education and labour market projections suggest that 18 million jobs will become vacant between 2004 and 2020 (and that half of them will be in occupations likely to employ graduates). To compete in the

increasingly competitive world of the future, we need a higher proportion of people with high level skills. The Government is committed to achieving the Leitch ambition of at least 40 % of the population being qualified to level 4 or above by 2020. This will ensure a flow well educated, imaginative and adaptable people to enable businesses and services to innovate and thrive. But we can't be complacent—other countries are developing their high level skills rapidly as well.

6.10 We said in the January 2008 grant letter to the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) that the spending review outcome would allow us to provide places for a total of an additional 60,000 students by 2010-11. Twenty thousand of these places come from our policy of increasing opportunities for first time entrants to higher education by redeploying the teaching grant that would have supported the costs of students who already held an equivalent or lower level qualification. This is a significant expansion in student numbers. We are maintaining the unit of funding and so ensuring proper financial support for providers. Together with the changes to student finance announced last year, this will enable around one-third of all eligible full-time students entering higher education in the 2008-09 academic year to be entitled to the full maintenance grant and around a further one-third to be eligible for a partial maintenance grant giving more people than ever before the opportunity to benefit from higher education.

Universities supporting regional economies

6.11 In the future we want to see universities working even more with Regional Development Agencies, Sector Skills Councils and local employers to develop the high level skills that a particular business (or business community) needs in a particular sector in a particular place). Since the Lambert Review in 2003, Higher Education institutions have been increasingly positioning themselves agents for economic and regional growth and are identifying their areas of competitive strength in research and teaching; the goal is for businesses and universities to work together and learn from each other how to generate and exploit innovative ideas.

6.12 At a regional or sub-regional level, universities act as hubs for economic development and are increasingly seen as essential partners in strategies for regeneration and innovation. RDAs are able to apply the learning and research outputs of universities to regional and sub-regional economic development; and HEIs can make a contribution to Multi-Area and Local Area Agreements.

6.13 The Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) has a strong regional dimension, working with regional stakeholders to support HE institutions (HEIs) in making the most effective contribution to their area or region, through building on existing regional relationship structures and being regionally-responsive. HEFCE has a regional dimension to some of its funding streams. For instance, its Strategic Development Fund supports HEI activity through its Transforming Workforce Development programme. Bids for such funding must be regionally-responsive, with links to regional economic strategies (RES). The 3 regional Higher Level Skills Pathfinders (in the North West, North East, and South West) are led by their respective regional university associations (representing all providers of HE), and are clearly RES-driven. The FE sector is well-represented within the HLSP consortia.

6.14 HEFCE funds a growing number of institutional “employer engagement pilot" projects, currently 22, which also contribute to meeting regional needs for higher level skills. HEFCE-funded Lifelong Learning Networks, many with a sub-regional coverage and covering both HE and FE institutions, help to facilitate the progression of learners (including work-based ones) into and through HE.

6.15 The Government's new “University Challenge" underlines the importance of higher education to economic and social success. We want to have 20 more higher education centres opened or agreed over the next six years to help drive economic regeneration and create a highly skilled workforce for local business.

7. SUMMARY7.1 If we succeed in our goals in reshaping the landscape for planning and funding

education and skills we will have a huge impact on the life chances of both adults and young people.

7.2 The integral role of employers will help ensure learners are equipped with the skills and qualifications to succeed. Our VQ reform programme, enabling employers' own high quality training to be nationally recognised and accredited, will enable more learners in employment to gain valuable qualifications which will enable them to progress in work.

7.3 The investment that we must all make to become a world leader in skills and to generate world-leading employment rates is significant, but the cost of failure is greater—the erosion of social cohesion, the burden of unemployment and the cost to businesses and the economy of an unskilled workforce, ill-equipped to compete in a globalised economy. Working together, we can face up to these challenges, unlock our nation's talent and secure a prosperous future for all.

Statistical Annex

1. Overall, England's skills profile has increased significantly since 1997, with a substantial reduction in the proportion of working-age adults with no qualifications, and an increase in the proportion qualified to level 4 or above.

@LT@IMG SRC=@Q@48we01.gif@Q@@GT@

@LT@IMG SRC=@Q@48we02.gif@Q@@GT@2. Within that overall national picture, the picture varies by region, although the

overall trajectory remains upward.

@LT@IMG SRC=@Q@48we03.gif@Q@@GT@

@LT@IMG SRC=@Q@48we04.gif@Q@@GT@3. In recent years, Learning and Skills Council expenditure has been increasingly

focused on national skills priorities, ie skills for life, and first, full level 2 and 3 qualifications.

@LT@IMG SRC=@Q@48we05.gif@Q@@GT@

4. The number of adults studying on those national skills priority programmes has increased in recent years, including a 42% increase in the numbers studying towards a full level 2 qualification between 2005-06 and 2006-07.

@LT@IMG SRC=@Q@48we06.gif@Q@@GT@5. The headline success rate in Further Education colleges has improved dramatically

since 1997, from 53% in 1997-98, to 77% in 2005-06.

@LT@IMG SRC=@Q@48we07.gif@Q@@GT@

Source: Learning and Skills Council Benchmarking Data

Note: Figures exclude external institutions

6. Since its national roll-out began in April 2006 (full national coverage was reached in August of that year), Train to Gain has grown quickly. Almost 83,000 employers have engaged with Train to Gain, over 390,000 learners have started learning programmes, and almost 185,000 have achieved qualifications.

@LT@IMG SRC=@Q@48we08.gif@Q@@GT@

7.

8. The LSC grant letter for 2008-09 sets out how funding will be allocated over the next few years, with a continued emphasis on national skills priorities.

@LT@IMG SRC=@Q@48we09.gif@Q@@GT@

9. The number of Apprentices is forecast to increase over the three year period 2008-09 to 2010-11.

@LT@IMG SRC=@Q@48we10.gif@Q@@GT@

9. The Government expects to deliver the following number of learners and achievements to 2011:

2008-09 2009-10 2010-11

Skills for life—achievements counting towards 2011 PSA level 1 literacy and entry numeracy level 3 target

349,000 368,000 387,000

Adult first full level 2 achievements

346,000 388,000 412,000

Adult first full level 3 achievements

115,000 168,000 213,000

16-18 Apprenticeships average in learning

160,000 172,000 183,000

Total Apprenticeship completions

123,000 134,000 142,000

@HR25@

Memorandum 3

Submission from the University of Sheffield

How responses to the agenda set out in the Leitch Report will affect the broader structures of further education (FE), higher education (HE) and lifelong learning

SUMMARYThe University of Sheffield welcomes the opportunity to present evidence to the House of

Commons Innovation, Universities and Skills Committee. Our submission is based on the experience of senior staff who are involved in the planning, delivery or support of skills and training education, or who are familiar with the work of RDAs.

1.0 INTRODUCTION1.1 The University of Sheffield is a research intensive university which is also

committed to excellence in learning and teaching, as confirmed in its recent Institutional Audit by the QAA. It has a thriving Institute of Lifelong Learning and a proven track record in outreach and in engaging with the 14-19 agenda. However, Leitch's wider agenda of engagement is, to some extent, a new journey for the University. The University's Learning, Teaching and Assessment Strategy includes a clear focus on the development of students' transferable skills, which are seen as a key attribute of the Sheffield. Graduate.

2.0 RESPONSE TO THE INQUIRY2.1 The responses of RDAs to Leitch and how coherent and structured these are

2.1.1 The South Yorkshire sub-region has seen the introduction of a number of skills-related initiatives by RDAs in recent years. However, our perception is that at HE level these have not been sufficiently focussed on the stimulation of demand by regional employers, in particular the SME base of the sub- regional employer demands, and so have not always resulted in the necessary level of engagement for success.

2.1.2. The Yorkshire Forward Regional Economic Strategy published in December 2007 incorporates objectives which respond to the agenda set out in the Leitch report. While the strategy itself is clearly articulated, it is too soon to comment on achievement against these objectives. Traditionally, the focus in the region, given its unique socio-economic circumstances, has been on delivery at FE level and below, rather than on HE delivery, and some time is needed to see how the strategy will relate to HE providers. Since RDAs rarely fund programmes leading to awards at Level 4 or above, the University may find it difficult to engage with the strategic objectives of the YFRES, although it has been involved with employer engagement activities. Such activities, as set out in the strategy, are coherent with the Leitch agenda, but it is not yet clear how demand will be stimulated. Similarly, the Regional Skills Partnership for Yorkshire and Humber aspires to meet the challenges of the Leitch agenda, but there is a lack of clarity as to how this will be achieved. The RSP is concerned to match employer demand and education provider supply but, again, it is not clear how this demand will relate to HE provision.

2.2 What the existing regional structures of delivery are and what sub-regional strategies may be required

We do not feel able to comment on the existing regional structures of delivery or possible sub-regional strategies, and would refer these questions back to the RDAs themselves.

2.3 The role of the Learning and Skills Council and Sector Skills councils in this context

The Sector Skills Councils have had very little engagement with the HE providers, their main activity having related to pre-Level 4 awards. With the notable exception of the Engineering Employers Federation, regional bodies have not approached HE providers to discuss issues relating to appropriate skills needed at graduate level in their sector. Again, this emphasizes the need to focus on skills demand as well as on delivery

2.4 The respective roles of the further education and higher education sectors in delivering a region-based agenda for Leitch and their co-ordination with one another

2.4.1 The University is an active partner of Higher Futures, the South Yorkshire Lifelong Learning Network. The network primarily acts as a magnet for 14-19 year olds to experience HE and does not support the work-based learning agenda at this stage.

2.4.2 From an HE perspective, a solely regional-based approach to skills delivery would not be sustainable, as an HE provider's engagement with regional objectives must be balanced with the overarching strategy, which in the case of the University of Sheffield is to remain a world class research university. For example, our new Executive MBA programme for local employees contributes to the fulfilment of the Leitch agenda while also meeting our own strategic needs. The University is also supporting the development of leadership and management skills through collaboration with Sheffield Hallam University, co-ordinated by the universities' new VCs, as exemplified by a joint bid relating to executive education. The HEFCE employer engagement agenda is in many ways a more significant one for us, enabling us to focus on work-based learning at executive level in a targeted and phased way. It is worth noting that employer and employee needs in the region are more for non-accredited training and development, which makes it difficult to achieve the targets set by Leitch.

2.5 The impact of student of these initiatives, particularly the context of lifelong learning

From our perspective, the impact has been on assisting students to progress into HE but not on the development of higher level skills. We note that the recent decision relating to ELQs appears to run contrary to the Leitch agenda.

3.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS3.1 RDA initiatives need to focus on stimulating employer demand for high level skills

provision if they are to engage successfully with HE providers.

3.2 A clearer view of how RDA initiative objectives will be achieved, particularly in relation to the involvement of HE, would be beneficial.

3.3 HE providers will find it difficult to engage fully with RDAs in the provision of skills training and development while higher level skills are not on the agenda.

April 2008

@HR25@

Memorandum 4

Submission from Research Councils UK (RCUK)

1. SUMMARYThe development of high-level skills in the UK is crucial to a knowledge-based economy

which can drive the innovation necessary to compete in a global economy.

The Research Councils are major investors and stakeholders in the UK research base. They have a responsibility for promoting economic impact, influencing the behaviour of universities and institutes and working with other stakeholders. The Research Councils regard the achievement of impact as integral to their activities7 and will focus on increasing the scale, breadth, and richness of collaborations between the research base and users. The Research Councils recognise the need to align training with the needs of employers8.

The Research Councils also wish to encourage Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) to embed transferable skills in the PhD thus raising value to employers, and improve career development for their research staff. This helps to address the employer needs for postgraduates with project management, team working skills, communication, and leadership capabilities9.

2. INTRODUCTION2.1 The Research Councils exert a specific influence on the higher education (HE)

sector through funding a major portion of the human research capital10. They support over 30,000 researchers at any one time, including:

@UL@— 15,500 doctoral students; @/UL@

@UL@— 10,000 research staff in universities; @/UL@

@UL@— 4000 research staff in research institutes; and @/UL@

@UL@— 2000 research fellows. @/UL@

2.2 As we look forward, the natural centre of gravity for RCUK is high economic impact from excellent research.11 The Government has placed a major emphasis on research as a driver of economic growth. Councils recognise that one of the most effective means of promoting knowledge transfer is through the flow of people12.

2.3 RCUK investment in attracting, training and managing the next generation of world-class researchers will make a major contribution to improving the quantity, quality and impact of research to the benefit of UK society and the economy13.

3. RESPONSEIn the Leitch Review, there is emphasis on systems meeting the needs of individuals and

employers and demand-led approaches and that skills should be portable to deliver mobility in the labour market for individuals and employers. The Research Councils are responding to a new agenda to enhance the economic and social impact resulting from their investment in the UK research base, and we are pleased to see that this approach aligns well with the broader landscape for skills development developed in the Leitch Review.

7 http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/cmsweb/downloads/rcuk/publications/2008deliveryplan.pdf8 http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/news/20061206prebudget.htm9 http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/cmsweb/downloads/rcuk/researchcareers/strategyforsuccess.pdf10 http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/rescareer/strategy.htm11 http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/cmsweb/downloads/rcuk/economicimpact/excellenceimpact.pdf12 http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/cmsweb/downloads/rcuk/publications/addingvalue.pdf13 http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/cmsweb/downloads/rcuk/researchcareers/rcdstrategy.pdf

The Leitch Review of Skills is clear that the UK must become world class on skills stating: “One of the most powerful levers for improving productivity will be higher level skills". RCUK looks forward to the development of a high level skills strategy, as mentioned in the Science and Innovation white paper14.

Existing regional structures of delivery and what sub-regional strategies may be required.

3.1 The UK's 10 year Science and Innovation Investment Framework 2004-2014 (2004) makes clear that science, engineering and technology (SET) skills are essential for the future of the UK.

3.2 RCUK anticipates that a significant increase in SME involvement with the research base will be achieved through partnership with the TSB and Regional Development Agencies (RDAs). RCUK has representation on the Regional Innovation Science and Technology group, RDA/Technology Strategy Board Operational Advisory Group and RDA/TSB Strategy Advisory Group, and meetings are scheduled throughout 2008. RCUK will continue to run its Business Plan Competition (£1 million), offering researchers training and competition to develop business plans for commercially viable ideas. RCUK will seek greater involvement from the TSB, RDAs, and others and will review the scheme's operation and impact in 200815.

3.3 There are specific initiatives which link with Sector Skills Councils, for example BBSRC has been developing links with SEMTA to help understand the training issues facing the biotech industries, and is represented on the SEMTA Board.

Impact on students of these initiatives, particularly in the context of policies for lifelong learning.

3.4 RCUK monitors and reports on the stock and flow of research staff and skills in the UK:

@UL@— RCUK Report on “Researchers: What is the Situation?"16 provides an overview of the current situation regarding research staff in the UK@/UL@

@UL@— RCUK Report on “Health of Disciplines17" provides an overview of the supply of academic researchers and the demand from both the public and private sectors@/UL@

@UL@— UK GRAD Reports on “What Do PhDs Do?", with the latest report being supported by RDAs and providing a regional analysis of the first destinations of PhD graduates18. @/UL@

3.5 The Research Councils recognise the need to align training with the needs of employers19.

3.5.1 Doctoral Training Grants, offered by five Research Councils, provide flexibility for a university to respond to individual and employer needs by allowing flexibility to enter into part-funding arrangements, start students at any time of the year, and (as for awards from all Research Councils) fund students part-time. Alongside DTG funding, EPSRC is looking to expand the numbers of research students in engineering and physical sciences by establishing at least 40 centres for doctoral training with an investment in excess of £250 million.

3.5.2 CASE schemes provide funding for doctoral level training, in collaboration with a business, private or public sector organisation. It provides postgraduate students with the opportunity to gain experience in both academia and industry. The funding commitment to such schemes in 2006-07 was approximately £50 million20 across all Research Councils. For example, 30% of NERC PhD

14 http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/news/080313a.htm15 http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/cmsweb/downloads/rcuk/publications/2008deliveryplan.pdf16 http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/aboutrcuk/publications/policy/researchers.htm17 http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/aboutrcuk/publications/policy/hod.htm18 http://www.grad.ac.uk/publications19 http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/news/20061206prebudget.htm20 http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/cmsweb/downloads/rcuk/economicimpact/ktharmonisation.pdf

studentships are CASE awards. STFC's CASE Plus scheme also gives students a further year of support to work full time with the industrial collaborator and its partnership grants with industry and enterprise fellowships foster knowledge transfer and knowledge exchange across industry and academia.

3.5.3 Industrial CASE allow a company to initiate a project and select an academic partner for the research, thereby facilitating a demand-led approach. EPSRC and BBSRC have well-established routes for companies to receive these awards. In 2008 and 2009, the number of MRC-funded PhD studentships will increase to thirty and MRC will consider if further expansion is appropriate.

3.5.4 EPSRC Collaborative Training Accounts21 enable individual research organisations to offer a variety of training opportunities depending on their particular area of expertise and track record. The key factor is the university's ability to deliver people suitably trained in specific subject areas in response to local and national requirements. Over £263 million was committed on CTAs from 2004 to 2008. CTAs were created in order to place EPSRC's collaborative training support on a more strategic footing. However, training is but one possible contributor to knowledge transfer. Thus, the introduction (during 2008-09) of Knowledge Transfer Accounts (KTAs) should further enable a two way transfer of ideas, research results, expertise and skilled people between research organisations and user communities.

3.5.5 NERC is currently leading on behalf of the Environmental Research Funders Forum (ERFF) and other employers of environmental scientists on a Skills Needs Review.

3.5.6 The AHRC Professional Preparation Master's Scheme is intended for students who are going into professional practice eg in the museum and galleries sector, as practicing artists or performers, journalism etc.

3.6 The Review recommended flexible provisions to meet the high skills needs of employers and for skills to be portable to deliver mobility in the labour market for individuals and employers

3.6.1 As part of funding provided in response to the Roberts' Review22, the Research Councils provide around £20 million a year to research organisations for the personal and professional development of research students and postdoctoral research staff. The Research Councils are also investing over £15 million from 2008-2012 in a new programme to support researcher development. One of the four key aims for this programme is to enhance the provisions in higher education for the personal, professional and career development of researchers through sharing practice and resource23. The “UK GRAD Programme" operates both at a national level and through a series of regional Hubs.

April 2008

@HR25@

21 http://www.epsrc.ac.uk/PostgraduateTraining/CollaborativeTrainingAccounts/default.htm22 http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk./Documents/Enterprise_and_Productivity/Research_and_Enterprise/ent_res_roberts.cfm23 http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/news/redevelop.htm

http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/cmsweb/downloads/rcuk/researchcareers/strategyforsuccess.pdf

Memorandum 5

Submission from the Royal Academy of Engineering

1. This submission is based on first-hand experience gained by The Royal Academy of Engineering (Note 1) in the London region: through its London Engineering Project and through its support for the launch of the 14-19 Diploma in Engineering in the London Boroughs of Southwark and Lambeth. This work is the basis for the National Engineering Project (NEP). (Note 2).

2. This submission limits its evidence to one of the five topics sought by the Committee: the respective roles of the further education and higher education sectors in delivering a region-based agenda for Leitch and their coordination with one another.

3. This submission focuses on two principles set out in the Leitch report: that employers and individuals should contribute most where they derive the greatest private returns; and that there should be a focus on economically valuable skills.

4. Engineering is an economically valuable sector for people seeking employment. According to Universities UK (Note 3) the graduate premium on an engineering degree is the second highest amongst all subjects (medicine being the highest).

5. There is a shortage of engineering skills in London, particularly in sectors relating to infrastructure (water, sanitation, power distribution, transport, construction) where relative scarcity of engineers and technicians is coupled with a large number of major construction and renovation projects in the capital.

6. Against this background, The Royal Academy of Engineering is involved in direct approaches to increasing the provision of people with engineering skills in the capital following the principles laid out in the Leitch report. These approaches find new ways of employers engaging with Further Education (FE) and Higher Education (HE) in London. Two will be highlighted here.

7. The first approach is to support employers in finding ways to contribute directly to teaching and learning in the engineering departments in London Universities such as London South Bank University and University College London. Traditionally, employer engagement in university engineering departments has been limited to supporting research, technology transfer partnerships, offering sponsorship or placements to undergraduates and to the recruitment of graduates. Through the London Engineering Project, this is being extended to include:

@UL@— Placing engineers in departments as engineering ambassadors and role models with the aim of increasing the retention rates of graduates within the engineering profession.@/UL@

@UL@— Making engineers available to university departments to contribute to the planning and development of new courses and curricula: including but not limited to Foundation Degrees.@/UL@

@UL@— Offering team based learning opportunities to whole cohorts of undergraduates. For instance a second-year group project can be made common across all engineering courses in a faculty, and the multidisciplinarity brought about by this can mimic the workings of a real-world engineering project. With an employer contributing to the definition of such a project, the learning outcomes for the students are considerably improved.@/UL@

8. All of these approaches require resources to be applied by employers. However, because all are likely to aid in the recruitment of well-trained engineering graduates in a sector where there are real skills shortages, The Royal Academy of Engineering has learnt to expect employers to apply such resources willingly out of their recruitment budgets.

9. The second approach is to support both employers and Universities in finding ways of deepening their involvement in teaching and learning in London schools and FE colleges. The main difficulty of one of limited time available: if an employer or a university were to get involved in supporting a number of schools and FE colleges the resource implications would be considerable.

This is where the 14-19 Diploma in Engineering has proved valuable. Because this curriculum is typically delivered by a consortium of schools and FE colleges, an employer or university can lend support to a single consortium whilst gaining links with many institutions. This means one set of agreements, one set of meetings, one set of liabilities and costs whilst making connections to several institutions. The Royal Academy of Engineering has found this to be a powerful value proposition for employers and universities alike.

NOTES1. The Royal Academy of Engineering [RAEng] brings together over 1200

distinguished engineers, drawn from all the engineering disciplines. Its aim is to promote excellence in engineering for the benefit of the people of the United Kingdom. (www.raeng.org.uk)

2. The NEP started with the London Engineering Project pilot in Southwark in late 2005. This will work with five universities and 50 schools over 4.5 years. The pattern will be repeated, modified and enhanced, as appropriate, in six regions in England over the ten years. The NEP supports schools with their raised profile for SET by providing students with access to hands-on SET activities in class, residential and other SET learning events out of school and a system for mentoring of students with a capacity for higher education and ability in SET. This attention paid on schools and groups so-far unengaged in engineering is seen as key to strengthening the engineering profession in the long-term. The NEP is led by the Royal Academy of Engineering with the generous support of the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE).

3. “The economic advantages of a degree", Universities UK Research report, February 2007

April 2008

@HR25@

Memorandum 6

Submission from the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry (ABPI)

KEY POINTS@UL@— The education and skills of the workforce are key to maintaining a thriving research based pharmaceutical industry in the UK.@/UL@

@UL@— Introduction of the Commission for Employment and Skills, and the re-licensing of Sector Skills Councils (SSCs), is an opportunity to introduce joined up activity to meet the education and training needs of industry@/UL@

@UL@— Provision of part time local education, especially part time foundation and honours degree courses in chemistry and biosciences, is often inadequate. Train to Gain skills brokers could have a major impact on helping employers provide ongoing education for their employees by identifying needs across a sector, or similar needs across a range of sectors, and brokering provision of appropriate courses locally and regionally within further and higher education institutions.@/UL@INTRODUCTION

1. The ABPI is the trade association for the pharmaceutical and biopharmaceutical industry in the UK. Members include large UK-based pharmaceutical companies, significant overseas investors in to the UK, emerging biopharmaceutical companies and contract research organisations.

2. The historical strength of the UK in attracting and growing R&D investment has been the supply of skills and access to fundamental knowledge in the research base. Access to skills and knowledge—especially in pre-clinical sciences, pharmacology, chemistry and early clinical development—was the UK's key competitive advantage.

3. To support delivery of the education and skills required by this research intensive industry, the pharmaceutical industry has been one of the leading sectors in terms of collaborative research with universities. Collaborations include funding of over 600 PhD studentships and around 330 postdoctoral grants24 with 78 British universities in 2007. The total value of all of the collaborations reported in the survey is in excess of £65 million.

4. UK pharmaceutical sites also hosted over 530 undergraduate students in their laboratories for periods between 3 months and one year—the vast majority completed a one year industrial placement as part of their degree.

5. The pharmaceutical industry continually reviews the skills needs of its workforce. ABPI has convened a taskforce to review progress against the recommendations made in our 2005 report, Sustaining the Skills Pipeline25 and to identify any improvements in skills supply or additional concerns.

IMPLEMENTING THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE LEITCH REPORT6. Recruitment into the pharmaceutical industry in the UK is largely at Level 4 and

above. Research into the labour market for the pharmaceutical and bioscience sectors by Semta 26 found that, whereas over 70% of sites surveyed had recruited BSc graduates in the last 12 months, and 60% had recruited people with a PhD, only 11% had recruited people who had left school in the last 12 months, and 13% had recruited people who had completed an apprenticeship. Hence the Leitch targets for adult basic skills and level 2 skills are less relevant to our sector than to many others; the proposed shift towards level 3 and 4 qualifications, proposed in the Leitch Implementation plan, are of more relevance to our sector.

24 Data from 11 pharmaceutical companies for collaborations in 2007 (ABPI survey, unpublished data)25 Sustaining the Skills Pipeline in the pharmaceutical and biopharmaceutical sectors, ABPI, 2005 (http://www.abpi.org.uk/Details.asp?ProductID=285)26 Labour market survey of the pharmaceutical and bioscience sectors, Semta, 2006 (http://www.semta.org.uk/pdf/LMS_Science_2006.pdf)

7. The same report found that turnover in some types of company was high. In contract research organisations on average nearly one third of current employees had been recruited in the last 12 months, and 27% were new employees in the industrial biotechnology sector. Turnover was lower in pharmaceutical research and development sites (12%) and pharmaceutical manufacturing sites (5%).

8. The Semta labour market survey found that pharmaceutical and bioscience companies spend a considerable amount of time and money on training; the majority of this is on off the job training related to specific job roles. The total spend, for the 132 sites which estimated their training spend, was over £10 million, the majority of companies expect training spend to increase in the next 12 months. Laboratory scientists are most likely to receive training with 78% of sites providing training for this group. Barriers to increasing the amount of training carried out were mainly focussed on allowing staff time off to train and the high cost of local training provision.

9. Regional structures for delivery of skills training are of limited value to an industry which acts globally and where many employees are recruited on a national, and frequently international, basis. The key elements of education for which regional delivery is required are part time provision of HNC in biology and chemistry, and follow on undergraduate degrees. This provision is often lacking, leading to apprentices from Novartis, Horsham having to travel to the University of Greenwich to follow a course that meets their needs.

10. The Commission for Employment and Skills is in its infancy; however we see as an urgent priority, within the re-licensing of Sector Skills Councils (SSCs), more joined up activity to meet the education and training needs of the UK pharmaceutical industry. The lack of clear differentiation of responsibility for scientific and technical subjects between the SSCs27 (Annex) demonstrates the lack of a coherent framework. This has led to confusion amongst employers and education providers on the most appropriate SSC to engage with and has probably contributed to the slow pace of activity to meet our needs.

11. The education and skills of the workforce are key to maintaining a thriving research based pharmaceutical industry in the UK. Hence the focus for relevant SSCs must include high level education and skills, including university provision, as well as vocational qualifications. A Sector Qualifications Strategy for the Bioscience Sector (SQS) is under development, led by Semta; this will identify the importance of higher education qualifications to this sector. We understand that there has been a recent improvement in the engagement of HEFCE with Sector Skills Councils towards consideration of funding for employer-led demands.

12. Funding for three pilot employer engagement projects has, indeed, already been provided by HEFCE, however much of the funding has gone to support development of infrastructure for employer engagement and co-funded provision. It is too early to see if this funding will have any impact on engagement with pharmaceutical employers. In general HE sector funding for undergraduate education does not put any emphasis on meeting the needs of employers; hence engagement with Higher Education Institutions is likely to be difficult. Effective engagement is, however, essential if the SQS is to be effectively implemented.

13. Enabling SSCs to approve additional vocational qualifications is an opportunity; but it will only be effective if these qualifications are valued, and taken up, by significant numbers of employers. Ensuring that the framework of qualifications is fit for purpose, to allow seamless progression to further and higher education, and to employment, should be the main focus of any curriculum development carried out by Sector Skills Councils. An ongoing review of National Occupational Standards relevant to the pharmaceutical and bioscience sectors has revealed that many areas do not have qualifications suited to their needs and that significant updating of others are required28.

14. Coordination of further and higher education provision and awareness of opportunities are a major issue. Some companies take on science apprentices, however provision of part time regional education, especially part time foundation and honours degree courses in chemistry

27 Memorandum of Understanding on the representation of the pharmaceutical sector, June 200628 Sector Qualifications Strategy for Bioscience (draft), March 2008, SEMTA.

and biosciences, is lacking in many regions, forcing students to travel long distances for their higher education. Information on foundation degrees, in particular, is patchy. Although several searchable directories of information on foundation degrees exist, the information they provide is not consistent. This is an area where Train to Gain skills brokers, working with Sector Skills Councils, could have a major impact. However their focus to date appears to have been working with individual companies rather than by identifying needs across a sector, or similar needs across a range of sectors, we have yet to see evidence of this happening.

15. Introduction of Skills Accounts, to be piloted from autumn 2008, together with unique learner numbers, will be a positive move towards engaging adults in lifelong learning. The effectiveness of the system will depend on local provision of appropriate courses; this is the area which we believe must be addressed if all learners are to have the opportunity to progress.

16. The education and skills needs of science based industries will only fully be met when companies and education and training partners work together effectively. Sector Skills Councils, Regional Development Agencies, higher and further education institutions and skills brokers can all play a part in identifying and meeting these needs. The economic health of research based industry in the UK is dependent on effective joined-up working of all these organisations.

April 2008

Annex

@LT@IMG SRC=@Q@48we11.gif@Q@@GT@

@HR25@

Memorandum 7

Submission from the Learning and Skills Council (LSC)

INTRODUCTION1. This document is the submission of the Learning and Skills Council (LSC) to the

House of Commons Innovation, Universities and Skills Select Committee Inquiry: After Leitch: Implementing Skills and Training Policies.

2. The Committee has posed specific questions about progress against the Leitch report. This submission summarises evidence that relates particularly to:

@UL@— The role of the Learning and Skills Council in this context;@/UL@

@UL@— The respective roles of the further education and higher education sectors in delivering a region-based agenda for Leitch and their co-ordination with one another.@/UL@

3. The LSC welcomes the opportunity to report to the Committee, and would welcome the chance to attend as a witness to highlight the central role it plays in taking forward the Leitch ambition and targets. Working with the Department of Innovation, Universities and Skills, the LSC was involved in the development of the Leitch implementation plan World Class Skills: Implementing the Leitch Review of Skills in England published in July 2007.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY4. Raising Expectations: enabling the system to deliver, recognises that the LSC has

been successful in developing a more coherent and responsive FE system, with greater consistency between local areas and clearer progression routes. The LSC also responded to Leitch and the sub-national review by introducing regional structures and partnership teams to improve its ability to respond to the economic development agenda, and the needs of regions and sub-regions.

5. The LSC is a key partner in regional economic strategies and sub-regional arrangements such as multi and local area agreements. For example in the North West, the LSC has been an active partner in the development of a Greater Manchester approach to employment and skills. The LSC also works with emerging Employment and Skills Boards, and is actively involved in the London Skills and Employment Board (LSEB), chaired by the Mayor of London.

6. The LSC has successfully focussed its services towards low-skilled individuals, enabling more people to improve their employment and career prospects as well as boost their quality of life (see annex 1 for performance information).

7. The LSC is working to ensure that a greater proportion of its budget is progressively spent on more responsive and flexible employer-focused training. Sector Skills Councils, on behalf of employers, advise the LSC on which vocational qualifications are a priority for public funding—with funds increasingly focused on tackling low skills to improve employability and progression. A new communications campaign around the value of skills and fostering a new culture of learning also began in 2007.

8. Train to Gain, the national service to support employers of all sizes and in all sectors to improve the skills of their employees, is a major driver in addressing Lord Leitch's recommendation for increased investment in skills, UK economic competitiveness; increased investment by employers, individuals and the state.

9. World Class Skills signals the proposed support that will be available to individuals to improve their skills and progress in work. The focus on a new joined-up system of support for adults who want to progress in their lives; whether that be moving from a low-skilled, low-prospects job onto a new and better career path, or from worklessness into sustained employment, builds on the work of the LSC.

10. Following the publication of Raising Expectations: enabling the system to deliver in March 2008, a consultation is taking place on the transfer of planning and funding for 14-19 from the LSC to local authorities, along with proposals for reforming the post-19 landscape. The LSC is actively developing shadow working arrangements to support the proposed changes, and continuing to develop demand-led funding arrangements. Significant work to prepare for the Skills Funding Agency (SFA) and its constituent services in 2010 is underway.

REGIONAL AGENDA11. The LSC works with each Regional Development Agency (RDA) to align and

integrate skills with the priorities set out in the regional economic strategy. In each region, the LSC publishes a regional commissioning plan, setting out investment priorities and identifying key sector and occupational skills priorities and where new and additional provision is required. Each plan identifies priority groups of learners, and how the region intends to engage these groups to increase equality of opportunity and social inclusion.

12. Each LSC region has developed regional plans to implement the strategy for Train to Gain set out in A Plan for Growth, detailing local and regional approaches. Plans to manage smooth transition of brokerage activities from LSC to RDAs in April 2009 have also been developed.

13. The LSC actively participates at regional level in a variety of ways to take forward work to support the achievement of the Leitch ambition. For example, in taking forward the Regional Minister's priorities for skills, the RDA (Advantage West Midlands) and the LSC have developed a sub regional Skills Action Plan (attached at Annex 2). The plan is nested within the Regional Economic Strategy and delivery framework. Uniquely, Leitch's priorities sit at the heart of the Skills Plan and the RES priorities. The plan is led by employers and proposes a streamlined and simplified approach to skills and employment in the West Midlands. It clarifies the roles and responsibilities of key partners and stakeholders, and sets out a broad summary of actions to achieve agreed goals with annual numerical targets.

14. Launched in March 2008, the plan has been endorsed and supported by a wide range of partners, notably by the CBI, regional Chambers of Commerce, and the Local Government Association.

15. In the North East, collaboration at regional level is crucial in achieving strategic impact and economies of scale. The LSC and the RDA have worked together closely at all levels (from Chief Executives down) across the whole spectrum of employment and skills issues. Specific examples include the development of the “People" chapter of the Regional Economic Strategy, written jointly by RDA and LSC—with the LSC formally committing to deliver a significant amount of the activity—and the wider Regional Skills Partnership adopting this as its overall strategic plan. The RDA and the LSC have joint procurement and performance management of a fully integrated, regional skills brokerage service—delivering both the Business Link and Train to Gain branded brokerage services for the region.

16. Ongoing development and implementation of the North East's “Regional Employability Framework" brings to life the concept of Integrated Employment and Skills; co-ordinating and enhancing the efforts of a wide range of strategic and delivery partners—led by a group of senior RDA, JCP, and LSC staff. This work has led to the alignment of LSC and JCP European Social Fund co-financing plans.

17. The key benefit of this activity is the development of operating protocols that define the roles and responsibilities of each key partner, in the context of the sub national review including the enhanced role of local authorities around economic development and worklessness. We are systematically tackling barriers to employment through a comprehensive, system-wide approach that brings a more coherent offer to the employer and individual. This approach binds together all services at neighbourhood level, including health, housing, transport and childcare to address skills and personal barriers to employment.

KEY NATIONAL PROGRESS TOWARDS ACHIEVING OUR WORLD CLASS SKILLS AMBITION18. The LSC has made considerable progress to raising achievements to the levels we

need to secure the Leitch ambition—progress against key LSC targets is outlined in Annex 1. We

expect to achieve the 2010 target of 2.25m for skills for life achievements at least two years early. The 41.6% increase in participation by adults (aged 19 or over) on full level 2 programmes between 2005-2006 and 2006-2007 to 470,400 is fundamental to the strategy for delivering the level 2 element of the adult skills PSA target.

19. The LSC's latest statement of priorities Better skills, Better jobs, Better lives sets out our plans to meet ambitious new Government targets for learning and skills and where we will invest our £11.5 billion of funds in 2008-09. Through the Train to Gain service we have an opportunity to get more people qualified to levels 2 and 3 (and increasingly level 4). To engage more people in learning (including learning below level 2), over £1 billion a year of public funding supports a range of learning opportunities, including Foundation Learning Tier, Skills for Life and personal and community development learning.

Train to Gain

20. Train to Gain is the national service to support employers of all sizes and in all sectors to improve the skills of their employees as a route to improving business performance. Train to Gain: A Plan for Growth (November 2007), details how the responsiveness of Train to Gain to employers' needs will be improved for Train to Gain to play its part in delivering the skills trajectories set out in World Class Skills.

21. The plan details the actions and investments that are required to meet the challenging targets for Train to Gain to play its part in delivering the skills trajectories set out in World Class Skills. The plan projects the numbers of employers and individuals it aims to help up-skill, an estimated increase from around 242,000 learners in 2006-2007 to 786,000 in 2010-2011.

22. Enhancing skills not only boosts competitiveness, productivity and profitability, it also greatly enhances the career and salary prospects of individuals. From the low skilled to the highly skilled, Train to Gain aims to help employees improve their employability, career and skills progression. Train to Gain has had a significant impact in the workplace since it commenced in April 2006, and is transforming the way that Government and providers support employers. Current activity in 2007-2008 (data between August 2007—January 2008), has seen 22,810 employers engaging with brokers resulting in 128,000 learner starts. In its first full year of operation, 2006-2007, over 52,000 employers were engaged by brokers, involving around 240,000 employees into training activities.

23. A Plan for Growth focuses upon the need to expand and measure the success of Train to Gain. It involves working with partners at national and regional level to consider the best way to improve performance measurement, looking at other indicators such as productivity, tackling disadvantage in particular groups and other economic and social factors. New measures and flexibilities include broadening out skills brokerage to cover all sizes of employer, and flexibilities for people recruited through a Local Employment Partnership (LEP). Train to Gain will have increased flexibility to train people from priority groups who obtain employment through LEPs.

Skills Pledge

24. The Skills Pledge, launched by Gordon Brown in June 2006, is a public commitment by employers to invest in the skills of their employees. The LSC promotes the Skills Pledge, which is now positioned within “Our Future it's in Our Hands" branding. The Skills Pledge is relevant to all employers, regardless of size or skills needs, and aims to increase employers' interest and demand for developing the skills of their lowest qualified employees.

25. At the end of February 2008, the number of employers making the Skills Pledge was 2,130, and is increasing steadily each month. There are now 3.3 million employees working in organisations who have made a commitment to the Skills Pledge. The top three performing sectors are Construction Skills, Skills for Care and Development, and Lifelong Learning. The LSC also continues to work with other Sector Skills Councils, and through our Sector Compact arrangements we are expecting SSCs to support a minimum of fifty of their most influential employers annually to make the Skills Pledge.

Sector Qualification Strategies

26. Employers, via Sector Skills Councils (SSCs), have a lead role in reforming vocational qualifications for their sector. The Sector Qualification Strategy (SQS) from autumn 2008 will set out the “fit for purpose" skills and qualifications in a specific sector, as identified by employers (via SSCs). The SQS is therefore a key source of information to the LSC in identifying the courses that should be supported by public funding. The SQS Action Plans will provide a sufficient level of detail to allow the LSC to focus funding where it can make most difference to employability and productivity.

Integration of Employment and Skills

27. A framework of stronger partnership working, performance management and targets for JCP, the LSC and a new adult advancement and careers service (aacs) is developing in response to World Class Skills, and the subsequent DIUS and DWP report Opportunity, Employment and Progression: making skills work (November 2007). Aspects of the new “careers service," envisaged by Leitch includes joined up advice services and a new skills health check, will start to be delivered from 2008-2009. LSC has positioned the careers service as a gateway to skills accounts and as a building block for the integrated employment and skills service, which will also be trialled from 2008-2009. The new advancement service for adults will have the potential to help every adult progress in learning and work.

28. Individuals will have greater ownership and choice over their training, through Skills Accounts, backed by joined-up services providing information and advice on jobs, skills and training. Our vision is that every individual who receives publicly funded vocational provision—whether that be via college, through JCP, via an Apprenticeship or through Train to Gain will have a Skills Account to support their ongoing progression over a lifetime. We are designing and testing a high quality Skills Account product and supporting systems through trials in 2008-09 and 2009-2010 to inform the national roll-out of skills accounts from 2010.

Joint Working with Jobcentre Plus

29. Considerable progress has been made in joint working between LSC and Jobcentre Plus (JCP). JCP and LSC are now fully involved in each other's internal project management arrangements for the forthcoming Integrated Employment and Skills trials and Local Employment Partnerships (LEPs). (LEPs are the key activity for JCP in engaging employers to recruit from their priority customer groups).

30. The LSC's flexible and responsive pre-employment provision Skills for Jobs has been rolled out across the country, providing pre employment provision for JCP priority groups, including those recruited through LEPs. LSC provision is the primary source of pre-employment training required by employers. This area of provision will be further supported by up to £195m of European Social Fund monies in the period 2008-2010.

31. The LSC has rolled out its employability skills programme (literacy, numeracy and vocational skills) across the country, enabling more JCP customers to access tailored basic and employability skills provision, including enhanced information, advice and guidance.

Apprenticeships

32. World-class Apprenticeships, unlocking talent, building skills for all published in January 2008 is central to the Government's response to Leitch on skills and was launched as part of the Government's skills and welfare reform programmes. The report articulated the need for a National Apprenticeship service (NAS).

33. The NAS has clear economic and social benefit goals which will help the country to compete successfully in the global skills race and to ensure that more people have the broad base of skills needed to get in and on at work. World-class Apprenticeships fundamentally re-positions Apprenticeships as a major learning route way for young people and for employers wanting to recruit and up skill their workforce. The NAS, its delivery partners and stakeholders have a massive task to

stimulate a culture shift in the attitudes of employers, young people and adults and their advisers towards Apprenticeships as a key part of in-work training and development.

34. The LSC grown the Apprenticeship Programme considerably, introducing 5,000 Adult Apprenticeship places, due to increase to 8,000. Also many more young people complete their training successfully, with an increase in completion rates to 63% of those starting. The LSC's National Employer Service has continued to grow apprenticeship programmes, with approximately 22,500 starts in 2007-2008, an increase of just over 9% over the previous year.

35. A new national Apprenticeship vacancy matching service will be trialled in three test bed regions from October 2008, following a series of developmental pilots. This service will ensure easy access to Apprenticeship vacancy details for young people and adults; provide a free vacancy service to employers wanting an Apprentice; and enable the NAS to monitor and support the successful use of the system by both employers and individuals.

THE ROLE OF THE FE SECTOR AND CO-ORDINATION BETWEEN HE AND FE36. A comprehensive programme of FE reform and the move towards a demand-led

approach for adults and the system change proposals set out in Raising Expectations: enabling the system to deliver will ensure that FE is able to deliver the Leitch agenda. The FE sector has improved performance successfully over the last decade, demonstrated by positive inspection ratings and increasing success rates in the standard of management and leadership, and teaching and learning.

37. The FE and HE sectors share a common goal of helping young people and adults to develop the skills needed for employment. An increase in joint working between FE and HE is demonstrated by the high level of HE delivered by FE colleges. The LSC's Higher Education strategy Partnership, Provision, Participation and Progression published in 2006 contains a clear commitment to HE in the FE sector and to collaboration between HE and FE institutions, recognising the sector's unique position with regard to HE, in preparing individuals to progress to HE and HE delivery in FE.

38. We believe that FE and HE collaboration can be further developed, for example, through a clear and collaborative focus on employment related higher level skills including Foundation Degrees, with the joint capacity to stimulate demand and growth at level 4.

39. We have begun discussions with HEFCE and UCAS about extending the availability of Higher Apprenticeships at Level 4 and attributing tariff points to Apprenticeships for entry to HE.

40. We are exploring new approaches to collaboration—in National Skills Academies, through FE colleges and HE institutions working together to become recognised awarding organisations in the QCF; through collaboration in the delivery of the new Diplomas, through credit accumulation and transfer across the sectors.

April 2008

Annex 1

Targets and Impact

1. PARTICIPATION IN FULL-TIME EDUCATION AMONGST 16-18 YEAR OLDS 1.1 Participation of 16-18 year olds in education or training at the end of 2006 reached

77.3% of the age cohort, an increase of 0.5 percentage points on the previous year.

1.2 This represents 1.55 million young people in education or training and is the highest level ever recorded. 61.1% (1,223,000) of 16 to 18 year olds are in full time education, the remaining 16.2% (324,000) of young people are in other education or training.

@LT@IMG SRC=@Q@48we12.gif@Q@@GT@

1.3 Early information relating to 2007-08 indicates that growth in young people's participation is being maintained. Based on the number of learners in learning on 1 October 2007 the number of learners aged under 19 has increased by 2.5% to 852,400.

Young peoples participation as at October 2006 / October 2007

Age Type of programme

2006-07 2007-08 % change 2006-07

Under 19 Total learners 831,200 852,400 2.5%of which is Full level 2

231,100 234,700 1.5%

of which is Full level 3

319,700 339,000 6.0%

2. NUMBER OF ADULTS QUALIFIED TO AT LEAST LEVEL 1 LITERACY, AND TO AT LEAST ENTRY LEVEL 3 NUMERACY

2.1 The latest information confirmed with Ministers (October 2006) shows that the 2007 milestone of 1.5 million adults with improved skills had been exceeded one year early. Confirmed figures for the end of July 2006 show that 1.76 million adults actually achieved qualifications that count towards the target.

2.2 Latest available information shows that we expect to exceeded the 2010 target at least two years early. Indicative figures to July 2007 (shown in sky blue below) show that 2.294 million adults have achieved a Skills for Life qualification since 2001. Using final year data, it is forecast that this will rise to 2.296 million.

2.3 Before we can confirm meeting this target, thorough checks on Skills for Life Achievement data for repeat learners will need to be completed. Detailed analysis, commissioned by DIUS looking at each year since the start of the target and up to and including 2007-08 is due for completion by the end of May. Following this we should be in a position to publish robust data, and to measure accurately progress towards the 2010 target.

@LT@IMG SRC=@Q@48we13.gif@Q@@GT@

2.4 It is too early to measure our progress against the new PSA targets, to ensure 597,000 people of working age achieve a first level 1 or above literacy qualification and 390,000 to achieve a first entry level 3 or above numeracy qualification. In 2007-08 we are planning to deliver 222,100 literacy and 85,900 numeracy achievements.

LSC funded Learners2005-06 2006-07 (provisional) 2007-08 (planned)

Learners achieving first L1 Literacy

181,400 217,900 222,100

Learners achieving first entry level 3 Numeracy

71,300 83,000 85,900

2.5 In the LSC's statement of priorities, Better skills, Better jobs, Better lives the LSC expects its providers to assess the numeracy skills of all their literacy and language learners, and to offer appropriate provision if necessary. The LSC is also working with DIUS to develop a numeracy plan to help raise the profile of numeracy skills, to increase learner numbers and to ensure there are appropriate levels of qualified numeracy teachers.

2.6 Recent developments include a numeracy marketing campaign launched by the LSC on 17 March 2008. The first phase has received positive publicity and a very good response rate. The campaign has generated over 24,000 confirmed responses so far, with around 10,000 calls coming through the Learndirect helpline and almost 14,000 coming via the website. This is in excess

of the responses generated by the most recent “gremlins" campaign and is also higher than the responses to the initial skills campaign adverts in July 2007.

3. ADULTS QUALIFIED TO AT LEAST FIRST FULL LEVEL 2 3.1 There has been a 41.6% increase in the number of adults (aged 19 or over) on full

level 2 programmes to 470,400 between 2005-06 and 2006-07. This increase in participation is a fundamental part of the strategy for delivering the level 2 element of the adult skills PSA target.

Age Type of programme

2006-07 2007-08 % change2006-07

19 plus Full level 2 332,300 470,400 41.6%

3.2 The latest PSA agreements include new targets for Levels 2 and 3 based on the population aged 19 to 59 for women and 19 to 64 for men designed around the Leitch ambitions for 2020. 70.6 percent of all working age adults have a qualification at Level 2 or above, equating to 20.3 million people from a population of 28.8 million. There has been an increase of 5.7% since 2001. The PSA target is 79% by 2011.

@LT@IMG SRC=@Q@48we14.gif@Q@@GT@

3.3 The Quarter 4 figure for 2007 is approximately 200,000 lower than the planned trajectory to reach the 2010 target. The LSC is continuing to build upon the Level 2 action plan agreed with DIUS to ensure we focus on actions to drive up performance to levels needed to meet the target. This work has included a specific focus on achieving higher levels of adults undertaking Level 2 for the first time. Other work includes ensuring under-performing colleges and providers falling short of meeting target numbers will have their allocations reviewed for 2008-09 to ensure funding continues to be directed at those that are able to deliver.

4. ADULTS QUALIFIED TO AT LEAST FIRST FULL LEVEL 3 4.1 50.5 percent of people aged 19-59/642 have a qualification at level 3 or higher—an

increase of 5.8 percentage points since 2001

Adult participation as at October 2006 / October 2007

Age Type of programme

2006-07 2007-08 % change2006-07

19 plus Full level 3 235,800 242,100 2.7%

4.2 Early data from 2007-08 indicates there has been a 2.7% increase in the number of learners participating on full level 3 courses compared to 2006-07.

5. ADULTS QUALIFIED TO LEVEL 4 AND ABOVE 5.1 30.8 percent of all adults aged 19-59/642 have a qualification at level 4 or higher.

This represents an increase of 5.6 percentage points since 2001 (25.2 to 30.8 percent), equivalent to around 1.8 million more people having Higher Education (HE) level qualifications than in 2001.

Notes:

1 Economically active adults are defined as males aged 18-64 and females aged 18-59 who are either in employment or ILO definition unemployed.

2 Males aged 19-64 and females aged 19-59

Annex 2

West Midlands Regional Skills Action Plan

(see http://readingroom.lsc.gov.uk/lsc/WestMidlands/nat-skillsactionplan-mar08.pdf)

@HR25@

Memorandum 8

Submission from EEF

ABOUT US1. EEF, the manufacturers' organisation, has a membership of 6,000 manufacturing,

engineering and technology-based businesses and represents the interests of manufacturing at all levels of government. With a network of regional offices, EEF is one of the UK's leading providers of business services in health, safety and environment, employment relations and employment law, manufacturing performance, education, training and skills.

CONTEXT2. The Leitch Review was widely welcomed as a comprehensive assessment of the

UK education and skills system and the changes that would be needed to meet the challenges of globalisation. In particular, EEF welcomed recommendations that placed a greater emphasis on intermediate and higher level skills, which are especially relevant to the needs of manufacturing. Furthermore, the report recognised the need to achieve higher level skills within the existing workforce, in addition to improving the flow of more highly skilled individuals into the workforce. This is essential if the UK economy is to compete in higher-value added activities, which will increasingly rely on knowledge and innovation.

3. The Review proposed moving further in the direction of a system of demand-led training provision and correctly identified the shortcomings of the current structure which tries to predict and provide training provision. It recommended directing a much greater share of public subsidy for training through well-informed customers. However, there is more to do to ensure that the customers of the skills system are equipped with the information to make choices about the right training for their business. Train to Gain and Learner Accounts are two potential mechanisms for achieving this. It also recognised the current complexity of the learning and skills landscape in England, including the number of bodies and intermediaries—both sectoral and regional—that have been established to influence training provision and funding flows is a significant barrier to employer engagement with the system. The acknowledgement of the current confusion and its impact on business was therefore welcome.

4. While the review made a number of recommendations on the direction of travel needed, it stopped short of providing a blueprint for reform. In the interim it has taken some time for government to translate the Leitch Review ambitions into a policy strategy that would deliver world class skills. The Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills published an implementation plan in response to both the Leitch report and last year's machinery of government changes.

5. The implementation plan placed significant emphasis on increasing Level 2 skills and on how employers would be expected to contribute to meeting the UK's skills targets. Issues around the complex skills infrastructure remained largely unresolved. A more detailed strategy on developing higher level skills, planned funding changes and the first meeting of the UK Commission for Employment and Skills did not take place until the first few months of 2008. The proposal to replace the Learning and Skills Council with a Skills Funding Agency, which will route public funding for skills through Train and Skills Accounts is a step towards a demand-led system of funding—but this is not due to be completed until 2010.

6. The delay in reforming the Learning and Skills Council until 2010 and in routing more funding through demand-led routes such as Train to Gain has been particularly disappointing given that this would potentially go some way to increasing competition in the provider market and improve its responsiveness.

7. Progress on delivering change has therefore been somewhat slower that expected. This is of concern given that the government accepted the Leitch Review recommendation that employers' progress be assessed in 2010. Yet many of the barriers to offering more and better training

that EEF identified in 2004229—lack of information and lack of appropriate training provision—still exist. This also raises questions about how well equipped government is to responding to these challenges—the Leitch Review took two years to complete and we are now a year and a half into implementation. In the meantime, our competitors have continued to move forward.

REGIONAL RESPONSES 8. The complexity of the skills infrastructure is most acute at the regional and sub-

regional level. As this is the level at which most companies engage with the system, action on improving coherence at this level should have been a priority. There remains a lack of clarity about the future shape of the regional infrastructure and the role it will play in delivery of the Leitch Review targets.

9. While overall policy is directed at the national level, regions have two primary functions—determining skill needs in line with Regional Economic Priorities and providing the interface with employers and individuals by directing funding flows and managing the skills brokerage service under the Train to Gain banner.

10. At the national level, there has been a lot of focus on the role of Sector Skills Councils, with seemingly little direction given to change at the regional level. Currently, RDAs take a lead in ensuring that the skill needs of a region's economy are met through the Regional Skills Partnerships (RSPs). The Leitch Review and subsequent implementation plan were published in the middle of many RSP's planning and delivery cycles, which meant that many of the RSP's plans were not directly influenced by the Leitch Review findings. However, most of the RSP's plans had already identified the need to raise intermediate and higher skills—in line with the Leitch Review's final recommendations and suggested targets.

11. EEF has previously expressed concerns about how effectively the skills priorities identified by RSPs were translated into a delivery plan for the region by the LSC and the extent to which LSCs had sufficient discretion over the direction of public funding. In addition, it is not clear that there is sufficient employer involvement and engagement. Business representatives only make up a minority or all of the RSP boards. The current array of partnerships and regional bodies, many with employer representation, means that businesses are confused and unsure about the most effective way to influence the skills infrastructure.

12. The link between RDAs' assessment of skills needs and LSC funding priorities was not clearly established. While we support the creation of the new Skills Funding Agency, which will be focused on delivering funding in response to demand rather than in response to planning, this raises further questions about how the work of RSPs will influence funding or training provision—if at all.

13. The main Leitch Review recommendation in relation to regions was the creation of Employment and Skills Boards (ESBs). Again the Leitch Review was light on the detail of what these boards would look like and what their remit would be. The implementation plan, however, suggested that these should be set up according to local need and where they exist they should simplify the range of local existing bodies.

14. If the boards adapt to local circumstances and reflect local needs in terms of their exact roles and geographic coverage, they could potentially have a positive role in finding solutions to local problems. The boards should ensure that acting as a representative voice of local employers is a primary purpose and not try to replicate the roles of Regional Skills Partnerships. The development of these new boards will only increase the quality of local employer engagement if they lead to a rationalisation of other employer representation at the local level.

15. The creation of ESBs at the sub-regional level has again been variable. Some RDAs have set up ESBs but the exact design or history of them is unclear. In some cases it appears that some are simply re-badged from previous skills groups and may not be employer-led because of this.

29 Functioning under the aegis of the Nutrition Society, registered charity number 272071 company number 1274585.

16. A lack of direction from government about the role of ESBs means that many areas have been reluctant to back the establishment of the boards before they know what the future holds for them and this is a real constraint on the effectiveness of the ESB model. Many employers are unwilling to invest time in engagement with the boards until they know what the boards are aiming to and likely to achieve.

17. The boards should be responsive to local need and the model they choose to adopt should depend on local circumstances. There is, however, a need for more clarity about the roles of boards. Ministers need to explain what they expect the boards to do even if how they carry out the role assigned to them and the models they adopt are decided at the local level.

18. Responsibility for the delivery of the Train to Gain brokerage service is at the sub-national level. The successful introduction of a demand-led system will depend to a significant extent on the quality of brokerage and brokers and their ability to understand the skill needs of different sectors. Brokers play a key role in communicating business demand to training providers by directing business to existing providers or working with businesses and providers to commission new provision. The quality of brokers and their knowledge of the needs of different sectors need to improve as the system beds down and this will need to be driven at the regional level. In addition, more needs to be done to improve the communication of the Train to Gain offer to employers. There is still a perception that it is confined to funding for a first Level 2 qualification.

19. The government's recently published Review of Apprenticeships proposed the creation of a new body—a separate National Apprenticeship Service—to contract with employers. We are concerned that the proposed brokerage role of the National Apprenticeship Service, which is separate from a combined Train to Gain and Business Link system, risks further complicating business involvement with the skills system. There is potentially a role for a National Apprenticeship Service in developing and managing a national matching service—for employers offering apprenticeships and learners who want to take up an apprenticeship place. We are concerned that the proposal for the service's field force to be in direct contact with businesses will lead to them being approached by two separate sets of brokers dealing with skills issues. This risks undermining the confidence of business in the usefulness of either brokerage service.

SECTOR SKILLS COUNCILS20. Sector Skills Councils have a vital role to play in collecting and communicating the

skill needs of their sectors. However, the quality of Sector Skills Councils depends on the extent of their engagement with and understanding of the needs of employers of all sizes. Moreover, the attempt to marry a sector led approach driven by the Sector Skills Councils with a regional one through the Regional Skills Partnerships has not been as effective as intended

21. Sector Skills Councils are set to become more important role in ensuring that the education and skills system reflects the needs of business. They will play an increased role in ensuring that the Train to Gain brokerage service is more reflective of the needs of different sectors and the government's higher skills strategy will given them an enhanced role in communicating the needs of industry to the higher education sector. It is important that the re-licensing of Sector Skills Councils process is rigorous in ensuring that the bodies are able to carry out these new tasks effectively and leads to the development of more effective and influential Sector Skill Agreements. The simplified remit proposed in the Leitch Review, which identified four key tasks for SSCs is a good starting point for the UK Commission for Employment and Skills.

FURTHER AND HIGHER EDUCATION22. Both the further education (FE) and higher education (HE) sectors have an

important role to play in meeting the future demand for intermediate and higher level skills which was set out in the Leitch Review. The quality of local FE provision will impact on the ability of areas to respond to the Leitch agenda. A consistently high quality of provision throughout the country is important to ensure that all regions can successfully respond to the Leitch agenda. The development of a system where funding follows choices made by consumers should lead to increases in competition and therefore the quality and responsiveness.

23. New ways of delivering higher education will be key to achieving the Leitch target of 40 percent of the adult working population qualified to level 4 and above. The target will only be achieved through the expansion of HE participation of those who are already in work.

24. A forthcoming EEF survey will show that some employers are working effectively with HE institutions to upskill their workforce. Others report a number of hurdles to working with HE, such as uncertainty about what universities can offer and a lack of experience in managing such relationships. These need to be overcome if a new model of HE/employer engagement is to be rolled out more widely.

25. HE institutions do have an economic impact on their locality but their marketplace both in terms of students, research and commercial links are also national and international. The delivery of the Leitch targets by the HE sector needs to recognise HE institutions' autonomy and their national and international reach. The focus needs to be on helping institutions respond to the needs of business for higher level training and ensuring that learners receive a high quality education.

CONCLUSION26. Meeting the challenge set out in the Leitch Review is vitally important for our

future economic success. The Leitch agenda has led to a flurry of reports and consultation from national government and the regional level. It is less clear, however, that policy has so far had any impact on business's experience of the skills system on the ground. Speeding up the move to a system of funding that follows demand from employers and individuals is essential. As is improving the extent and quality of employer engagement— a vital issue if progress is to be made towards the targets set out in the report. The 2010 date for the assessment of employer response to the Leitch agenda is almost upon us, but the barriers to training which the report identified still remain.

27. Leitch identified the complexity of the skills infrastructure as a barrier to employer engagement. This complexity is most acute at the local and the regional level, which is where most companies engage with the system. Despite the apparent problem, the government's Leitch implementation plan makes few suggestions which will lead to significant simplification and a lack of clarity about the roles of Regional Skills Partnerships and Employment and Skills Boards is one example where there is a risk of increased complexity.

28. Overall, a clear picture is yet to emerge of how the infrastructure and delivery of post-compulsory education and training at the regional level will respond to the Leitch agenda of employer engagement in a demand led system. The fact that little has yet been achieved on making the system more coherent from the employer's point of view is a significant obstacle to the delivery of the Leitch agenda at the regional level.

April 2006

@HR25@

EEF (2004) Skills for Productivity—can the UK deliver?

Memorandum 9

Submission from the 157 Group

SUMMARY OF THE MAIN POINTS1. Responding successfully to the Leitch targets ultimately lies in the hands of the

employers not the providers. The Government needs the key employer organizations the CBI and the BCCI to be central to the Skills Pledge campaign shouting the skills message from the rooftops and supporting their members' engagement. (paragraphs 18, 20)

2. History suggests that compliance comes before a culture change so it is essential that the Government legislates to hold compliance powers over sectors that are slow to train. The powers may not be needed but their existence concentrates the mind. It may be difficult for that lead to come from the new UK Commission for Employment and Skills (UKCES) and Sector Skills Councils (SSC) as employer led bodies. (20)

3. The SSCs need to press ahead with their flexible and relevant qualification frameworks with a significant number of employers and providers becoming awarding bodies. Every SSC should have a provider on their board to ensure that an effective supply chain dialogue can take place. (22)

4. The Learning and Skills Council and the Government need to ensure their targets and funding are aligned to support that flexibility. (23)

5. The Regional Development Agencies and Regional Skills Partnerships led by employers need to continue to provide good quality data to monitor progress towards the Leitch targets and set Regional Economic Strategies which guide and support the network of skills providers. (25)

6. Local Authorities and key partners such as large GFE Colleges and DWP contractors should develop realistic local economic strategies with particular regard to re-engaging the economically inactive and assisting labour mobility. (26,27)

7. The new Skills Funding Agency should integrate the Apprenticeship programmes into its wider funding of Train to Gain as an all embracing package for employers and dramatically simplify the paperwork involved in the whole employer engagement process. (28)

8. The public sector should be targeted to make a significant contribution to the Leitch targets following the example of the Health Service. (29)

9. It should be recognized that collaboration as well as competition has a role to play post 19. (31)

10. Large providers can support partnerships that enable smaller deliverers to meet local or specialist training requirements. Partnership between public and private providers should be encouraged and regional operating restrictions abandoned for quality providers. (31)

11. The provider network needs to meet the new Training Quality Standard and should be assisted directly to develop their supply chain capacity following the example of HEFCE with the University sector. Just as with the broker network it is unlikely that maximum benefit will come from funding intermediaries. (32)

12. GFE Colleges should expect to be key partners in their local communities providing the glue that links local government and neighbourhoods to the business community taking on the strategic role currently played by the local LSC offices. This should be recognized and encouraged by DCLG, DIUS and the RDAs. (33)

13. Following the FE Sectors success in exceeding the targets set quality providers should be trusted with deregulation rather than sector self regulation. (34)

ABOUT THE 157 GROUP14. The 157 Group was established in March 2006, in response to the recommendation

of Sir Andrew Foster in his report “Realising the Potential". In paragraph 157, he advocates:

“|a greater involvement of Principals in national representation, in particular those from larger, successful colleges where management capacity and capability exists to release them for this work. There is a strong need for articulate FE College principals to be explaining the services they give to society and how colleges can make a significant contribution to the economy and to developing fulfilled citizens."

15. The criteria for membership of the 157 Group include achieving Grade 2 or higher for leadership and management in the last Ofsted inspection, and having a turnover of not less than £35 million per annum (although some smaller high quality and influential colleges will be included).

THE PURPOSE OF THIS MEMORANDUM16. The 157 Group represents large key players delivering the Skills agenda on behalf

of employers and individuals in line with Government policy priorities. We have a major interest in ensuring that the structures and responses established post Leitch deliver a vibrant economy that maintains the nation's influential position in the world economy and brings prosperity to our communities.

SUPPORT FOR A DEMAND LED MODEL TO ACHIEVE THE LEITCH TARGETS17. The Group fully endorses the proposition that provision should be demand led; that

the employer and the individual should as directly as possible influence the pattern and quality of provision. In this context it is important not to confuse skills with qualifications. We share with government the view that there are areas such as the first Level 2 and possibly Level 3 skills where the public good requires interventions to ensure provision where the market driven by individual demand might fail. In terms of social equity and economic welfare there are vulnerable groups such as those with learning difficulties and disabilities, the unemployed and economically inactive and ex-offenders where support for an extended period may be required before such individuals are securely placed on the employment ladder. The tactical or employability skills need to be taught alongside the vocational skills.

THE CENTRAL ROLE OF EMPLOYERS18. If the proposition is accepted then clearly the first duty to develop a highly skilled,

productive and flexible workforce rests with employers. They are responsible for recruiting and developing their staff. It is their bottom line that is at stake as well as the nation's prosperity. Clearly the government, business advisors and providers all need to reinforce the message that training and skills significantly impact on a company's success. Key employer organizations such as the CBI and BCCI need to be fully committed to promoting this agenda. However high quality, flexible and responsive the supply side is will be of no avail if there is a demand deficit for skills upgrading from employers. Therefore the first focus of this memorandum will be to examine if the actions proposed impact sufficiently on employers to bring about the step change in training necessary to meet the Leitch targets.

THE ROLE OF THE UK COMMISSION FOR EMPLOYMENT AND SKILLS19. At the pinnacle of the new employer facing structures is the new Commission for

Employment and Skills supported by eminent leaders from the business community. The UKCES, which was set up as a result of Leitch, operates across the UK and plays a central role in raising the UK's skills base, improving productivity and competitiveness, increasing employment and making a contribution to a fairer society. Having developed a view of what's needed, the UKCES will provide independent advice to the highest levels in the four UK governments to help achieve those improvements through strategic policy development, evidence-based analysis and the exchange of good practice. As well as providing greater employer influence over the employment and skills systems, the UKCES will promote employer investment in people. So it will also manage the performance of the employer-led Sector Skills Councils, advising Ministers on their re-licensing.

20. Will this bring the step change in employer commitment to workforce development? From the providers perspective this could become another supply side initiative to

improve providers offer. The key challenge the Committee may wish to put to Chris Humphries the new CEO is how they will tackle the Leitch challenge for 2010 to introduce compliance legislation for those sectors that fail to grasp voluntarism. It is not clear how an employer led body will be able to step outside the CBI view that the Government should keep interference with employment practices to a minimum.

21. Will the UKCES be able to influence the SME sector that needs to spawn the world beaters of tomorrow? We need the influential players such as the CBI and BCCI to step up and proactively promote the skills agenda. This would carry significant weight with their members.

THE CONTRIBUTION OF SECTOR SKILLS COUNCILS22. This takes us to the second group of influencers on whom Leitch placed a

significant burden of responsibility to transform the skills and qualification landscape. The 157 Group welcomes the move to empower Sector Skills Councils to work with employers and providers to ensure the qualification structure becomes more bespoke whilst retaining coherence and standards. To ensure an effective dialogue every SSC should have at least one provider on their board. The structure of QCA and established Examining Bodies with an effective monopoly over the qualification structure can now be transformed into a responsive and relevant instrument for companies and trainers to develop to reflect both sector and individual employer needs. The challenges that the Committee may wish to put to SSCs are how they ensure coherence and portability of qualifications as the number of awarding bodies increases.

23. The LSC or its successor bodies needs to ensure that the flexibility in the qualification framework is reflected in the funding model where public support is available. There will still be a tension between government targets for full qualifications and the desire of employers to focus on a narrower range of skills. This must be resolved if we are to see the full benefits of this new freedom. The key role of SSCs in the new diplomas needs to be nurtured if we are to get qualifications that ensure our pupils leave school or college with employability skills. These broad employability skills need to be given as much prominence as the narrowly defined functional skills.

24. Whilst flexible qualifications are a help they still don't guarantee that all firms will train and develop their workforce. SSCs are relatively small organizations who can only communicate directly with a minority of their members. They need to work through employer networks, trade bodies and at a regional level perhaps Regional Development Agencies and Regional Skills Partnerships.

THE REGIONAL STRUCTURE—RDAS, SKILLS PARTNERSHIPS AND THE LSC25. The Regional Development Agencies give significant prominence to skills within

their Regional Economic Strategies. Regional Observatories provide quality data about skills levels and trends in the region. They, together with some Regional LSCs who provide employment sectors skills plans have developed, through the Regional Skills Partnerships, Skills Action Plans. The question to ask the RDAs is who is influenced by these plans? The perception of the 157 Group is that it is public sector bodies such as the LSC, Local Government, colleges and perhaps SSCs (though in the latter case they are more likely to input to rather than draw on the data). The RDAs have relatively limited funds to pump prime their strategy. They do however have responsibility for the business broker network which now incorporates the LSC training and skills brokers. The brokers regularly interface with thousands of SMEs across the country. Is this a force that will transform an employer's attitude to training? The evidence to date is not strong. Talk to a large number of providers in the public and private sector and they will report very few broker leads that have resulted in significant volumes of new training. They rely on their own employer engagement teams to generate training business and develop strong supply chain links. This needs to be recognized in future funding models.

THE PROPOSED SKILLS FUNDING AGENCY, EMPLOYMENT AND SKILLS BOARDS AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT

26. The LSC as currently constituted would have a regional planning role even if a skills action plan didn't exist. The successor body, the Skills Funding Agency's core function will be to transfer funds to education and training providers, increasingly through the demand led Train to Gain and Skills Accounts. The new agency will work with Employment and Skills Boards where they exist and with local partners (led by local government) including Job Centre+ and the new Adult

Advice and Guidance teams, to ensure that employment and skills commissioning is considered within a local context. This is likely to encompass Local and Multi Area Agreements with skills and engagement targets. Is this demand led or planned? Are we in danger of having a number of players with some confusion and possibly even conflict over their respective roles? Does this have any relevance to the key relationship between the employer and the skills and training supply chain? The current DWP push to hold contracts with a few large organizations may not do full justice to the value of local ownership of the problem of economic inactivity.

27. Currently the LSC have focused adult funding strongly on the achievement of full level 2s and level 3 qualifications. FE providers are not slow to pick up the signals and the number of such qualifications has risen swiftly. Does this mean that employers and their workforce are getting the skills they need to drive up productivity? In some cases the answer is yes but too often the qualifications are catching up with the skills that already existed, albeit uncertificated. In Scotland a rapid improvement in qualification levels has not been matched by a similar rise in productivity. Planning by regional or local public sector bodies, particularly if focused on the narrow achievement of LAA qualification targets may not achieve the required results. An important emphasis should be on areas of market failure such as the re-engagement of the economically inactive or coping with closures and structural change in local employment patterns.

THE NEW NATIONAL APPRENTICESHIP SERVICE & SKILLS FUNDING AGENCY28. Will the new focused National Apprenticeship Service (NAS) with its sub-regional

teams deliver the step change in provision that the Leitch and the Government seek? A closer inspection suggests a structure that has survived largely intact since the days of the Training and Enterprise Councils with its own team, enrolment and funding processes which have resisted integration through the FEFC and LSC regimes. The Skills Pledge initiative offers the chance to work with employers in an integrated fashion with Basic Skills, Level 2 and Apprenticeship targets being looked at as part of an overall employer's HR strategy. DIUS need to ensure that this vision is not lost in discrete funding silos and that the Skills Funding Agency ensures that the offer is seamless from both the employer and provider's perspectives.

THE PUBLIC SECTOR CHALLENGE 29. The Government has a really big opportunity with the Public Sector Challenge (a

variant of the Skills Pledge) to raise the qualification levels for a large part of the workforce. In many parts of the country the public sector is the largest employer. A substantial part of the Leitch targets can be met by targeting these big employers. The Health Service have led the way with the LSC and Department of Health agreeing matched funding arrangements and workforce development plans for every Trust and Strategic Health Authority focused on workers in Bands 1-4. These plans are then shared with the local health care provider network. The Committee would find it enlightening to talk to Bob Fryer and his widening participation team (now transferred to the Skills for Health SSC). Local Government could well be encouraged to follow suit.

THE ROLE OF GENERAL FE COLLEGES—PROVIDING THE GLUE30. Colleges are key players at the heart of their communities who can support the local

economic and social strategies linking local government, employers, universities and job centre+ to transform the skills in their communities. The larger colleges can do much more as has been demonstrated by Newcastle College's intervention to secure the future of Carter and Carter's Apprentice provision. They represent respected and secure not for profit providers, rooted in their communities who are long term players with an ethos of quality public service.

31. They can establish strong training networks in their region linking with other quality providers, large or small. They can network nationally, either together or in partnership with large private sector operators to win national contracts.

32. They will offer guaranteed standards of employer engagement through the new Training Quality Standard and should be assisted directly to develop their supply chain capacity following the example of HEFCE with the university sector. Just as with the broker network it is unlikely that maximum benefit will come from funding intermediaries. There is a danger that the “Machinery of Government" changes will perversely disincentivise colleges to take on post 19 work.

33. They are well placed to take on the local strategic partnering role that the LSC will relinquish, with the advantage that they can not only fund but also deliver the agenda. GFE Colleges should expect to be key partners in their local communities providing the glue that links local government and communities to the business community. This should be recognized and encouraged by DCLG, DIUS and the RDAs.

34. To do this effectively the move to deregulation needs to gather pace. Care must be taken to ensure that the new structures do not stifle a reactive and responsive sector. Colleges are corporations that need to be allowed to grow, develop, merge and federate as dictated by their business governors in response to market forces. The performance of the sector in meeting every government target it has been set should give the government the confidence to empower its most flexible and responsive education partners.

April 2008

@HR25@

Memorandum 10

Submission from the Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management

1. INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY As a leading Professional Body the Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental

Management (CIWEM) plays an important role in peer reviewing by professional examination many of those practicing in the environmental field. CIWEM endeavours to create a sustainable, multi-skilled profession and supports its many members through knowledge sharing and a commitment to life long learning and continuing professional development. Members of the Institution include engineers, scientists and other disciplines engaged in advancing and delivering environmental management for a clean, green and sustainable world.

1.1 The Institution agrees with many of the recommendations of the Leitch Report and believes that, if we are to advance our aims of engaging more people with the life long learning agenda, and increasing the depth and range of their skill set, then higher education provision needs to become much more flexible and increasingly move away from conventional lecture/on-campus delivery to more work-based delivery and negotiated learning programmes.

2. EMPLOYER —HIGHER EDUCATION ENGAGEMENT2.1 CIWEM takes the view that employer participation in helping to design and to fund

participants on credit bearing work-based learning programmes is a win-win-win situation with

@UL@— the individual improving their credentials, skills and desire and thirst for learning@/UL@

@UL@— the employer gaining in the value of, and output from, their work force@/UL@

@UL@— the higher education institution (HEI) in forging closer links with industry and the wider community—providing expertise and facilities to more of an increasingly wide circle of people for the greater good of society as a whole. @/UL@

2.2 CIWEM feels that it is also critically important for further education institutions (FEIs) and HEIs to find more ways of working together to create imaginative and appealing educational pathways that offer a seamless transition to those learners who wish to escalate through to degree level and beyond following a more vocational route.

2.3 Students need to find FEIs (and particularly) HEIs to be learner-friendly and learner-focused organisations, offering programmes and awards that people can relate to and that provide access to tuition and resources in ways that enable those

@UL@— who are in-work and who are career developers@/UL@

@UL@— who are career changers@/UL@

@UL@— who are career break returners and@/UL@

@UL@— who are wishing to move into the labour market to feel included and valued. @/UL@

2.4 CIWEM also believes that adopting increasingly flexible forms of delivery such as elearning and blended learning will be a critical aspect of this process.

3. LEARNING AND SKILLS COUNCILS3.1 CIWEM believes that the Learning and Skills Council and [particularly] the Sector

Skills Councils must continue to provide encouragement and support to HEIs in guiding them to increase and develop provision that addresses the particular areas of skill shortage that sector members identify.

4. RDAS 4.1 RDAs should also work closely with FEIs and HEIs and, in conjunction, develop

innovative ways that reach out to, and familiarise, businesses in the region alerting them to the potential and receptive ear that these institutions must develop.

4.2 RDAs have a significant amount of intelligence about the existing business profile in their region and the developments and changes that are likely in the short-medium term. Further/higher educational institutions must work in harmony with this agenda to ensure that sufficient effort is put into addressing those areas and subjects where there is clearly a skills deficit in the regional populous with encouragement and appropriate funding from the RDA to help to facilitate this transition.

5. CONCLUSION5.1 It is clear that environmental issues—especially climate change and water-related

issues—together with sustainability will feature increasingly more prominently in the people's minds and in business's planning and strategy. CIWEM stresses the need for appropriate weighting and importance to be given to these issues by businesses, FEIs/HEIs, Sector Skills Councils and RDAs. It is only with such coordination of effort that that we will be able to speedily move to a position in which we can attain a knowledgeable, agile and responsive population, able to tackle the rapid changes that are needed in the environment/sustainability agenda head on.

The Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management (CIWEM) is the leading professional and qualifying body for those who are responsible for the stewardship of environmental assets. The Institution provides independent comment, within a multi-disciplinary framework, on the wide range of issues related to water and environmental management and sustainable development.

April 2008

@HR25@

Memorandum 11

Submission from the Engineering Professors' Council

The Engineering Professors' Council represents the interests of engineering in higher education. It has over 1600 members in virtually all of the UK universities that teach engineering. They are all either professors or Heads of departments. It has as its mission the promotion of excellence in engineering higher education teaching and research.

“A DEMAND LED APPROACH TO ENGINEERING HIGHER EDUCATION"The role of engineering degrees in meeting the recommendations of the Leitch Review

SUMMARYMany of the principles embedded in the Leitch review are fundamental to engineering

education and as a result the Engineering Professors Council welcome implementation of the Leitch recommendations. Accredited engineering programmes deliver graduates who are practical, articulate, numerate, literate, imaginative, versatile, confident and inquisitive with the potential to take responsibility for innovation, technology transfer and change. This is achieved though a partnership with industry ensuring that the programmes are relevant and meet the needs of industry. Since engineering has much to offer we strongly recommend that they are represented on the Commission of Employment and Skills. The skills shortages in engineering and the cost of engineering education has meant that engineering departments have adopted innovative approaches to education and created diverse flexible programmes that are supported by the professional institutions whose members make a significant, voluntary contribution to the education of engineers. However, there is concern that failure to fund engineering programmes properly is a threat to the future of engineering education. Engineering education is informed by research from blue sky to near market research and therefore recognising this type of research is important to the future of engineering. Hence we support the recommendation to develop research links between industry and academia.

1. INTRODUCTION1.1. The Engineering Professors Council (EPC) welcomes the Leitch Review and the

subsequent plans to implement its recommendations as many of the principles embedded in the Leitch Review are of fundamental importance to engineering education. They reinforce the best practice that has developed, in partnership, over many years between employers, professional institutions and university departments of engineering. However, the long standing nature of this partnership does not mean that those involved are in any way complacent. All parties continue to strive for improvement in order to prepare engineering graduates for the future global challenges and ensure that they are of world class standing.

1.2. Engineering higher education has much to contribute to the implementation of the Leitch Review as explained below and for that reason we strongly recommend that professional engineering is well represented on the new Commission for Employment and Skills.

2. THE ENGINEERING DEGREE2.1. The flagship degree programme for engineering education is the integrated Masters

(MEng). Experience has shown that this provides graduates who are practical, articulate, numerate, literate, imaginative, versatile, confident and inquisitive with the potential to take responsibility for innovation, technology transfer and change. In their early and mid careers, they are capable of looking for ways of exploiting emerging technologies and, where appropriate, promoting advanced designs and design methods. In designing their degree programme, University Departments are conscious that they will need to possess creativity founded upon a deep understanding of engineering principles and may eventually control projects involving advanced technology that require the management of both risk and large capital budgets. They will need to develop an understanding of the engineering industry, its role in wealth creation, the social and political context within which engineering is practised, the role of engineering in shaping the physical and social environment and its diverse contribution to the quality of life and social justice. Professional judgement and application of well understood engineering principles are key features of their role allied to the likelihood of responsibility for the direction of important tasks including the profitable management

of industrial and commercial enterprises and the supervision and management of others. This is a challenging vision which can only be realised through a partnership between industry and academia. Therefore we strongly recommend that this partnership, enshrined in the Leitch report, is encouraged and supported.

2.2. The integrated masters degree is a world class qualification that is recognised by members of the Washington Accord. The Washington Accord, signed in 1989, is an international agreement among bodies responsible for accrediting engineering degree programmes. It recognizes the substantial equivalency of programmes and recommends that graduates of programmes accredited by any of the signatory bodies be recognized by the other bodies as having met the academic requirements for entry to the practice of engineering. The signatories to the Washington Accord are Australia, Canada, Chinese Taipei, Hong Kong China, Ireland, Japan, Korea, New Zealand, Singapore, South Africa, United Kingdom and the United States. The professional institutions are responsible for ensuring that the engineering programmes in the UK meet this international standard therefore we strongly recommend that this continues.

2.3. The integrated masters degree is also a “level 2" qualification under the Bologna Agreement in Europe. This agreement is timetabled for implementation from 2010 and defines the academic levels for higher education throughout Europe; level 2 relates to postgraduate master degrees.

3. DIVERSITY AND FLEXIBILITY3.1. A fundamental principle of engineering degree programmes, aimed at producing

UK engineers capable of operating in a global environment, is the need to embrace diversity and flexibility. Diversity covers the ethnic and gender mix, the entry standards and the course content; flexibility covers the range of programmes including part time, full time, and work based. This diversity and flexibility has been driven by supply and demand.

3.2. Despite the recent increases in applications to some engineering programmes there is still concern that applications are, overall, in decline compared to those applying for non vocational programmes. For many years, engineering employers and academics have engaged in promoting engineering as a career (eg Women into Science, Engineering and Construction (WISE), Science and Engineering Ambassadors (SEA), The Royal Academy of Engineering BEST programme). Scholarships have been provided by professional institutions (e, g. ICE QUEST Awards, IMechE Undergraduate Scholarships), sector skills councils (eg ConstructionSkills Inspire Scholarships) and industry. There is still a need to do more because the engineering community does not represent the community at large and because there is a skill shortage in engineering. Therefore we strongly recommend that universities, industry, professional institutions and sector skills councils continue to promote engineering.

3.3. The traditional entry to an engineering degree programme is via an A-level education but engineering entry requirements are diverse in recognition of the fact the students can have a variety of qualifications including BTech, HND, HNC, foundation degrees, overseas qualifications and apprenticeships. This means that programmes are designed to develop students' skills from a broad base. This approach allows students to develop their knowledge and understanding of the underlying engineering and scientific principles, their cognitive and intellectual skills through interaction with their peers, academics and employers, and their application skills through research informed learning. It is anticipated that the new engineering and construction Advanced Diplomas will provide routes to higher education in engineering for those candidates that elect to study the additional mathematics module as part of their Additional and Specialist Learning. The fact that the programmes accept a variety of qualification means that the new Advanced Diplomas will be accommodated.

3.4. The most direct way to because a professional chartered engineer is through the integrated Masters degree but there are alternative, flexible approaches that have allowed a number of pathways to be developed to cater for individual learning plans. This flexible approach includes full time residential students, students on day release, and students attending part time. Industrial experience is part of many degree programmes and can include sandwich placements (three to twelve months in industry as part of the degree), vacation employment and work based modules and projects. Students routinely enter the profession through cognate degrees with a conversion via an

engineering MSc. All of these programmes are accredited by the professional institutions. We strongly recommend that that this flexible, demand led approach is encouraged and supported.

4. INDUSTRY ENGAGEMENT4.1. A significant aspect of industrial engagement is the role of practising engineers in

the accreditation process. This is an important part of the development of engineering education—innovation and best practice are encouraged; industrial engagement at strategic and implementation levels is facilitated; engineering skills of design are learnt through case studies with the support of industry so that teaching staff have to be engaged with industry. This accreditation process provides a mechanism to ensure that engineering degree programmes meet the demands of industry and are world class. Properly applied, accreditation is a constructive process that promotes innovation. For example the institutions are developing means of accrediting work based learning and promoting new work experience programmes.

4.2. Industrial engagement in engineering degree programmes is mandatory. Effective collaboration with local and regional industry provides advice on strategic planning and development of the engineering discipline, research priorities, feedback on meeting the requirements of the Research Assessment Exercise, and provides teaching material to be used in design and project work. Industry provides access to sites and innovative schemes such as the ConstructionSkills Constructionarium. We strongly recommend that this industry engagement is formally recognised giving credit to industry and ensuring that the programmes meet the needs of industry.

5. DRIVING INNOVATION5.1. Changes in engineering education are either demand led through employer

engagement, research led through academic leadership or supply led through student engagement. A demand led example is the introduction of design and sustainability into programmes though industrialists appointed as Visiting Professors under the RAE schemes and more recently SSCs schemes. Research led changes are driven by academic leadership for example the increasing need to develop skills for climate change adaptation. Student led engagement is through feedback and monitoring.

5.2. Engineering departments and the professional institutions rely on their membership to support the education of engineers. This support is voluntary and extensive. Engineering education varies from the narrowly focused programmes that develop advanced skills in technical knowledge and understanding to broadening programmes that develop engineering skills in design, sustainability or management. (e. g. the Royal Academy of Engineering proposal for the 21st Century Engineer).

6. COST OF ENGINEERING EDUCATION6.1. A key challenge for engineering education is the cost of the degree. A recent report

by ETB/EPC highlighted the fact that the costs of most engineering programmes are subsidised by postgraduate fees. The report uncovered a range of income and cost allocation methods which do not allocate all costs, include disincentives, do not reflect the actual use of central services and estates, and do not identify teaching separately from research. The report does not cover the substantial indirect funds provided by industry in the form of time and access to resources. Therefore there is a need to engage universities and HEFCE in linking income with expenditure to ensure that engineering education is adequately funded. The postgraduate fee subsidy is a risky strategy for the funding of higher education in engineering as it relies on fees from overseas students. Such student recruitment and fee income is at risk as competition from MSc programmes taught in English develop internationally, particularly in Europe.

7. THE IMPORTANCE OF RESEARCH7.1. A key aspect of the world class engineering education offered in the UK is the fact

that it is informed by research which is often at the boundaries of engineering and truly multidisciplinary in nature. Much of engineering research is supported by industry through steering groups, access to data, sites and knowledge, and is demand led. It is often commercially sensitive and innovative. For these reasons recognising employer engagement in the research assessment exercises is of fundamental importance if the exercise is genuinely going to reflect the research undertaken in engineering in higher education. We strongly support this recommendation to include the impact of knowledge transfer, innovation and dialogue between leading employers and leading academic

specialists in universities in the next research assessment exercise as much of innovative work in universities is near market and of direct relevance to industry.

April 2008

@HR25@

Memorandum 12

Submission from Skill: National Bureau for Students with Disabilities

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY1. Skill: National Bureau for Students with Disabilities promotes opportunities to

empower young people and adults with any kind of disability to realise their potential.

2. The Sector Skills Councils are being advocated as the mechanism for increasing the demand-led nature of skills and qualifications through their involvement of employers. The balance to be achieved in a demand-led system is establishing whose demand is leading: that of the learners or of the employers? Employers may have low levels of awareness and understanding of disability issues and they may be missing out on valuable people through prejudice: diversity is often seen as the result not as a criterion. Skill believes that the Sectors Skills Councils (SSCs) could still do much more work with employers not only to increase their awareness of disability issues and understanding of legislation, but also of the funding and support available.

3. A key aspect of generating growth in the skills agenda has been through regional response. Skill is concerned about how the SSCs will allow for a regional response to locally identified and funded need. The development of the proposed Skills Funding Agency and facilitating its regional activities will be essential to deliver this aspect of the agenda. In terms of higher education, in recent years, the regional agenda has taken more prominence as institutions have collaborated with statutory, community and voluntary sector organisations in their respective regions to further meet the skills demands of that region. Aimhigher has done much to diversify the student body but more still needs to be done to ensure that disabled people have genuinely equal access to HE.

4. One aspect of lifelong learning, particularly in the workplace, that can often be overlooked is that of retraining for employees who become disabled whilst in post. In addition, the government's recent announcements on the withdrawal of funding for Equivalent and Lower Qualifications, whilst many disabled people will be exempt from this, present another barrier to those wishing to retrain and seek an alternative career.

1. SKILL'S ROLE1.1 Skill: National Bureau for Students with Disabilities promotes opportunities to

empower young people and adults with any kind of disability to realise their potential in further, continuing and higher education, training and employment throughout the United Kingdom. Skill works by providing information and advice to individuals, promoting good practice and influencing policy in partnership with disabled people, service providers and policy makers.

1.2 Skill would like the Committee to note that it is responding to the recent DIUS and DCSF Green Paper Raising Expectations: Enabling the System to Deliver and this will cover in more detail issues relating to further education funding and the future of the Learning and Skills Council.

2. THE ROLE OF THE SECTOR SKILLS COUNCILS2.1 The Sector Skills Councils are being advocated as the mechanism for increasing the

demand-led nature of skills and qualifications through their involvement of employers. The following statement from World Class Skills encompasses many of Skill's concerns:

@UL@”The skills deficits in England are heavily differentiated by age, disability, ethnicity and gender, but also by geography and socio-economic group." 30@/UL@

2.2 The balance to be achieved in a demand-led system is establishing whose demand is leading: that of the learners or of the employers? The demand-led system places power to choose in the hands of the individual and the employer but, with this, comes increased responsibility to make truly informed choices. Employers tend to focus solely upon recruiting enough people with the skills

30 DIUS, 2007, World Class Skills: Implementing the Leitch Review of Skills in England, Section 14.1

and attributes they require but the low levels of awareness and understanding of disability issues amongst many employers mean that they may be missing out through prejudice.

2.3 Investors in People UK delivered a report in June 200631 based on a research programme that sought evidence on how employers promote equality of opportunity in the development of their organisation's people. It found that diversity is a well-recognised issue but is most prominently linked with ethnicity issues rather than with issues of disability. Many organisations maintain that as they select and recruit the best person for the job; diversity is seen as the result not as a criterion. This is a worrying indicator of lack of disability awareness of employers.

2.4 In addition, the then Disability Rights Commission published a report in 200732 stating that the risks of disclosing unseen disabilities and health conditions in the teaching, nursing and social work professions are compounded by the stigma attached to them. A supportive workplace or training environment was found to be key in encouraging disclosure among employees and those training within the three professions examined. Participants in the study said that major shifts in attitudes and behaviour were needed in the workplace to overcome their fears about disclosure.

2.5 Skill therefore believes that the Sectors Skills Councils (SSCs) could still do much more work with employers not only to increase their awareness of disability issues and understanding of legislation, but also of the funding and support available. Therefore, more training and education to give disabled potential employees true equality of opportunity in recruitment, training and development of career pathways is urgently needed.

2.6 Skill is also concerned about the mechanisms that the SSCs, as well as the UK Commission for Employment and Skills, have for engaging with small and medium-sized employers, and employers at a regional and local level. A recent study by JobCentre Plus33 found that there was a difference in the awareness of the availability of Access to Work between SMEs and larger employers. IN addition, although there was no difference between SMEs and larger employers in their stated willingness to employ hard to place groups of people, there was a difference in whether or not they had actually done this in the preceding year.

3. REGION-BASED AGENDA3.1 A key aspect of generating growth in the skills agenda has been through regional

response. This is connected to the proposals in Raising Expectations: Enabling the System to Deliver which will place local funding and delivery at the heart of the funding mechanism. Skill is therefore concerned about how the SSCs will allow for a regional response to locally identified and funded need. The development of the proposed Skills Funding Agency and facilitating its regional activities will be essential to deliver this aspect of the agenda.

3.2 In terms of higher education, in recent years, the regional agenda has taken more prominence as institutions have collaborated with statutory, community and voluntary sector organisations in their respective regions to further meet the skills demands of that region. HE is now recognised as a significant contributor within regions as well as locally and nationally. Aimhigher and other widening participation initiatives have done much to diversify the student bodies, but more still needs to be done to ensure that disabled people have genuinely equal access to HE. Whilst the future of Aimhigher funding has been secured by HEFCE until 2011, it is extremely disappointing that the regional strand of Aimhigher has been removed and will no longer be funded beyond August 2008. The impact of this on the regional skills agenda will have to remain to be seen, particularly on disabled students as many of the Aimhigher initiatives that specifically targeted disabled students were run at the regional level.

4. LIFELONG LEARNING

31 Investors in People, 2006: Recruitment & Selection of a Diverse Workforce, Research Report, Prepared by Discovery.32 Stanley et al, 2007: Disclosing Disability: Disabled students and practitioners in social work, nursing and teaching, Social Care Workforce Research Unit, King's College London. 33 Bunt, et al (2007). JobCentre Plus Annual Employer (Market View) Survey 2006-07. DWP Research Report 437, pp 76-79.

One aspect of lifelong learning, particularly in the workplace, that can often be overlooked is that of retraining for employees who become disabled whilst in post. Employers have a duty under the Disability Discrimination Act to make reasonable adjustments for disabled employees, which includes people who become disabled whilst in post. In meeting this duty, employers may need to adjust a person's job and role and may need to provide training and learning opportunities for them. Skill believes that it is important that employers meet this duty as without it disabled people can face poverty as a result of unfair dismissal. In addition, the government's recent announcements on the withdrawal of funding for Equivalent and Lower Qualifications, whilst many disabled people will be exempt from this, present another barrier to those wishing to retrain and seek an alternative career.

April 2008

@HR25@

Memorandum 13

Submission from the Institution of Chemical Engineers

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY1. The process-based and chemistry-using industries, having enjoyed considerable

recent success, face severe skills challenges if this success is to continue. Action on the regional level to address these challenges is both necessary and welcome. The RDAs and regional partners have already taken useful action but greater coherence is required across the RDAs and DAs; across the spectrum of different skills levels; across in short, medium and long term; and between the SSCs' work and the established, proven qualifications structures in the engineering sector.

CONTEXT2. IChemE (the Institution of Chemical Engineers) is an international organization for

professionals in chemical, biochemical, process and materials engineering. It has some 28,000 members of whom approximately two-thirds are based in the UK. The industries that IChemE and its members serve—principally the process-based and chemistry-using industries—are of enormous importance to the UK economy. The process industries as defined by Cogent, the sector skills council, alone account for some £50 billion GVA to the UK economy: IChemE members are engaged throughout these industries and beyond (eg in the food and water industries).

3. These industries have enjoyed a period of considerable success in terms of investment, and further inward investments are in prospect—up to some £7 billion in the North East region alone, for example. The UK's ability to secure and deliver these investments depends on the supply of skilled chemical engineers and allied engineering professionals.

4. Moreover, major developments in the economy, such as the development of new capacity in the nuclear industry, the development of alternative transport fuels and renewable chemical feedstocks depend critically upon chemical engineering. The prospects for the UK to respond to these challenges, and to secure a commercial lead through innovation and competitiveness, also depend on the supply of the same skilled professionals.

5. Partly as a result of recent investment success, but also reflecting the pattern of industrial change in recent years, the supply of skilled professionals in chemical engineering and allied fields is now well short of what is required to meet employer demand. IChemE, supported by industry and universities and industry, has done much to attract more young people into the subject—its whynotchemeng campaign has been instrumental in increasing the number of UCAS applications to study chemical engineering by over 70% in some 5 years—but it will be a considerable time for this to translate into the supply of fully trained engineers, and even then it is likely to fall short of demand as the UK university capacity in the subject is essentially full.

ACTION REQUIRED6. Consequently, a full range of actions is necessary to underpin a large and vital

section of the economy. It should include: increased university capacity in chemical, biochemical and process engineering; improved provision for non-graduate engineering personnel to advance to fully qualified status; measures to facilitate and not obstruct the migration of engineers from outside the EEA to the UK; sustained public and industry support for measures to enhance skills supply such as the National Skills Academies for the process and nuclear industries; and critically, a fully “joined-up" menu of skills support and qualifications based on the proven structures already in place in the engineering profession, and integrating the work of the Sector Skills Councils with these. Co-ordinated action on a regional level has a key part to play in delivering these objectives.

7. IChemE is committed to co-operating with regional bodies and structures in the interests of the chemical engineering profession and the industries it serves, in order to enhance skills supply, training and professional development. Since late 2006 it has

@UL@— Established closer relationships with the regional chemicals initiatives, designed to support the process industry clusters in the North East, the North West, West Yorkshire and Humberside, and with Chemical Sciences Scotland;@/UL@

@UL@— Allocated specific regional responsibilities to central member support staff;@/UL@

@UL@— Begun a process of appointing staff to be physically located in the regions—appointments covering Scotland and the North of England are already in place and more are expected to follow;@/UL@

@UL@— Opened discussion with other engineering and scientific organizations in order to improve regional co-ordination and impact on regional engineering skills supply and other matters;@/UL@

@UL@— Commenced an active dialogue with Sector Skills Council colleagues@/UL@

@UL@— Established relationships with RDA staff connected with the process industries and their skills supply, and provided strategic and practical advice and support@/UL@

8. IChemE commends the recognition by RDAs, particularly those in the three northern English regions, of the skills issues facing the process industries and more broadly, the recognition by all RDAs of their central role in relation to skills supply. However, the RDAs must ensure that their responses to the skills challenge are coherent in several respects.

9. First, they must be coherent across the different regions. The process industries are global—they do not as a rule think in terms of the UK nationally, let alone individual regions. If they are to experience a clear, accessible pattern of skills support, it is essential for some degree of coherence and commonality to be established across all the regions and DAs. The best way to do this will be, in our view, by working with and taking guidance from the engineering profession nationally though the professional organizations and the Engineering Council UK. While emphasis and priorities will differ from region to region, and while regional flexibility must be maintained, companies should be able to recognize common standards and common means of access to skills support whichever region they are dealing with.

10. Second, they must present an integrated and coherent set of actions and pathways across the spectrum of skills levels from less advanced technical skills through highly skilled process operators and technologists to senior professional engineers with Chartered status. Skills provision must allow all individuals with the requisite ability to advance to senior, highly qualified status, whether they start out as engineering graduates, non-graduate technical personnel, mature candidates, or people retraining from some other discipline.

11. Third, they must address the short, medium and long term. In the short term for example this may mean setting up on a regional or cluster basis, schemes to train individuals in the craft and technical skills required to achieve timely completion of important construction projects, such as those involved in process industry inward investments, notwithstanding the competing demands of large construction projects elsewhere. In the medium term, it will mean working with employers to improve and promote the overall “career offer" to technically qualified personnel and to retain skilled graduates. Importantly, in the longer term it must mean working on the whole “talent pipeline", from primary schools upwards eg through national roll-out of the Children Challenging Industry programme or equivalent. In this context, something of a disconnect is caused by the fact that RDAs are not in a position to invest in projects directed at school students, eg in promoting STEM education. This should be addressed.

12. Perhaps most importantly of all, there must be coherence between the work of the Sector Skills Councils and regional skills bodies on the one hand, and the established professional qualifications in the engineering sector on the other. The regional skills partnerships and the SSCs must work closely with the engineering organizations to ensure that the qualifications and standards developed under SSC auspices link seamlessly to the registered engineering qualifications—Engineering Technician, Incorporated Engineer and Chartered Engineer. The highest level qualification, Chartered status, is internationally recognized and sought after as a badge of excellence and competence, reflecting both educational attainment in the requisite disciplines and proven ability to “do the job" in practice. Any lack of co-ordination, or any apparent competition, between this

system and the work of the SSCs would be to the great detriment both of skills supply and of the engineering-based industries.

April 2007

@HR25@

Memorandum 14

Submission from the Association of Accounting Technicians

SUMMARY1. The Association of Accounting Technicians is pleased to have the opportunity to

give evidence to this inquiry. As a large specialist professional membership and awarding body we bring a particular perspective to the debate around post-16 skills training.

2. We have set out our evidence using the headings in the call for evidence. In doing so we focus on some specific issues impacting on the implementation of Leitch. As a national body our experience is mainly of the impact on a national rather than regional level. We are confident, however, that the issues that we put before the committee are relevant to the ability to address skills development at a regional and local level. The main messages that we would wish to put before the committee are

@UL@— Institutional, administrative and regulatory systems remain far too complex and represent a real barrier to successful implementation of Leitch.@/UL@

@UL@— The burden of bureaucracy too often gets in the way of innovative approaches to skills development.@/UL@

@UL@— There are lessons to be learned from the experience of professional bodies, particularly in relation to higher-level skills.@/UL@ABOUT THE AAT

3. The AAT (Association of Accounting Technicians) is the only UK-based professional body dedicated to the education, training, development and support of accounting technicians. The AAT's qualification and membership develop relevant and practical accounting and finance skills for life. The AAT has a total membership of over 110,000, including student, full and fellow members.

4. The AAT provides an innovative competence-based accounting qualification based on national occupational standards for accounting. The qualification has been designed to improve the employability of AAT members and to support the efforts of employers to raise the standards of performance in the workplace.

5. There are two pathways to the AAT Accounting Qualification: the NVQ/SVQ pathway and the Diploma pathway. Both lead to the same outcome: competent accounting technicians. The difference lies largely in the assessment methodology as the NVQ/SVQ pathway is most suitable for students working in accountancy who can produce work place evidence and the Diploma pathway is more suitable for those who, for various reasons, are not able to produce work place evidence. Both pathways test competence. The Diploma pathway includes a new unit on professional ethics.

6. Both qualification pathways are organised into three levels of competence up to NVQ Level 4. The qualification offers total flexibility and choice. The three levels of the qualification (for both pathways) are externally accredited by the UK regulatory agencies: the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA) and the Scottish Qualifications Authority (SQA). The AAT awards over 20,000 qualifications every year

7. The AAT makes a major contribution to the development of higher-level skills. A recent published analysis by the LSC of higher level skills in further education showed that the AAT students accounted for the largest single group of Level 4 students with 8723 enrolments in 2005-06 accounting for 5.9% of the total34

8. The AAT is also supporting the government's drive to widen the choice and take-up of vocational qualifications in the 14-16 curriculum with “AAT in Schools". In this initiative, the

34 Further Education and the Delivery of Higher-level Qualifications—LSC March 2008 pg 38.

AAT facilitates partnerships between centres already offering the AAT qualification to adults and schools wishing to expand their package of options for 14-16 year olds. For the first time, this age group has access to a well-established progression route leading all the way to the chartered accountancy qualifications and eligible for UCAS points.

THE ROLE OF THE LEARNING AND SKILLS COUNCIL AND SECTOR SKILLS COUNCILS9. The AAT believes that the system is overburdened with bureaucracy. It has been

our experience that the LSC has been inconsistent in the application of principle and lacks customer focus.

10. A practical example may serve to illustrate this point. In 2006 the AAT responded to feedback from learners and employers and developed a 3 level “Diploma" pathway as an alternative to its NVQ. It is a competence-based qualification that has been derived from the same National Occupational Standards in Accounting and is of equal standard to the NVQ; indeed, in response to employer demand, it includes an additional component on Professional Ethics. The key differences are that students on the Diploma pathway use generic case studies and work-based scenarios rather than their own work-place evidence and some elements of duplication, inherent in the NVQ model, are removed. Students in colleges often share classes and the learning outcomes are recognised as the same by chartered accounting bodies who offer the same exemptions to students for onward progression.

11. The LSC, however, set down rules that define the level of a qualification in terms of the number of guided learning hours. So, to be recognised as a full Level 2, a non-NVQ vocationally related qualification must require 325 guided learning hours. There is no such requirement for the NVQ. Level 2 of the Diploma does not require 325 guided learning hours; neither does the NVQ but the NVQ is recognised as a full Level 2 while the Diploma is not. Aside from the general principle that it is surely more important to measure outcomes rather than inputs, this matters for two main reasons. Funding is directed to supporting students to gain a first “full" Level 2 and only “full" Level 2 qualifications count towards college attainment targets. The outcome has been that a number of colleges have stopped offering the Diploma option and it will not be an option available through Train to Gain. Obviously the AAT has taken this matter up with the LSC and continues to do so. At no stage has the LSC refuted our argument that the qualifications are equivalent but it has refused to be flexible, suggesting that the matter will be resolved in the process of migration to the QCF. Meanwhile an innovative qualification, designed specifically in response to employer and learner demand, and contributing to the government's progression agenda, and meeting the UK's skills needs, is put at risk.

12. We believe that while this could be seen as a parochial concern for the AAT, it does in fact serve as an excellent example of the way inflexible bureaucracy stifles innovation in the development of courses.

13. This brings us neatly to the development of the Qualifications and Credit Framework (QCF) which we would again argue, while laudable in its aims, carries the risk of forcing qualifications into neat templates based on bureaucratic convenience rather than learner needs. This is particularly true for qualifications such as ours based on national occupational standards. So, for example, a coherent “unit" on a particular aspect of required competence may have to be artificially split because it does not neatly fit into the rigid template that every QCF unit must have 10 hours learning time.

14. The AAT believes that there are considerable weaknesses in the design of the Sector Skills Network that compromises the ability of Sector Skills Councils to fully reflect the employer voice and thus negates their ability to be the sole arbiters of “demand" for qualifications. Of particular concern to the AAT is the fact that because they are set up vertically, by industrial sector, they are not geared up to analyse and address skills like accountancy that are required across all sectors. This issue must be a priority for the review of the SSCs that is to be undertaken by the UK Commission for Employment and Skills.

15. One simple step that would help to bridge this gap would be for there to be a greater recognition of the role that professional bodies can have. Many of the cross-sectoral skills are in professional areas where there are established professional bodies with a strong track record of

success in developing skills and raising standards. The professions also hold lifelong learning and employability as part of their central ethos. For example the accountancy profession, with its compulsory CPD, could be argued to be far more about lifelong learning than colleges or universities offering discrete qualifications This expertise is too often ignored and we believe that mechanisms should be put in place to actively engage professional bodies in the planning and development of provision. This will be of particular importance in addressing the priority, highlighted in the Leitch report, of developing higher-level skills.

16. This need for greater involvement from professional bodies was specifically acknowledged in the LSC report referred to above which recommends that: “Professional bodies are a critically important contributor to the higher-level landscape||||.. The LSC should attempt to co-operate more closely with the professional bodies."35

17. It is our experience, as a professional body as well as an awarding body, that having a direct relationship with employers is most effective in ensuring the relevance of our qualifications. In this context we would argue that at a regional level the priority should be to foster direct relationships between local employers and providers to develop skills training that is truly tailored to fit business needs. We believe it is critical that the success of the Train to Gain brokerage system is objectively measured to ascertain the level to which its introduction has actually contributed to increased skill levels in the UK.

THE RESPECTIVE ROLES OF THE FURTHER EDUCATION AND HIGHER EDUCATION SECTORS IN DELIVERING A REGION-BASED AGENDA FOR LEITCH

18. Although we have some partnerships in higher education, in the delivery of foundation degrees, the main focus for the delivery of the AAT's qualifications is further education. In this context we would wish to highlight one specific area, which is the role of the sector in delivering higher-level skills.

19. The AAT as the largest single awarding body for Level 4 qualifications in FE gave evidence in the preparation of the LSC report “Further Education and the Delivery of Higher-level Qualifications". The report endorses our concern that the concentration of funding towards Level 2 and Level 3 qualifications is putting at risk the provision of higher-level courses:

@UL@”In particular, there was concern that a large number of colleges are entrenched in a public-subsidy model of management, in which cuts in funding are translated directly into cuts in provision. In spite of the good will of programme co-ordinators and teachers, some college principals and their management teams have tended to take a “top-down" and “bottom-line" approach, focused on maximising public funding rather than developing full-cost provision."36 @/UL@

20. The AAT is not suggesting that funding Level 4 should be a priority. We recognise the argument for a greater burden of costs to be met by learners and employers and our evidence suggests that they are willing to pay. We believe rather that greater attention should be paid to supporting further education colleges to move away from the “public-subsidy model" and to develop the necessary entrepreneurial mind set and skills to develop and market full-cost provision. The LSC report recommends using the expertise of professional bodies in this area37. The AAT would view this as an area where local and regional initiatives could play an important part and we would welcome the opportunity to be involved.

THE IMPACT ON STUDENTS OF THESE INITIATIVES, PARTICULARLY IN THE CONTEXT OF POLICIES FOR LIFELONG LEARNING.

21. The AAT is concerned that to date in implementing Leitch, the Government's policy focus and funding priorities have focused on the younger age groups. The AAT's qualification has proved very popular with mature people seeking an opportunity for retraining or when returning to the workplace after a period of absence. Free provision for a first Level 3 is restricted to those under 26.

35 ibid pg 60.36 ibid pg 25 para 100.37 ibid pg 8 para 35.

22. We would also suggest that for many older learners the concentration on Level 2 might be inappropriate. Although they may have no formal qualifications through acquired work and life experience they are able, with appropriate study support, to take on qualifications at a higher-level. This is also more likely to motivate them to return to learning. Artificially forcing such learners to start their training at level 2 is likely to be demotivating and to lead to an increase in drop out rates.

23. Overall we would argue that with the increasing need for us all to work to a greater age and the requirement for all ages to contribute to the economy, it is vital that the needs of all generations to acquire skills are addressed equally.

The AAT would welcome the opportunity to expand on these thoughts through giving oral evidence to the committee.

April 2008

@HR25@

Memorandum 15

Submission from the Open College Network, Yorkshire and Humber Region

VOCATIONAL SKILLS IN THE LEITCH REPORTThe main focus and emphasis of the Leitch report is on Skills. He identified a Skills gap

between the UK and other countries, and his recommendations address how we should attempt to close this gap and make our Skills system work more effectively. He made the ambitious commitment to “become a world leader in Skills by 2020"

The report focuses on Employment, Employers and Employability in a system where vocational skills should be “demand led" and not centrally planned. There are new targets to aim, for too—1.9m level 3 attainments by 2020 and apprenticeships up to 500,000 a year.

The report turns the face of the skills system in England firmly towards the needs of learners and employers. The benefits to the economy of £80bn over 30 years will need investment and Train to Gain, Learner Accounts and funded Apprenticeships all represent the government's financial commitment.

N/OCN and Vocational Skills—N/OCN Accreditation confirms the belief that there is a range of routes towards vocational competence. Employers should have the opportunity to choose the flexible approach that N/OCN offers and Learners should be able to start from where they feel confident to begin their learning and skills journey. If the whole skills focus is on the achievement of NVQs there will be a mismatch between targets set and the ability of learners to achieve those targets. N/OCN accreditation can make swift and focused responses to Employer demands and lead the learners towards the NVQ place of occupational competence.

QUALIFICATION & CURRICULUM FRAMEWORK (QCF)At the same time as the Leitch report highlights the “need to be much more ambitious" in

planning to close the skills gap, the QCA has been tasked to develop a new framework for Qualifications and Curriculum.

These two developments must link together so that the structure of the one can deliver the promises of the other. QCA has recognised that there is a need to offer:

@UL@— Flexible Qualifications that are responsive to need@/UL@

@UL@— Credit based Qualifications that show, incrementally, what a learner has achieved@/UL@

N/OCN and QCF: As an Award Body N/OCN has been a national leader in developing flexible, credit-based Qualifications. Learners achieve credits in an OCN system which deeply understands the structures and processes that support, uphold and quality assure incremental achievement of credit-based qualifications. Learners are encouraged and, through IAG structures, advised throughout their learning experience.

FOUNDATION LEARNING TIER (FLT)The impact on learners of setting national targets at Level 2 has been disastrous. The

lobbying of those campaigning on behalf of Lifelong Learning has had a significant influence on QCA's acknowledgement that targets cannot simply be set at Level 2. Those working with learners potentially caught in the skills gap have always understood that learning is a journey that usually begins at a distance before the finishing point. It is to the QCA's credit that the FLT, offering Qualifications at Entry and Level 1, has been seen as a significant component in achievement and progress and is integral to the QCF.

N/OCN and FLT: In order to put the UK on a course for achieving Leitch's ambitions N/OCN can provide the routes and the road map towards flexible, accessible and targeted FLT Qualifications. These N/OCN Qualifications can be structured to suit the needs of Learners and Employers.

If our learning journey is to be regarded as a lifelong experience which enhances skills, employability and the individual's place in society, we must offer as many pathways to that end as possible. If we can accept that learners and employers have different needs, starting points and goals then we can make sure we provide a rich variety of responses and work towards the UK's becoming a world leader in Skills.

April 2008

@HR25@

Memorandum 16

Submission from Energy & Utility Skills

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY1.1 Energy & Utility Skills is the Sector Skills Council for the electricity, gas, waste

management and water industries. Employer-led, our purpose is to identify employers' skills needs and provide effective solutions to improve business performance across the UK.

1.2 This document presents our response to the Innovation, Universities and Skills Committee Inquiry on the response to the agenda set out by Leitch38 Our view is that, whilst regional partners are working in partnership and are embedding the Leitch vision into their skills strategies, the practical reality is that there remains a confusing picture for our employers in relation to the structures, roles and responsibilities and priorities of regional agencies and partnerships. Whilst we are working with the regional structures to support the development of skills solutions for our employers, the variance region by region is not helpful and it provides a fragmented offer to our sector.

1.3 The future apprenticeship agency and the bodies to be created as a result of the joint DCSF / DIUS consultation paper, Raising Expectations,39will add to this confusion. We will lobby for evidence of national sector need to feature strongly in the funding priorities for existing and new agencies. The move to direct funding through the Local Authorities, despite the commitment to establish sub-regional consortia, may not be helpful without a requirement for them to focus on national sector priorities.

1.4 Our main concern in relation to further education (FE) is the quality of trainers, provision and facilities to effectively deliver to meet the needs of our sector. The new arrangements for the new part A and B employer responsiveness quality standards do not address our concerns—we would want a greater say in endorsing provision for our sector.

1.5 The core principles of our higher education strategy are fully endorsed by the Leitch recommendations. Whilst there are some good practice examples of these principles being applied in collaborations between employers and HE Institutions, they are limited and often, where they do exist, it is often between one employer and one university.

1.6 Again, whilst we are making some progress, we do need our role as an SSC to be recognised and the regional delivery models to be flexible enough to respond to national, sectoral priorities in order to create the demand-led approach that Leitch advocates. We also need to be funded or be in a position to influence funding to roll out our pilot activity in order to maximise impact for the sector.

1.7 Overall, our employers are frustrated by the current delivery models and whilst we are working with them to facilitate access to skills development, there are potentially more effective and efficient ways of ensuring employer responsiveness within the system. As part of our strategy to increase our capacity to deliver employer solutions, we aim to pursue a National Skills Academy (NSA) for our sector, or industries within our sector. This will help us provide a national solution to address skills needs of employers within our sector.

2. ABOUT EU SKILLS2.1 Energy & Utility Skills is the Sector Skills Council for the electricity, gas, waste

management and water industries. Employer-led, our purpose is to identify employers' skills needs and provide effective solutions to improve business performance across the UK.

2.2 Our sector faces advancing technology, rapid change, global competition and rising expectations of choice. The skills of our people and their continuing development are crucially important to employers and employees.

38 Leitch (2006). Prosperity for All in the Global Economy—World Class Skills.39 CSF/DIUS (2008). Raising Expectations: Enabling the system to deliver.

2.3 Our work on our Sector Skills Agreement (SSA)40 has reinforced our purpose and given us a strong platform to further develop and deliver skills solutions for the sector. We are currently taking forward the key skills issues identified in our SSA. We have also developed a Sector Qualification Strategy (SQS) and will begin implementing this in 2008. Our research programme will ensure that EU Skills is an authoritative source of foresight, labour market and supply side information and intelligence.

2.4 We work with central government and the governments in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales to both influence and respond to the skills strategies for each nation in order to meet the skills needs of our sector. We also operate in each of the English regions. Our Skills Solutions Team has Skills Directors that interface with employers and agencies in each of the English Regions.

2.5 EU Skills welcomes the opportunity to provide evidence to the Innovation, Universities and Skills Committee. We have a well established, and comprehensive, network of employers, who are engaged through regular contact by our national and regional Skills Directors and industry leads. We also have well established high level employer strategy groups and workgroups for each of the four industries in our footprint. This response has been compiled through our employer networks and comments have also been invited via our website. We have detailed our response to the specific questions below.

3. THE RESPONSES OF RDAS TO LEITCH AND HOW COHERENT AND STRUCTURED THESE ARE AND; THE ROLE OF THE LEARNING AND SKILLS COUNCIL AND SECTOR SKILLS COUNCILS IN THIS CONTEXT.

3.1 Whilst regional partners are working in partnership and are embedding the Leitch vision41into their skills strategies, the practical reality is that there remains a confusing picture for our employers.

3.2 Our employers are confused about the roles and responsibilities of the agencies involved -Regional Development Agencies (RDAs), national and regional Learning and Skills Councils (LSCs) and partnerships created to deliver on the skills agenda in England.

3.3 Adding to this confusion is the fact that regional priorities vary, both in relation to sector priorities and skills priorities, even in neighbouring regions. The result is that an employer can get LSC support in one part of their operational area, but not in another, for addressing the same need. Equally, regional priorities are, not unreasonably, focused on economic development. As a sector which is five times more productive (GVA/head) than the UK average,42this can be to our disadvantage.

3.4 The mechanism for delivering the employer offer, Train to Gain, has added to that confusion and also unhelpfully blurred the SSC role. This is despite arrangements such as the recently signed “Protocol" between the 25 SSCs in the Skills for Business network and the Train to Gain brokers in the East Midlands. For our employers, brokers, in some cases, are seen as duplicating our role or infact thought to be part of EU Skills. This is particularly challenging for us as we are not funded to provide the facilitation role for our employers to the Train to Gain brokerage service, however, the brokers are fully funded. We would, therefore, welcome a review of the current brokerage arrangements through Train to Gain and how this relates to an SSCs role. Not all SSCs will adopt this approach with their sectors but for EU Skills, our brokering and facilitating of solutions for our employers is one that they value (see 3.6 below).

3.5 There are examples in some regions where collaboration models are being established that have potential to clarify a confusing picture for our employers. In London, the LDA has set up the London Multi Agency Team (MAST). This is an innovative regional model for collaboration between London Regional Learning and Skills Councils, Jobcentre Plus and other

40 U Skills (2007). Sector Skills Agreement Stage 1 Report. Stage 5 action plans for England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and each of the English Regions available on our website www.euskills.co.uk.41 Leitch (2006). Prosperity for All in the Global Economy—World Class Skills.42 U Skills (2007). Sector Skills Agreement Stage 1 Report, p 57.

partners as appropriate. MAST supports the work of the London Skills Employment Board and implementing the key messages of the Leitch report43

3.6 In the West Midlands, “streamlining and simplifying what we do through new ways of working", is one of the three building blocks of the West Midlands Skills Action Plan (WMSAP). 44

EU Skills are seeing evidence of this, in particular where we are facilitating the access to the Train to Gain service on behalf of our employers which includes the running of a successful pilot in the waste industry with Birmingham City Council45

3:7 In the East Midlands, the RDA is collaborating with EU Skills in the development of a Skills for Energy project in support of EMDA's Regional Energy Strategy. The skills element of this project will involve delivery through Train to Gain.

3.8 Whilst these are welcome approaches, the variance region by region is not helpful as it provides a fragmented offer to our sector and reinforces the tension between national needs and regional solutions.

3.9 In addition, the Leitch and Train to Gain focus on basic skills and level 2 has to be supported by skills policies that support higher level skills of level 3, 4 and 5. Our sector requires a push on policies to address the science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) skills needed, driven by technological change and aging workforce issues. We welcome the Innovation Nation White Paper46in this respect and the role that RDAs will have in delivering the new proposals.

4. WHAT THE EXISTING REGIONAL STRUCTURES OF DELIVERY ARE AND WHAT SUB-REGIONAL STRATEGIES MAY BE REQUIRED.

4.1 Where regions have established sector specific fora, it has made it easier to feed employer priorities into the system and establish more effective engagement mechanisms with employers. Examples of this are the Sector Skills and Productivity Alliances in the Northwest and built environment groups which have been established in the East of England and East Midlands, and one currently being established in the West Midlands.

4.2 In addition, the regional LSCs have put in place regional sector leads where we have been able to develop productive relationships and feed in employer priorities from our SSA or develop direct relationships for the employer to access support. In London, a dedicated Train to Gain account manager has been appointed for our sector to work collaboratively with our large employers (over 250 employees). Thames Water, EDF Energy and Clancy Docwra are in the process of benefitting from this arrangement.

4.3 We will be responding to the recently published joint DCSF / DIUS consultation document, Raising Expectations47which will impact on the current regional delivery structures and create a pull to local and sub-regional structures. Attracting young people into our sector with the right base of skills is critical development for us. The sector has an aging workforce and is faced with a declining number of young people entering the workforce. In addition, increased capital investment programmes over the next 10-15 years could well result in substantial expansion demand over and above replacement demand caused by those retiring. This relates specifically to suitable candidates for skilled roles which are so important to the continued improvements in productivity sought by the economic regulators. Work is needed to ensure that the sector is perceived as an attractive career choice for young people and those from non-traditional employment pools.

4.4 We would welcome clarity on how the new infrastructure proposed would help to address these issues. However, initial feedback from our employers suggests that the role of the proposed new Skills Funding Agency and Young People's Agency alongside a continuing role for the

43 Leitch (2006). Prosperity for All in the Global Economy—World Class Skills.44 West Midlands Learning & Skills Council & Advantage West Midlands (2008). Skills Action Plan.45 This involves a potential 600 waste operatives with a achieving a first NVQ Level II over the next two years. There are plans to run gas and water upstream courses with Morgan Est and South Staffs Water using a similar model before the end of 2008.46 DIUS (2008). Innovation Nation: Unlocking Talent.47 CSF/DIUS (2008). Raising Expectations: Enabling the system to deliver.

National Employer Service and the new National Apprenticeship Service may reinforce the confusion evidenced earlier in this paper. We will lobby for evidence of national sector need to feature strongly in the funding priorities for these agencies. The move to direct funding through the local Authorities, despite the commitment to establish sub-regional consortia may not be helpful without a requirement for them to focus on national sector priorities. Funnelling funding or decisions on funding for strategically important national industries through the relevant SSC would radically simplify the issue for employers.

5. THE RESPECTIVE ROLES OF THE FURTHER EDUCATION AND HIGHER EDUCATION SECTORS IN DELIVERING A REGION-BASED AGENDA FOR LEITCH AND THEIR COORDINATION WITH ONE ANOTHER.

5.1 The relationship between further education (FE) and our sector is limited. EU Skills has, however, developed a successful relationship with Trafford College who have developed capacity and facilities to deliver training that meets the needs of employers in our sector. Employers including Balfour Beatty Utility Solutions Ltd. and Morgan Est. have been accessing level 3 provision through Train to Gain. Over 200 people have gained gas upstream service and mainlaying qualifications to date and the same number are expected to gain water upstream operations qualifications.

5.2 Our concern with FE relates to quality of trainers, provision and facilities to effectively deliver to meet the needs of our sector. The new arrangements for the new part A and B employer responsiveness quality standards do not address our concerns—we would want a greater say in endorsing provision for our sector than we currently have and that is planned through the new standard.

5.3 A key strand of our SSA is EU Skills Higher Education (HE) Strategy. The core principles of our HE Strategy are fully endorsed by the Leitch recommendations. Whilst there are some good practice examples of these principles being applied in collaborations between employers and HE Institutions, they are limited and often, where they do exist, it is often between one employer and one university.

5.4 The level and the nature of engagement also means that any collaboration is time consuming and unlikely to be addressed through quick fixes. The examples below demonstrate our work to influence work based learning (WBL) developments. They are potentially long term activities and some are at an early stage:

@UL@— Aston University delivering electrical power network engineering foundation degrees for Eon, Scottish & Southern Electricity and National Grid;@/UL@

@UL@— Huddersfield University project funded by HEFCE to develop WBL learning programmes for the waste management sector;@/UL@

@UL@— The Engineering Council (ECUK) working with Kingston University on a Gateways project to develop in conjunction with other universities WBL programmes which provide pathways for technicians and engineers to progress to professional status. (IEng and CEng.);@/UL@

@UL@— Cranfield University HEFCE funded project to convert their existing masters level programmes to a WBL format & to seek accreditation of their short course programmes to provide a flexible approach to continuing professional development (CPD);@/UL@

@UL@— Facilitating Eggborough Power Station (British Energy) and Leeds University collaboration on asset management optimisation programmes at levels 4-7.@/UL@

5.5 There is evidence of HEI collaboration through the second phase of the Higher Skills Pathfinder projects. We have been invited to be involved in the projects in the NW and NE, along with other SSCs. We are also collaborating with other SSCs on a bid being developed by SEMTA to establish initially two pilot forums for collaboration between SSCs and HEIs facilitated by regional HE associations. In addition, we are working with Foundation Degree Forward to establish employer requirements for the Water and Electricity sectors and to make a business case to move to a programme development phase as consortia groups involving employers, HE / FE institutions and private training providers.

5.6 However, there is more work to do if EU Skills' HE Strategy is to have maximum impact and the Leitch targets are to be delivered. Too many HEIs have been successful in procuring funding from HEFCE for workforce development projects without any evidence of explicit employer engagement. For SSCs, other than through FDF, funding or influencing of funding for higher level skills is, therefore, problematic. It is either unavailable or access is difficult and / or unclear.

5.7 Many universities are also “stuck" in the academic learning process paradigms and there is insufficient incentive to change. However, funding models for HEIs could be reconfigured to provide the incentives. We would like to see a move to establish the world of work as a place of learning and for this to be recognised in the funding models, ie, some of the current HEFCE funding could be shared between an HEI and employer, based on the cost of programmes rather than purely student numbers.

5.8 Employers are too often passive in the provision of higher level skills programmes. There is evidence that they too readily accept “off the shelf" products, do not get involved in curriculum development with HEIs and do not provide sufficient in company support to learners. Through our HE Strategy, we aim to demonstrate the added business value of more effective engagement and learn from our pilot projects to produce “how to" information and guidance for employers on the engagement with HE on development and delivery of business relevant higher level skills programmes.

5.9 Again, whilst the progress we are making is encouraging, we do need our role as an SSC to be recognised and the regional delivery models to be flexible enough to respond to national, sectoral priorities in order to create the demand-led approach that Leitch advocates. We also need to be funded or be in a position to influence funding to roll out our pilot activity in order to maximise their impact for the sector.

6. THE IMPACT ON STUDENTS OF THESE INITIATIVES, PARTICULARLY IN THE CONTEXT OF POLICIES FOR LIFELONG LEARNING.

6.1 Our experience with our HE Strategy shows that numbers have proved difficult to maintain and consequently programmes have had a short life, perhaps two or three cohorts. These experiences have reinforced the requirement for an additional dimension to the HE Strategy, that of sustainability. Ongoing collaboration with employers is essential to ensure sustainability.

6.2 The evidence from the development and delivery of our Ambition Energy programme showed that sustained involvement of employers was key to developing learning programmes that both met the needs of employers and sustained the learning experience of the learner. However, high value / low volume training is an issue and whilst involvement of employers could be part of a solution it is difficult in a regional context where regional monopolies still exist across our industries.

7. CONCLUSION7.1 So whilst there are pockets of good practice, the response to Leitch and benefits to

our employers remains fragmented due to the regional delivery structures in place. We are not convinced that the proposals in Raising Expectations48will streamline the process. Overall, our employers are frustrated by the current delivery models and, whilst we are working with them to facilitate access to skills development, there are more effective and efficient ways of ensuring employer responsiveness within the system.

7.2 As part of our strategy to increase our capacity to deliver employer solutions, we aim to pursue a National Skills Academy (NSA) for our sector, or industries within our sector. This will help us provide a national solution to address skills needs of employers within our sector. We are keen to work with RDAs and LSCs to provide a regional delivery route for the NSA's national, sectoral solutions.

48 CSF / DIUS (2008). Raising Expectations: Enabling the system to deliver.

7.3 Employers have committed themselves to EU Skills through membership fees of £645,000 08/09, to our employer fora49who have fed into and shaped this response and through commitment to our registration schemes and as such see us as the first port of call. They are looking for a more strategic and leading role for EU Skills in the post Leitch, employer-led skills world with more emphasis on the clarity that a national model would offer.

7.4 Our strategic objective to be a catalyst in skills market has been built upon successful programmes we have delivered that have met demand from our employers. As an SSC we are maturing and want to see, along with our employers, a more demanding role for employers in any future structural changes in the skills landscape.

April 2008

@HR25@

49 Lower Sector Skills Strategy Group (PSSSG), Environmental Services Association (ESA), Water Industry Sector Skills Group (WISSG), Gas upstream Network Policy Forum, Gas downstream Industry Liaison Group.

Memorandum 17

Submission from the City & Guilds Centre for Skills Development

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY1.1 This submission is made by the City & Guilds Centre for Skills Development.

1.2 It examines the role of regional bodies such as RDAs and RSPs principally as mechanisms for the articulation of employer demands, and considers how they can fulfil this role more effectively. It is suggested that clear communication, flexible funding initiatives, co-operation with sector bodies and a central role for regional bodies in training provision decisions can help to make regional bodies more effective and responsive to employer demands.

1.3 It is argued that, while the increased local autonomy for provision proposed in Raising Expectations is welcome as it will enable local providers to meet local learner demand, this should not be allowed to confuse the picture with regards to regional initiatives and the articulation of employer demand. It is important that all stakeholders should understand the system and their own point of access to it.

1.4 It is suggested that regional bodies also have a significant role to play in the provision of regional intelligence, both in the form of Information, Advice and Guidance to learners, and in the prediction of short- to medium-term future skills needs.

1.5 It is argued that ongoing inequalities between higher education and further education represent a major stumbling block to the achievement of the Leitch targets, and that greater freedom for FE institutions would enable them better to respond to skills needs at the local and regional levels.

2. INTRODUCTION TO THE CENTRE FOR SKILLS DEVELOPMENT2.1 The Centre for Skills Development is an independent research and development

body which aims to improve the policy and practice of work related education and training internationally. Its services are aimed at policy makers, researchers, practitioners and employers. The Centre commissions, manages and publishes research, gathers and disseminates good practice, and funds and delivers projects and consultancy with a skills development focus.

3. OUR SUBMISSION3.1 This submission addresses the following questions:

@UL@— Why is the regional level important in articulating needs for skills training?@/UL@

@UL@— How can we best ensure employers' demands are an integral part of developing training provision?@/UL@

@UL@— What barriers currently prevent employers' demands being effectively heard?@/UL@

@UL@— What other functions can best be performed at the regional level?@/UL@

@UL@— What role can Sector Skills Councils play in ensuring an effective regional approach to skills?@/UL@

@UL@— How does the need to develop a regional approach sit with the local and sub-regional focus of Raising Expectations?@/UL@

@UL@— What international examples offer possible solutions?@/UL@4. THE REGIONAL AGENDA AND MEETING EMPLOYER DEMAND

4.1 Employers should be incentivised to drive training provision by placing them at the centre of the system for determining skills priorities. The system must communicate clearly with employers and give them confidence that any investment they make will see significant returns and

that their demands will lead to real and rapid change on the ground. This would require changes to the funding structure as well as the decision-making structure: research shows that systems become most responsive to employer demand when employers are given a central position in decision making and have some control over funding.

4.2 Information about employer demand is not easy to access. Employers may not think strategically about the kind of skills they require, and individual companies will focus more on their own immediate priorities rather than skills needs across their sector. Employer demand is also difficult to summarise as requirements may vary widely between and within sectors.

4.3 Existing regional structures for delivering skills and training have not achieved their full potential, due largely to a perceived lack of clout and a failure to communicate to employers how the system works and what they can expect from it. We believe, however, that the regions remain the best level at which to develop skills strategies that can take into account the needs of employers. At this level, economic activity is of a large enough scale to interest larger employers in strategic inputs and allow co-ordination with national policy objectives, without being so large that SME voices are drowned out.

4.4 To engage employers effectively, it is essential that (a) communication is clear, and (b) that employers are given a real, driving role in the process. The Centre for Skills Development's recent report, Skills Development: Attitudes and Perceptions, found that employers in the UK are more concerned about communication with skills practitioners and policy makers than their counterparts elsewhere: on average, UK employers rated the effectiveness of such communication at 5.67 out of 10, compared to an international average of 6.5. Employers are confused about the role of RDAs and RSPs, which have tended to lack coherent work programmes or an adequate strategy to engage with employers demand (see for example Jeremy Humber's 2005 Review of the Yorkshire and Humber Skills Partnership).

4.5 International comparisons show that when employers are in the driving seat of training provision, the system is more responsive to economic need and more likely to produce excellent training that leads to good jobs. The Netherlands and the USA offer instructive examples in this context (Raddon and Sung, The Role of Employers in Sectoral Skills Development, University of Leicester 2006). Current arrangements in the UK place employers in a more consultative role. Raising Expectations envisions a voice for employers (via RDAs and RSPs) in adult skills provision, but with the Skills Funding Agency in the driving seat providing “information and brokerage" to employers. SSCs offer the possibility to engage employers in a meaningful way, but they have had mixed success in doing so (see section 5 below). There is little available evidence as to the different regional capabilities of different SSCs; this is a subject that needs urgent evaluation.

4.6 Despite current shortcomings, RDAs and RSPs are well-placed to create and influence an employer demand-led approach to skills training by forming strategic relationships with businesses. RDAs have shown that they are keen to develop this role, as demonstrated by their collective response to the Leitch implementation report submitted by Dr Lis Smith of the Northwest RDA. Giving RSPs real teeth by making regionally-determined employer demand a key driver of training provision would be a good first step, as argued recently by Stephen Broomhead, CEO of Northwest RDA, at the DIUS conference “Skills for Employability". This would mean bringing employers, via RSPs, into a genuine driving position in the decision making process and giving them at least some control over funding decisions, as recommended by Raddon and Sung (2006).

4.7 While the localisation agenda proposed in Raising Expectations provides a good tool for making further education more responsive to the needs of students, there should be clear co-ordination and communication with regional level institutions to ensure coherence across the whole system (see section 6 below).

5. THE ROLE OF SECTOR SKILLS COUNCILS5.1 Although the Leitch report recommended that SSCs should be reformed and

empowered at the national level, clearer articulation is needed of what this will mean at the regional level. Examples from abroad (such as the Netherlands' network of “Knowledge Centres") show that the close involvement of sector bodies in the planning and commissioning process can raise the confidence of employers in the training system and ensure that it can respond to their needs. In

Raising Expectations, however, SSCs do not feature in the proposed planning and commissioning cycle for 16-19 provision.

5.2 SSCs vary enormously in terms of their institutional origins, preferred routes of training, and the shape and demands of the markets they serve. Different SSCs will also have greater relevance in different regions of the country. Empowering SSCs must therefore mean encouraging them to take the initiative to engage employers nationally and regionally, while allowing them the flexibility to do so at the level and scale appropriate to their circumstances and in a suitable manner.

5.3 In order to enable SSCs to take on this increased responsibility, close attention must be paid to their structure and ways of working. In particular, they could not fulfil an increased role without absolute assurances that employers have a central and driving role in SSCs. Again, the Dutch example is instructive: Knowledge Centres are structured to put employers in the driving seat and are responsible for substantial public funding. This has made them more responsive to employer demands.

5.4 Strengthening SSCs in this way would also necessitate a robust system to ensure SSC accountability for their performance. There should also be a system to ensure that companies not covered by the current SSC structure are not excluded from training possibilities; RDAs may be able to play a useful “safety net" role here. The voices of those who deliver training and qualifications must also be an integral part of the system, but we agree with Raising Expectations that these can best be incorporated at the local and sub-regional level.

5.5 While empowering SSCs in this way may require extra funding, there are also other ways to enable them to play a greater role that would not raise costs significantly. The USA's High Job Growth Training Initiative (HJGTI) provides an example of a scheme whereby initial public funding encourages employers and other stakeholders to make a real commitment to improving the match-up between skills supply and demand in a particular industry. The scheme is designed to be employer-led and focuses on partnerships that support job training for 12 key industrial sectors. To gain seed funding for an initiative, stakeholders must present a “challenges and solutions" paper to the Department of Labour, covering areas such as recruiting young workers, tapping new labour pools, transitioning (workers from declining sectors), competency models, training routes, retention and SMEs. The paper must include detail on the investment to be made by partners in the proposed initiative. The flexibility of the scheme means that initiatives can be targeted at an appropriate geographical area, while the limited public funding means partnerships are driven by their own objectives.

5.6 Although some of the schemes under HJGTI are national, most are regionally based. They cover issues ranging from sales and servicing to recruitment from minority communities. The scheme offers a structured way for sector bodies to take initiatives appropriate to their own sector and, where applicable, specific regions. Giving SSCs access to a similar scheme would help improve their effectiveness and assure more continuity across the different SSCs. Giving SSCs this role would necessarily be contingent on their becoming a more effective mechanism for articulating employer demands.

5.7 By committing public funding but allowing sector experts to drive the process of skills provision initiatives, the HJGTI scheme shows how buy-in can be achieved across all stakeholders, and particularly among employers. This in turn improves and promotes the image of sector bodies, and encourages further interaction by employers. Sector bodies are empowered to carry out initiatives at the regional level if this is appropriate, helping ensure that training delivered by the FE sector is determined by the needs of the local market, rather than government targets, and combating the perception that the FE sector is unresponsive to employer needs.

5.8 If RDAs and SSCs were enabled to co-operate on schemes along the lines of those developed under HJGTI, training programmes could be developed that respond to both local and sectoral needs, and that have stakeholder buy-in. This would require the development of a clear protocol, setting out mechanisms for direct involvement of employers and other stakeholders and defining clear divisions of responsibility and accountability. With a clear communication strategy for employers and providers, this could be a powerful way to achieve a more joined-up and responsive system of training provision.

6. JOINING UP THE LOCAL AND REGIONAL AGENDAS6.1 The local and sub-regional strategies outlined in Raising Expectations present a

good blueprint for making skills provision responsive to local needs and learner demands. As currently presented, however, it is not clear how employer demand will be factored into this system. There is also a risk of increasing confusion among employers about how to engage with the system, given that there will be four (sometimes overlapping) levels of decision making: national, regional, sub-regional and local.

6.2 In particular, allowing local authorities to work together in groupings even if they cross regional boundaries is welcome, as it will enable provision to respond to economic needs rather than administrative borders. Care should be taken when implementing this, however, to ensure that employers have a consistent and clear point of access at which to influence the system. A proper communication strategy for employers and other stakeholders will be essential.

6.3 At present, Raising Expectations proposes that a regional grouping of local authorities, co-chaired by the RDA, should be responsible for authorising a regional strategy and for ensuring that it is affordable, consistent, feasible and demand-led. This is seen as a much more informal institution than the sub-regional groupings developed to plan provision. If, however, employers are to be afforded a real role in driving the provision of education and training at the regional level, the role of this regional grouping needs to be made much more substantial. To engage employers fully in provision of training for the 16-19 age group, they need to feel that they genuinely have the opportunity to drive the process and to have a clear understanding of how they can do this. More provision needs to be made for this than under current plans.

7. OTHER ROLES FOR REGIONAL BODIES7.1 There are a number of further areas where regional bodies should be strengthened

to make best use of regional knowledge and expertise.

Information, Advice and Guidance

7.2 A universal careers service is not sufficient without links into local employment markets and local opportunities: regional structures have a valuable role to play in providing high quality Information, Advice and Guidance (IAG) to learners in all parts of the system. To ensure continuity, IAG should also cater to both young people and adults, as recently recommended by the National Skills Forum. An unnecessary requirement to transfer to a new system at age 19 risks individuals slipping through the gaps and a lack of coherence in IAG provision. A single IAG service with a decentralised regional structure would ensure standardisation, improve quality and ease transitions from one stage of life to another.

Analysis of Future Skills Needs

7.3 Predicting future skills needs can be useful if it is done on a relatively small scale and does not attempt to forecast too far into the future. National forecasting is too broad brush to be of much relevance for commissioning training at the local or regional level, while local authorities are not in a position to look beyond the microeconomic level in any meaningful way. RDAs should be empowered to provide thorough labour market intelligence to guide decision making processes regarding training provision.

8. FURTHER EDUCATION AND HIGHER EDUCATION8.1 In recent years, the FE and HE sectors have increasingly overlapped. The modern

UK economy needs skills traditionally associated with both sectors, and policy makers, learners and employers therefore have an equal stake in both. In this context, the Government's announcement of plans to extend the role of businesses in the funding and direction of HE is welcome.

8.2 As recently highlighted by the National Skills Forum, there remain huge inequalities in funding for FE and HE, and in the flexibility accorded to providers in the two sectors. Although some state control of FE funding is necessary to accommodate national economic need, this is arguably equally true of HE, which has traditionally enjoyed far greater freedom. FE providers would benefit from greater autonomy to be able to respond better to local demand (from both learners

and employers). Funding for learners and access to loans in the two sectors should also be balanced, as the current system unjustifiably favours students in HE. Similarly, facilities such as childcare provision are much more limited in FE. Unless steps like this are taken to make FE more attractive to learners, it will be difficult to reach the skills levels envisioned by Leitch.

8.3 Further Education providers have a long history of working together with local employers, but have not always had government support to do so. Recent examples of government support to help Higher Education institutes co-operate with employers have been welcome. This kind of support should also be extended to the FE sector, while still allowing them the flexibility to make their own decisions on co-operation arrangements.

9. POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS9.1 Our recommendations can be summarised as follows:

@UL@— Existing regional structures should be strengthened to develop them as the best point of access for articulation of employer demand, and this role should be incorporated as a central part of developing training provision.@/UL@

@UL@— Employer demand should become more of a driving force in decision making about provision of vocational education and training. This means putting employers, through regional structures, in a pro-active position rather than a consultative role, and giving them at least some control over funding.@/UL@

@UL@— Clear communication strategies should be in place to ensure employers and other stakeholders understand the overall system and, most importantly, their own point of access to it.@/UL@

@UL@— Sector Skills Councils should be empowered, through flexible funding mechanisms and strong research capabilities (or resources to commission research), to become the principal agents for including employer demand in training provision both regionally and nationally, and should be held accountable for their performance in this role. @/UL@

@UL@— Information, Advice and Guidance should be provided in a truly universal service that caters to both young people and adults, but with a decentralised structure to enable providers of advice to take into account local conditions and requirements.@/UL@

Inequalities between higher and further education need to be tackled if the core skills requirements of the UK are to be addressed. This means increased funding and increased freedom for further education.

April 2008

@HR25@

Memorandum 18

Submission from the Association for Nutrition

1. SUMMARY a) The Association for Nutrition, a professional body and voluntary regulator presently

acting under the aegis of the Nutrition Society, sets and oversees professional standards; it promotes capacity in the nutrition workforce as means to protect the public and raise the quality of goods and services in food and nutrition.

b) The numbers who study nutrition at universities is clearly increasing and we infer that nutrition and related areas are popular at lower levels though numbers do not exist. In common with other voluntarily regulated professions, the size of the nutrition workforce is not documented. Therefore it is impossible to be confident that the capacity exists to meet public and social policy goals related to health and wellbeing, food quality and food supply access and sustainability.

c) There is evidence of demand for a larger supply of and easier access to basic and general skills based flexible training in food and nutrition to support entry into nutrition careers. There also appears to be patchy provision of advanced training or pathways for advancing careers while advancing practice in nutrition.

d) There is no apparent overarching mechanism to ensure that initial and lifelong learning instills the skills such as innovation necessary to solve public health problems that have to date proved intractable (eg obesity).

e) We have set new standards of proficiency in nutrition that bring together underpinning knowledge with practical competences so that fitness to practice (ie for registration) aligns with fitness for purpose (employability), combining flexibility with rigour. Professional registration is more than a benchmark: it carries the kudos of recognition which is an important stimulus to individuals to embark upon and pay for lifelong learning. We offer our contribution to key regional development agencies that lead in aspects of public health, food and nutrition viz London and the South West.

f) It is recommended that due recognition is given to the fact that nutrition is a cross cutting theme, common to a very wide range of sectors with the potential to contribute to the nation's health, wellbeing, wealth and environmental sustainability. It deserves to taken seriously by the SSCs.

g) Because there is a risk that nutrition is overlooked in the absence of clear responsibility and accountability for developing capacity and capability of the nutrition workforce.

i) food and nutrition should be highlighted in the work plans of both the Alliance of Sector Skills Councils and the UK Commission for Employment and Skills.

ii) a nutrition workforce development plan is required with mechanisms to ensure underpinning knowledge relevant to developing transformative evidence-based skills to secure the attributes of flexibility, commitment to quality, and develop that of innovation.

iii) More opportunities are required for training in the practical application of nutrition skills at basic and generic levels, in order to raise standards of care and innovation in food products and systems, and nutrition services, systems of care and product development and quality assurance.

2. INTRODUCTION: ABOUT THE ASSOCIATION FOR NUTRITION a) The Association for Nutrition [AfN] is in the process of being set up as an independent

organisation by the Nutrition Society in order to take over, sustain and enhance the promotion of nutrition as a profession, raising standards of practice and thereby better protecting the public. AfN will soon take over the Nutrition Society's Voluntary Register for Nutrition with 1,000 professional registered Nutritionists who work in Nutrition (animal and human) and Public Health Nutrition.

b) It accredits 27 HE courses leading to BSc degrees with honours (level 6) or MScs (level 7) that meet standards of education and competency: graduates from accredited courses and eligible to apply for direct entry to the register as Associates. Anyone who has evidence of competency (which in the absence of a degree in expected to be acquired over >7 years) can apply for registration. Such applicants may have been working in food and nutrition related health improvement or urban renewal or community development and seek recognition work and no doubt career advancement.

c) Registered Nutritionists affirm that they uphold our Policy for the Nutrition Science Professions and that they will be judged against our Code of Ethics and Standards of Professional Conduct. We have a procedure for investigating and, if there is a case to answer, establishing the fitness to practice of a registrant against whom there has been a complaint or allegation; to date there have been 10 such complaints.

d) Members of the register are required to be committed to lifelong learning in the form of continuous professional development (CPD). Our CPD scheme valorises specialist and generic skills so that it dovetails with employee's Individual Performance Review, as we have found through our work with the Food Standards Agency which is an Investor in People, because we have the flexibility to recognise domains in the NHS Knowledge and Skills Framework, such as management and leadership, among others common in business.

e) We offer information about where and how to choose to study nutrition and how to enter and change careers in nutrition, that includes vocational as well as higher education.

3. INFORMATION ABOUT SKILLS AND TRAINING IN NUTRITION a) Informal analysis of our responses to public enquiries indicate an unmet demand for open

or distance learning courses that lead to qualifications recognised by employers and credible to us as a professional body.

b) There are few foundation degrees (level 5) in nutrition-related subjects (n=16) and, apparently, only one formal award at level 4 in the public sector, excluding units at levels 4 & 5 offered by the Open University. By contrast there appear to be several providers in the private sector that offer limited volumes of credits at the lower levels [2, 3]. There are also profession led or in-house courses in nutrition or related to the application of nutrition, as part of health care, social care or beauty care; education support; animal welfare; food hygiene. There is thus an array of qualifications from the Open College Network, or a professional body; or meet National Occupational Standards or National Workforce Competences, recognised & overseen by QCA.

c) There appears to be a gap between such demand led training at relatively low levels of which there appear to be an insufficient volume at all the relevant levels (probably 3-5) to enable individual assistant professionals to accumulate sufficient credits to show easily that they have the equivalent of an award at level 5 [foundation degree] or 6 [degree with honours].

d) Nutrition is an increasingly popular subject for study at university (>6,000; + applications through UCAS in 2007; an above average increase of 14.3%). An above average proportion of graduates stay on to study for higher degrees and below average propositions of nutrition graduates enter graduate occupations—clear evidence of wasted talent201. Unlike statutorily regulated health professions, there is not formal or routine means to quantify the contribution voluntarily regulated nutritionists make to the workforce. Research by independent consultants indicated that nutritionists work in many sectors and the largest proportion is in academia. We have evidence from our analyses of >150 recent job adverts and descriptions that most new positions at professional levels (greater than or equal to 5) occur in the health sector. There must be many more, so far unquantified members of the workforce who are concerned with food and nutrition in the service sectors, food industry (production, manufacture, retail and marketing), and of course in the leisure, care and third sectors; and indeed in the private sector including the self employed.

e) In order to ensure that nutritionists contribute to the health and economy of our country, and mindful of the drivers of change including in professional regulation, we have devised standards of proficiency in nutrition that use competences. We are working, on our own and with others, to develop standards in nutrition across the spectrum of the new Public Health Career Framework

(PHCF) to complement our existing standards at level 5. To do this we continue to participate in the implementation of the PHCF, for example. Our goal is recognise the contribution being made by and also help to upskill the wider nutrition workforce, as health improvement and other paraprofessional workers apply to join our professional register. Therefore we are actively working to promote flexibility of access while retaining the rigour of our standards for admission to our voluntary register.

f) There is equally a need to be more creative about the contribution that can be made at advanced levels, with discrete specific informal or formal professional development in nutrition through lifelong learning. This would encourage innovation without which intractable food and nutrition related problems could not be solved (eg “unhealthy" food choices and food intakes low levels of breast-feeding, obesity, malnutrition in hospital patients and the elderly) and may continue to worsen. At present there is formal support and provision for professions allied to medicine and in medicine that includes advanced postgraduate and/ or post-basic training to develop competences for advanced or specialist practice (at national qualification levels 7 or higher) in nutrition, which is apparently poorly accessible to others in the nutrition workforce including voluntarily regulated nutritionists. We are committed to developing comparable skills or competency based training in public health nutrition and other aspects of nutrition that would like to see more provision pertinent to other sectors in addition to health. We seek partnerships with employers to secure support and ensure that CPD contributes to fitness for purpose, fitness for practice and hence registration; and in due course, for re-registration (and for some professional occupations at least, re-validation, if that is an outcome from the reviews of non-medical and medical regulation).

g) There is no evidence of an overarching mechanism to instil innovation at any level and thus secures rising standards of performance necessary to tackle the burgeoning problem of obesity and its concomitants; educate and communicate so as to support and sustain healthier food and lifestyle choices; contributes to sustainability (eg reducing food waste and recycling; food miles) and contributes to social inclusion by aiding access to education and jobs.

h) We have undertaken an informal mapping exercise of the contents of degree courses against our forthcoming professional standards of proficiency [which include many domains common to the NHS KSFs and similar business and generic skills]. This indicates a gap between current orthodox delivery that includes a limited amount of work-based learning (including placements, attachments) necessary for professional skills development. As we are not a regulated profession most of our courses are not commissioned. We wish to work strategically with learning and skills partnerships, regional development agencies and employers to ensue that what we call fitness for practice (and hence becoming a registered professional in nutrition) is also fit for purpose (work).

i) National professional bodies as small as we are have difficulty in finding avenues and keeping those that we have patent, so that we can articulate our work with that of the regional development agencies. We are committed to contributing to the work of RDAs that lead on areas of common interest such as the London region (with London Food; and its focus upon Public Health) and the South West Region (with its Food and Drinks Skills Network). Our role would include providing professional recognition that would in turn stimulate and sustain more individuals to be motivated to embark on and pay for more lifelong learning. This kind of stimulus is required in order to meet objectives set out by Lord Leitch (2006) and the Skills for Health Sector skills agreement.

4. PROPOSED RECOMMENDATIONS TO BE INCLUDED IN THE COMMITTEE'S REPORT a) Nutrition is a cross cutting theme common to a very wide range of sectors and has the

potential to contribute to the nation's health wellbeing wealth and environmental sustainability. It deserves to taken seriously by the SSCs: there is a risk that it is overlooked in the absence of clear responsibility and accountability for developing the capacity and capability of the nutrition workforce. It is recommended that food and nutrition should be highlighted in the work plans of both the Alliance of Sector Skills Councils and the UK Commission for Employment and Skills.

b) a nutrition workforce development plan is required with mechanisms to ensure underpinning knowledge relevant to developing transformative evidence-based skills to secure the attributes of flexibility, commitment to quality, and develop that of innovation.

c) More opportunities are required for training in the practical application of nutrition skills at basic and generic levels, in order to raise standards of care and innovation in food products and systems, and nutrition services, systems of care and product development and quality assurance.

April 2008

@HR25@

Nutrition Society (2006) Nutrition Capacity in the United Kingdom: Mapping the “primary" nutrition workforce.

Memorandum 19

Submission from the Alliance Employment & Skills Board

re " what the existing regional structures of delivery are and what sub-regional strategies may be required".

1. SUMMARY1.1 The Alliance Employment & Skills Board (AESB) was established in December

2006 and covers the former coalfields sub-region of North Derbyshire and North Nottinghamshire areas. It has met 7 times to date. An Executive group, which was formed in the summer of 2007, provides the delivery arm and meets every six to eight weeks. The Board is led by a private sector Chair and was established slightly in advance of the Leitch Review. It was formed in the absence of any national or regional guidelines about how Employment and Skills Boards should function. The Board has contributed to national research by the Centre for Enterprise into Employment and Skills Boards.

1.2 The strategic influence of the AESB extends to the existing framework of Nottingham and Derbyshire Local Area Agreements (LAAs) and the Local Enterprise Growth Initiative (LEGI) covering the districts of Ashfield, Bolsover and Mansfield. The AESB links up with adjoining City Region Strategies and neighbouring Employment and Skills Boards including Derbyshire Employment and Skills Board and Greater Nottingham Employment and Skills Board.

2. CONTEXT2.1 The sub-region of North Derbyshire and North Nottinghamshire still suffers from

the legacy of coalfields closures, with longstanding worklessness and low skills levels prevailing in many of its communities.

2.2 However, the sub-region is slowly beginning to benefit from the long period of continuous economic growth that began in the mid-1990s with over 25 large scale construction developments planned to take place over the next 5 years. These include major developments taking place around the M1 at Markham Vale with a purpose built Junction 29a and public investment in hospitals, schools and housing. Sectors such as healthcare, logistics and construction are forecast to continue to grow in the sub-region and will require skilled people to work within them.

2.3 The sub-region is a mix of a rural economy and urban centres, including Mansfield, Worksop, Chesterfield and Newark. It has close functional ties with the cities of Nottingham and Derby in the East Midlands, and Sheffield and Doncaster in South Yorkshire. Many higher earners living in districts in the sub-region commute to work in these urban centres.

2.4 Economic activity and employment rates in the sub-region remain significantly below the East Midlands regional average and unemployment rates are above the regional average. Half of the 10 most deprived districts in the East Midlands are in the sub-region.

2.5 The proportion of people claiming benefits is higher in the sub-region than in the East Midlands as a whole, particularly for benefits relating to ill health or disability.. “Hidden unemployed" is very significant in the sub-region with health data suggesting residents have the highest proportion of those reporting poor health and limiting long term illness. This high incidence of health difficulties, especially among older males, can be associated with the legacy of coal mining and other heavy industry and high numbers of incapacity benefit claimants make up the largest proportion of the “hidden unemployed." 50

2.6 Residents of the sub-region are less likely to be qualified to Level 2 or to Level 4 than the East Midlands average. However, the sub-region has the highest proportion of people who have reached an NVQ Level 3. The average earnings of individuals working in the sub-region are below the regional average, with women earning just over half the pay of men on average. Employment growth for the Alliance SSP over the next decade is forecast to be below the regional average, at 2.5% compared to 3.1%.

50 emda (2006).

3. MEMBERSHIPThe Board has a private sector Chair and members include the following public and private

sector organisations:

@UL@— LCA Ltd (Frank Lord—Chair)@/UL@

@UL@— EMQC Ltd@/UL@

@UL@— KAM Ltd @/UL@

@UL@— EasyBags Ltd@/UL@

@UL@— Nottinghamshire Health and Social Care Community Workforce Team @/UL@

@UL@— Learning and Skills Council @/UL@

@UL@— Jobcentre Plus @/UL@

@UL@— East Midlands Business Ltd@/UL@

@UL@— Nottinghamshire County Council@/UL@

@UL@— Derbyshire County Council@/UL@

@UL@— Bolsover District Council@/UL@

@UL@— TUC Midlands Region@/UL@

@UL@— Connexions Nottinghamshire@/UL@

@UL@— Enable (representing the voluntary and community sector)@/UL@

@UL@— Collaborative Higher Education Alliance (CHEA) Partnership@/UL@

@UL@— Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire Training Networks@/UL@

@UL@— Government Office for the East Midlands@/UL@

@UL@— East Midlands Employment Skills and Productivity Partnership (esp) @/UL@

3.1 There is a good representation from the private sector, particularly SMEs and the Board is working with Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire Chamber of Commerce to increase employer representation.

3.2 The Executive Group is a small group of mainly of public sector members but private sector members are also invited and is chaired by a member of the Board

4. PRIORITIES 4.1 Current and planned activities of the AESB have been mapped to support the esp

priorities and LAA targets through partner's strategic funding commitments. A sub regional work plan was developed for 2007-2008 and updated for 2008-2009 which connects to the headline economic targets of partners and their strategic objectives.

The four key priorities for the ASEB are:

@UL@Priority 1: To improve productivity of businesses@/UL@

@UL@Priority 2: To raise employer demand for skills @/UL@

@UL@Priority 3: To improve sub regional employment and skills and reduce economic exclusion (using public procurement as a lever)@/UL@

@UL@Priority 4: To increase participation and attainment amongst 14-19 year olds@/UL@5. ACTIVITIES

Since its establishment, the AESB has been involved in a wide range of activities including:

@UL@— Development of website independent of the sub-regional partnership but with links to the SSP and other partners www.esballiance.co.uk. All meeting agendas, minutes and key documents are available on the website. Within the website a page has been developed to highlight and promote the Skills Pledge.@/UL@

@UL@— Development and publishing of a regular e newsletter.@/UL@

@UL@— Sponsorship of skills elements of ASSP Partnership Conference November 2007. A further Employment and Skills summit is planned for April 2008. @/UL@

@UL@— Linking the Making the Connection initiative to the work of the ESB and, through the Executive Group, reporting progress against its targets for LEGI, SSP and LAA delivery.@/UL@

@UL@— Identifying areas of duplication, gaps in provision and opportunities for more collaborative working through a Mapping Exercise undertaken in 2007. This information has been uploaded onto a searchable database for partners accessed through the website.@/UL@

@UL@— Shaping of a funding specification for capital funding to develop improved access to higher level skills/education in the sub region.@/UL@

@UL@— Working to examine skills support in priority sectors for the sub-region, initially the Logistics sector, including both 14—19 and skills support for the economically excluded in the area, linking with the LSC's work on Skills for Jobs. Further sectors for examination include Health and Social Care, Leisure and Tourism/Hospitality and Construction.@/UL@

@UL@— Briefing members on the European Social Fund (ESF) Co-Financing Organisations processes. The Secretariat has kept up to date with the ITT specifications of both LSC and JCP partners. The Alliance SSP is an approved LSC supplier.@/UL@

@UL@— Ongoing work to report Train to Gain performance and impact in the sub-region.@/UL@

@UL@— Canvassed and contributed to the Centre for Enterprise commissioned research for central government on existing/emerging Skills Boards.@/UL@6. AREAS OF GREATEST STRATEGIC IMPACT TO DATE @UL@— Making the Connection project. This project was considered an excellent, tangible example of joined-up delivery—the linking of jobs, skills and communities at a practical level which has had a real impact. The AESB influenced the activities of the LSC and Jobcentre Plus through this project and changed behaviour.@/UL@

@UL@— Collaborative Higher Education Alliance (CHEA) activity This included expanding the coverage of CHEA, widening delivery arrangements, putting a capital bid together and raising the profile of issues around access to higher level skills.@/UL@

@UL@— Agreement on the strategic priorities for the Alliance sub-region & commitment to a collective approach. @/UL@

@UL@— Raising the profile of the Alliance area at national and regional level. @/UL@

@UL@— Bringing organisations together that do not typically get involved in partnership working.@/UL@

@UL@— Influence on NHS workforce planning through the Skills Pledge.@/UL@

7. OPERATING STRUCTURE 7.1 A consultant provides secretariat support to the ASEB. The AESB was funded in

2007-2008 by the Alliance Strategic Sub-Regional Partnership (£20,000) and the Learning and Skills Council (approx. £48,000).

7.2 There are detailed Terms of Reference for both the Board and the Executive Group and Nolan principles are observed. The delivery plan is clearly set out and progress monitored. Monitoring to date has tended to focus on processes and activities rather than outcomes and impact. This is to be expected given the Board is relatively new, however in future the Board is seeking to measure its impact and strategic added value.

8. FUTURE WORK 8.1 Both the lack of national and regional guidance to date for Employment & Skills

Boards and the impact of the Sub National Review create uncertainty for the future of the AESB. In the case of the latter, it is highly likely that the lack of support for structures that operate across county administrative boundaries will impact on the Board, with its cross North Derbyshire and North Nottinghamshire representation and remit.

8.2 However, whilst there is a lack of clarity at present Board members feel it is important to carry forward the momentum created to date and focus on the employment and skills priorities facing the sub-region. The issues remain to be addressed and there is a strong commitment from Board members to the strategic priorities and the delivery plan for 2008-09 that they have signed up to.

April 2008

@HR25@

Memorandum 20

Submission from the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY1. Universities and colleges are engaging with employers in ways that are deeper and

stronger than ever before. Through their mainstream teaching programmes and expanding collaboration with employers on higher level skills, they are a major source of the future world class workforce; they contribute more than £45 billion annually to the economy and are well placed to use their long-established relationships with business to extend their impact. The changing demographic profile of their students makes it good business sense for them to develop into new markets.

2. This change in culture and business focus has been gathering pace since the turn of the millennium. The Leitch Review added to an important debate within higher education and HEFCE contributed to that debate through publication, in 2006, of its Higher Education Employer Engagement Strategy51 Our 2006-07 grant letter from the Secretary of State for Education and Skills52asked us to lead “radical change" in developing higher education focused on meeting employers' needs. At the same time we invested in important pilot activity—three regional “Higher Level Skills Pathfinders" (HLSPs) and several university based pilots to test new approaches to stimulating and meeting employer demand for higher level skills. The Leitch Report and its challenging ambition for high level skills led us to move beyond small scale piloting and to encourage higher education providers to come forward with larger and more ambitious employer engagement proposals.

3. We set up a major new programme53 underpinned by a new funding mechanism, separate from our mainstream funding arrangements—specifically designed to encourage transformational change and support new approaches to stimulating and meeting employer demand. Through this programme we are deploying the £105 million, made available in our 2008-11 funding settlement, to build employer engagement capacity within higher education institutions and achieve targets for growth in working people starting employer co-funded provision (5,000/10,000/20,000 entrants over three years). To date thirty-one higher education providers are have taken up the challenge to deliver employer demand-led and co-funded workforce development which will benefit some 6000 employees in 2008-09.

4. Through the network of HEFCE Regional Consultants we work regionally with the Higher Education Regional Associations (HERAs), Regional Development Agencies (RDAs), Learning and Skills Council (LSC) and other key stakeholders to support higher education providers in making effective contributions to their regions. We publish annually regional profiles of higher education in England and consult with partners on regional priorities for higher education. The three HLSPs are exploring how higher education can make a more strategic contribution to meeting regional skills needs and connecting providers with brokerage services, such as Train to Gain. In addition individual higher education employer engagement projects are attracting significant RDA investments.

5. HEFCE has invested £103 million in twenty-nine sub-regional Lifelong Learning Networks (LLNs), to improve the opportunities open to learners with vocational qualifications for them to progress into and through higher education. These now span120 universities and 300 further education colleges and are, increasingly, linking with employers to create effective opportunities for continuing learning and progression.

6. Since 2003 we have supported Sector Skills Councils (SSCs): to raise higher education-SSC understanding and collaboration; to set up projects to enhance HE curriculum; and to

51 Engaging employers with higher education http://www.hefce.ac.uk/learning/ employer/strat/Board_strategy_plus_ annexes.pdf52 HEFCE 2006-07 Grant Letter http://www.hefce.ac.uk/news/hefce/2006/grant/letter.pdf53 Higher education delivering on the Leitch agenda http://www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/board/2007/116/67.pdf and http://www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/board/2007/116/67a.pdf

strengthen SSC influence in Foundation Degree development, Lifelong Learning Networks, and Higher Level Skills Pathfinders. We look forward to working with the new UK Commission for Employment and Skills on the criteria for re-licensing SSCs to cement closer collaboration in growing the sector-based markets for employer demand-led and co-funded workforce development.

7. Key challenges for us over the next three years include:

@UL@— Improving understanding of the potential scale of the market for new types of higher education delivered workforce development, which are employer demand-led and co-funded. @/UL@

@UL@— Testing the policy of employer co-funding to get beneath the welter of opinion and anecdote to establish hard evidence on the willingness of employers to pay for the “right" higher level skills product.@/UL@

@UL@— Identifying effective ways of engaging with Small and Medium Sized Enterprises (SMEs). @/UL@

@UL@— Finding sustainable business models for higher education employer engagement.@/UL@

@UL@— Sustaining the higher education reputation for quality.@/UL@

@UL@— Embedding transformation and ensuring a permanent change in the culture of higher education. @/UL@

@UL@— Ensuring that people in work continue with lifelong learning after their first workplace experiences of higher education. @/UL@

8. If we can sustain this momentum we can offer the very real prospect of securing the transformation of the higher education sector that the Leitch Report envisaged and of creating a platform for a much more substantial programme of growth towards meeting the Leitch ambition for 2020.

INTRODUCTION9. From Southampton to Derby, from Newcastle to Coventry, universities are

engaging with employers in ways that are deeper and stronger than ever before. That an increasing number of universities and colleges are already engaging with employers is no accident: it reflects their refreshed mission, and for many it is now part of their core business.

10. There are good reasons for this. First, as the Leitch Report showed, by 2020 at least 40 per cent of our working population will need higher level skills if we are to maintain our international competitiveness. The Government's response54, in June 2007, recognised the economic value of higher education intervening to increase high level skills in the workforce and added to the gathering pace of the momentum for change in the higher education sector.

11. Universities have long been one of the great economic stimulants. Higher education now contributes over £45 billion a year to GDP, for a total public investment of a third of that amount55 Our continuing economic contribution through this century will come, in part, through greater engagement with employers.

12. Secondly, it is simply good for the business of higher education providers, whether universities or further education colleges. The undergraduate profile is changing and is no longer so dominated by the 18-21 year-old school leaver. A majority of first year undergraduates is over 21, and a similar proportion is already in the workforce. The number of older teenagers is set to decline

54 Cm 7181(July 2007) Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills World Class Skills: Implementing Leitch Review of skills in England 55 The economic impact of UK higher education institutions, Universities UK (2006) http://bookshop.universitiesuk.ac.uk/downloads/economicimpact3.pdf

and universities and colleges need to widen and deepen participation in both traditional and novel ways, developing a model that attracts a greater proportion of older students, most already in the workforce.

13. Thirdly, employers, nationally and internationally, value the reputation of UK higher education for the highest quality and standards. Higher education can equip a workforce not only to meet the demands of today's workplace, but make it more capable of taking continuing change in its stride and of continuing learning to meet future demands.

14. In this paper we set out to demonstrate that the higher education sector is facing up to these challenges with increasing enthusiasm and commitment, actively reaching out to employers in new ways to create a highly skilled “world class workforce".

A MOMENTUM FOR CHANGE15. The decade since the Dearing Report has been characterised by a renewing of the

engagement between employers and higher education. There has been a strong emphasis on ensuring that higher education graduates possess the necessary skills and attributes for employment: generic skills, such as communications, team working and problem solving; and specific vocational and professional skills, particularly in key disciplines, such as Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM). Leading employers and representative bodies, such as the CBI, are playing a welcome and important role, which is having a significant impact on undergraduate and postgraduate education. Employment outcomes for graduates remain strong and many employers offer students the opportunities for work placements which are excellent routes to enhanced employability. Companies such as Ernst and Young are creating a new range of higher education programmes in which work-based learning is integral throughout.

16. The development and growth of foundation degrees—to which HEFCE has committed funding since 2001—has encouraged closer partnership between employers and higher education to create a new, employment focused offerings both for people entering workforce and those already in work. The success of foundation degrees can be measured by far more than the substantial year on year growth in their take-up. What we are now seeing is greater understanding of their potential to underpin the “professionalisation" of many occupational areas, particularly in the public sector; and they are meeting private sector demand for managers and highly skilled technicians in key economic areas of skills growth and shortage. The collaboration between Aston University, the National Grid and leading energy companies to develop a Power Engineering foundation degree exemplifies this trend.

17. These changes are taking time to work through the worlds of business and higher education; but the evidence of progress is growing and the pace of change is accelerating. The Higher Education Business and Community Interaction surveys56 which have reported annually since 2001, have shown consistent growth in the institutions reporting high levels of employer engagement in the curriculum, use of labour market information in course design and income generated from continuing professional development (CPD).

18. The Leitch Review added to an important debate within higher education, initiated by the Lambert Review57of 2003, about its role in supporting future economic growth. A key question was how higher education should build on its well-established relationships with business—in areas such as research, knowledge transfer, undergraduate and postgraduate education—to work with employers on a larger scale in workforce development and CPD. HEFCE's leading role in that debate was reflected in its grant letter for 2006-07 from the Secretary of State for Education and Skills. He asked HEFCE to “lead radical changes in the provision of higher education by incentivising and funding provision which is partly or wholly designed, funded or provided by employers". We published an Employer Engagement Strategy for the sector in November 2006 and this encompassed the breadth of the potential contribution of higher education towards building a highly skilled workforce.

56 HEFCE Higher Education Business and Community Interaction Surveys, http://www.hefce.ac.uk/reachout/hebci/57 Lambert Review of Business University Collaboration—Final Report, HM Treasury, December 2003

19. Alongside the strategy, in 2006 we invested in two important sets of pilot activity. First, we invited three Higher Education Regional Associations—in the South West, North West and North East regions—to work with regional partners to set up “Higher Level Skills Pathfinders" (HLSPs). Their purpose was to develop new forms of higher education provision in response to employer demand, more accessible to employers through Train to Gain and other intermediaries.

20. Secondly, we invited higher education institutions, either individually or in partnership, to submit proposals for innovative approaches to stimulate employer demand for higher level skills, encourage employer investment and create new flexible ways for meeting that demand. Several pilots built upon the development of other business focused services supported through the Higher Education Innovation Fund. This kick-started some important early projects which are now an important source of developing good practice and lessons learned. For example, as a result of first-hand experience of academics developing leading-edge professional practice, Birmingham City University is linking academic involvement in knowledge transfer to the development of problem-solving based curriculum for students.

21. HEFCE has the capacity and flexibility to support such pilot activity through its Strategic Development Fund. We have committed £11 million of development funds, and around £2.5 million a year funding for provision, to the three HLSPs to support new courses focused on the needs of employers and employees. Most of this new provision is part-time and is offered in much more flexible formats. Both the RDAs and the LSC have actively supported the pilots and have committed additional funds to the tune of £800,000 in the North East region to support the involvement of further education colleges in the region; and £4 million in the North West to extend coverage to all the RDA priority sectors.

22. We welcomed the Leitch Report and, in the light of its challenging ambition for high level skills we decided to move beyond small scale piloting. Our aim was to encourage many more higher education providers to mount larger scale projects. We emphasised the need to build sustainable capacity to enable a quick and flexible response to employer demand for high levels skills, through provision which employers would be willing to co-fund. In April 2007 we employed an experienced senior manager to plan the programme. He provides active encouragement and support to higher education providers to bring forward ambitious employer engagement proposals.

23. We also welcome the Government's publication in April 2008 of “Higher Education at Work"58and the consultation launched to look at ways in which business, trade unions and employers can work together to encourage demand for high level skills, as well as incentives to encourage universities to respond better to employer demand.

24. Our 2008-11 funding settlement includes at least £105 million to build employer engagement capacity and achieve targets for growth in the numbers of working people starting employer co-funded provision (5,000/10,000/20,000 entrants over three years). The co-funding model we are testing is straightforward. In delivering employer demand-led provision, higher education providers must generate financial contributions from employers which, together with HEFCE's funding contributions will at least cover their costs. In projects we have approved since September 2007 our expectation is that, after three years, most of the providers will be able to generate sufficient revenues from employers for their operations to be financially sustainable with a HEFCE contribution set at half its normal funding rates (sometimes referred to as “50 per cent co-funding").

25. To take this forward we set up a major new programme, underpinned by a new and separate funding mechanism, specifically designed to encourage transformational change and support new approaches to stimulating and meeting employer demand. Thirty-one higher education providers are now leading the delivery of employer demand-led and co-funded workforce development which will benefit some 6000 additional employees in 2008-09. Twenty-two of these are receiving capacity building funds to create new, sustainable and employer-focused operations capable of delivering continuing growth in future years. For example Staffordshire University will be contributing to the regeneration of Stoke through development of the “University Quarter" and establishment of a

58 “Higher Education at Work", Department for Innovation Universities and Skills, April 2008

Business Centre, reaching out to 3000 SME based learners in business supply chains and generating increased employer investment.

26. We have so far committed £44 million capacity building funds to these projects, over the next three years. Subject to available funds, we have sufficient proposals in the pipeline to double the number of projects. In allocating funds our overriding principle is achievement of the targets set in our grant letter through long-term, sustainable and transformational change. We aim to harness the considerable experience, expertise and creativity of higher education providers—stimulating demand from employers and employees and meeting it through innovation in the supply of higher education provision.

27. Our programme has been designed with the conclusions of the Leitch Report very much in mind:

@UL@— Exceed 40 per cent of working people qualified to at least Level 4 by 2020. We are investing to build capacity in higher education to create a platform for accelerated growth from 2010-11.@/UL@

@UL@— Encompass the whole working-age population. All our projects extend opportunities for employer co-funded workforce development to the11.4 million working people, aged 19 and over, who hold Level 2 or 3 qualifications, but have no experience of higher education.@/UL@

@UL@— Shared responsibility to increase investment and action. Our programme is specifically designed to encourage employer co-funding.@/UL@

@UL@— Focus on economically valuable skills. Project proposals are assessed for thorough research of target employer market(s), references to Regional Economic Strategies, employer involvement in curriculum development, and SSC/professional body consultation and collaboration.@/UL@

@UL@— The skills system must meet the needs of individuals and employers and should be demand-led rather than centrally planned. Our funding mechanism supports provision to meet employer and employee needs—from short, accredited “bite-sized" units through to full qualification bearing courses.@/UL@

@UL@— Adaptivity and responsiveness. The funding mechanism also targets the HEFCE contribution at the point of employer demand and enables providers to respond rapidly to new demands from employers.@/UL@

@UL@— Build on existing structures. We ask providers to bring forward project proposals which build on their strengths as the basis for transforming their operations to become more employer-facing. We assess bids for the involvement of local partners and intermediaries, such as Train to Gain, Business Link and Lifelong Learning Networks in their delivery plans.@/UL@REGIONAL AND SECTOR RELATIONSHIPS

28. HEFCE is a national organisation and we allocate core teaching and research grants at a national level. However, through our network of Regional Consultants we work with stakeholders to support higher education providers in making the most effective contribution to their regions. We publish, annually, regional profiles of higher education in England and consult with partners on regional priorities for higher education, which are published. Strong relationships at regional level are important to us in fulfilling our broad role: not only in relation to employer engagement, but also for promoting wider access to higher education and in taking forward the “University Challenge".

29. With the HE Regional Associations, our Regional Consultants play a strong advocacy and developmental role in the Regional Skills Partnerships, which include the RDAs and LSC. The three Higher Level Skills Pathfinders are exploring how higher education can make a more strategic contribution to meeting regional skills needs, particularly by connecting providers with existing brokerage systems, such as Train to Gain, providing joined-up services to employers across skill levels. Our investment is not restricted to universities and, to the extent our remit allows, we fund further education colleges, either directly or as members of university-led partnerships. For

example we recently approved direct funding for Worcester College of Technology to deliver an employer co-funded foundation degree in payroll management, in collaboration with the Institute for Payroll Management and accredited by Worcester University, which will build to 2,500 students by 2010-11.

30. Employer engagement projects are attracting RDA funding. For example, University of Derby has secured over £2 million from the East Midlands Development Agency alongside a substantial investment from its own funds and our investment of over £4 million to develop “UoD Corporate".

31. HEFCE has invested £103million in Lifelong Learning Networks (LLNs), to improve the opportunities open to learners with vocational qualifications for them to progress into and through higher education. There are now 29 LLNs, spanning 120 universities and 300 further education colleges. Many are collaborating with employers, particularly on curriculum design, and some are adopting innovative approaches to stimulating latent demand from employers and employees through new qualifications, credit accumulation, flexible work-based delivery, and accessible information, advice and guidance. We have, this year, completed reviews of both LLNs and the HLSPs and are considering the lessons learned for the future development of effective regional and sub-regional partnerships to promote employer and employee engagement.

32. Since the publication of the first Government Skills Strategy white paper in 200359we, with the Higher Education Academy, Quality Assurance Agency, Foundation Degree Forward and DIUS have supported Sector Skills Councils' (SSC) engagement with higher education through:

@UL@— Increasing mutual higher education-SSC understanding and collaboration;@/UL@

@UL@— Joint projects to enhance HE curriculum; @/UL@

@UL@— Strengthening SSC influence in Foundation Degree development, Lifelong Learning Networks, and Higher Level Skills Pathfinders.@/UL@

33. Examples of HEFCE funding of SSC-led projects include £7 million committed to support implementation by higher education providers of a new degree qualification developed in partnership with e-skills and £2 million to support the setting up of Skillset higher education academies. More than forty universities and colleges, in 2006, reported engagement with six leading SSCs—ConstructionSkills, Creative and Cultural skills, e-skills, Lifelong Learning UK, Skillset, and Skills for Health. This year, twelve universities in collaboration with leading construction companies and professional consultancies, will run versions of the six-day “Constructionarium" working field course, which was pioneered by Imperial College London, Expedition Engineering and John Doyle Construction in 2003 and is now hosted by the National Construction Skills College in Norfolk. It will provide hands-on experience for more than 1,000 construction industry students and young professionals and will bring together universities, contractors and consultants working at a significant scale with sizeable costs for both universities and industry but excellent educational and skills benefits. We believe that the planned re-licensing of SSCs by the new UK Commission for Employment and Skills offers the opportunity for more and closer collaboration of this type to grow sector-based markets for employer demand-led and co-funded workforce development.

34. Collaboration with professional and regulatory bodies is equally important and there is a long history of universities working with such bodies across a wide range of occupations and qualifications. This is also being taken into new areas—for example a joint project between Harper Adams University College and the Animal Medicines Training Regulatory Authority provides a national programme, co-funded by employers, for over 1,600 people a year to become qualified to prescribe and supply animal medicines under new regulations.

CHALLENGES35. Key challenges for us over the next three years include:

59 Cm 5810 (July 2003) Department for Education and Skills “21st Century Skills: Realising our potential"

@UL@— The potential scale of the market. There is good evidence of a market for flexible, responsive higher education focused on meeting the needs of employers and employees, but less about its potential scale. The limited information available at present suggests on one hand that higher education secures 6 per cent of a potential £5 billion CPD market; but a study of private sector businesses employing more than 25 people in the East Midlands60suggests universities and further education colleges may be delivering three-quarters of the high level skills training currently purchased by employers and offers new insights into the potential for growing the market. We are funding a repetition of the study in two more regions to add to the research we have already commissioned. But the action research approach of our programme will provide the important real-time evidence we need. @/UL@

@UL@— Employer co-funding. There is more opinion and anecdote than hard evidence on the willingness of employers to pay for the “right" higher level skills products. We shall be monitoring and evaluating the success of our provider projects in generating co-funding revenues from employers, whether private or public sector; and we shall look for variations in performance by economic sector, employer size, occupational groups and geographic location. @/UL@

@UL@— SMEs present a major challenge both in terms of developing a viable market for higher education delivered workforce development and the scope for generating co-funding revenues. We are supporting projects, for example De Montfort University and Staffordshire University, which are taking on the higher level risks associated with the SME market and these will provide us with valuable evidence. @/UL@

@UL@— Sustainability. By the end of their projects our expectation is that higher education providers should be able to sustain their employer facing operations on the basis of our 50% funding rate and the revenues generated by their employer customers. Achieving this outcome requires a viable market and an employer willingness to pay towards provision. At individual provider level it requires the development of a critical mass of new and repeat employer customers; and well managed service delivery operations, underpinned by effective costing, pricing and marketing mechanisms.@/UL@

@UL@— Sustaining the higher education reputation for quality. The QAA and HEFCE established a task group, in 2007, on quality assurance required for customised higher education for employers. The aim is to encourage quality assurance processes which support responsiveness and flexibility without undermining high standards which are valued by employers and employees and are vital for continued demand for this provision.@/UL@

@UL@— Embedding transformation requires a permanent change in the culture of the higher education. It will also require us to develop and agree with Government an effective long-term funding mechanism to support continuing growth in employer co-funded provision from 2010-11 onwards.@/UL@

@UL@— Continuing Lifelong Learning. To meet the Leitch ambition we need people who come into higher education through the workplace to continue learning, either with their employers or in their own right. Almost all of the projects we are supporting include opportunities for employees to accumulate credit towards a higher qualification, but there is more work to be done to create effective mechanisms to enable people to transfer their credits between providers. @/UL@CONCLUSION

36. We believe we have been successful in generating a momentum for change within the higher education sector. This paper shows that by acting early and through a sustained campaign of raising awareness in the sector we now have a major programme of higher education projects in place which will enable us to meet our targets for 2008-09 and beyond.

37. If we can sustain this momentum we can offer the very real prospect of securing the transformation of the higher education sector that the Leitch Report envisaged and of creating a

60 Kewin, Casey, Smith “Known unknowns: the demand for higher level skills from businesses", Centre for Enterprise (March 2008).

platform for a much more substantial programme of growth towards meeting the Leitch ambition for 2020.

April 2008

Annex

DATAThis annex presents data in four areas:

@UL@A. Contextual data on HE students (entrants to programmes).@/UL@

@UL@B. Data on students who combine work and learning.@/UL@

@UL@C. Income from employers to HE relating to teaching.@/UL@

@UL@D. Engagement between HE institutions and employers.@/UL@A. CONTEXTUAL DATA ON HIGHER EDUCATION STUDENT ENTRANTS

It should be noted that numbers are rounded to nearest five including totals hence sum of rows/columns may not match the total shown.

Table 1

2006-07 STUDENT POPULATION (HEADCOUNT STUDENT NUMBERS FOR NEW ENTRANTS REGISTERED AT HE INSTITUTIONS IE STUDENTS IN THE FIRST YEAR OF

THEIR DEGREE AFTER 1 AUGUST 2006)i

Full-time Part-time Total

Level Under 21 21-24 25 and over

Under 21 21-24 25 and over

First degree

236,410 40,610 31,880 4,180 9,595 42,120 364,795

Other undergraduate

21,220 11,140 17,825 20,610 26,210 172,235 269,235

Postgraduate research

40 7,820 11,345 15 395 4,810 24,425

Postgraduate taught

1,170 61,085 51,885 820 10,725 79,700 205,380

Total 258,835 120,650 112,940 25,625 46,925 298,865 863,840

Age is on entry. Students with unknown date of birth have been assigned to “Under 21".

Table 2

NUMBER OF FOUNDATION DEGREE STUDENTS AND ENTRANTS BY YEAR AND MODE OF STUDY (REGISTERED AT HEIs AND FECs) 2001-08ii

Students Academic year Full-time Part-time Total % full-time 2001-02 2,530 1,795 4,320 59%2002-03 6,295 6,015 12,310 51%2003-04 12,240 11,710 23,945 51%2004-05 19,780 18,040 37,820 52%2005-06 26,910 19,870 46,780 58%

2006-07 33,855 26,725 60,580 56%2007-08 40,820 31,095 71,915 57%Entrants Academic year Full-time Part-time Total % full-time 2001-02 2,260 1,740 3,995 57%2002-03 4,805 4,095 8,900 54%2003-04 8,250 6,695 14,945 55%2004-05 12,890 9,220 22,110 58%2005-06 16,810 9,850 26,665 63%2006-07 19,840 14,095 33,930 58%2007-08 24,440 16,005 40,445 60%

(Home, EU and overseas students and entrants at HEIs and FECs in England)

Table 3

2006-07 GENERAL QUALIFICATION AIM (HEAD COUNTS FOR NEW ENTRANTS): HEIs ONLYiii

General qualification aim of student Full-time Part-time Total Diploma in HE leading towards obtaining eligibility to register to practice with a Health or Social Care regulatory body

14,410 585 15,000

First degree 288,390 53,830 342,220First degree leading towards obtaining eligibility to register to practice with a Health or Social Care or Veterinary statutory regulatory body—General Dental

860 860

First degree leading towards obtaining eligibility to register to practice with a Health or Social Care or Veterinary statutory regulatory body—General Medical

6,780 5 6,780

First degree leading towards obtaining eligibility to register to practice with a Health or Social Care or Veterinary statutory regulatory body—Other

12,875 2,060 14,935

Foundation degree 15,070 11,480 26,550NVQ level 4 or 5 40 40Other formal HE qualification of less than degree standard

705 1,970 2,675

Other postgraduate qualification 430 10,635 11,065Other undergraduate qualification 17,280 188,600 205,880PGCE 22,630 3,360 25,990Postgraduate (Not professional qualifications or PGCE)

108,540 76,300 184,840

Professional qualification at postgraduate level (not PGCE) with or without academic qualification

1,340 5,505 6,840

Professional qualification at undergraduate level, with or without academic qualification

285 7,910 8,195

Professional qualification for serving school teachers

690 695

Qualified teacher status only 180 125 305No formal undergraduate qualification 2,245 7,650 9,895No formal postgraduate qualification 405 670 1,070Total 492,425 371,415 863,840

B. STUDENTS WHO COMBINE WORK AND LEARNING(Tables 4-6 and 9 are taken from the Destination of Leavers from HE survey (DLHE) 2005-

06 which surveys qualifiers who left their programme in academic year 2005-06 six months after completing their studies.)

Table 4

HE LEAVERS IN EMPLOYMENT ON THE CENSUS DATE FOR THE dESTINATION OF lEAVERS FROM HE (DLHE) 2005-06 WHO RESPONDED THAT THEY WORKED FOR THEIR

EMPLOYER BEFORE OR DURING THE PROGRAMME OF STUDY THEY RECENTLY COMPLETEDiv

Headcount As % of those who answered Yes—before my programme of study

11,370 7%

Yes—during my programme of study

29,995 18%

Yes—both before and during my programme of study

23,995 15%

No 98,235 60%Total 163,595 100%

Table 5

TYPES OF WORK UNDERTAKEN BY HE LEAVERS RESPONDING TO DLHE SURVEY 2005-06 WHO WORKED FOR THEIR EMPLOYER DURING OR BEFORE THEIR COURSEv

Sandwich placement

Other placement or project work

Holiday job FT or PT all year round

FT or PT during term time

Other

Employer size Headcount

As % of those who answered

Headcount

As % of those who answered

Headcount

As % of those who answered

Headcount

As % of those who answered

Headcount

As % of those who answered

Headcount

As % of those who answered

Small 460 0.8%

950 1.7%

1,160

2.0%

5,290

9.2%

1,740

3.0%

735 1.3%

Medium 415 0.7%

1,030

1.8%

580 1.0%

3,885

6.8%

1,295

2.3%

315 0.6%

Large 1,640

2.9%

3,620

6.3%

2,195

3.8%

20,415

35.7%

3,875

6.8%

1,275

2.2%

Unknown 460 0.8%

1,190

2.1%

675 1.2%

4,900

8.6%

1,275

2.2%

535 0.9%

Total 2,970

5.2%

6,795

11.9%

4,605

8.0%

34,490

60.3%

8,185

14.3%

2,865

5.0%

5.19%

Note: Percentages sum to more than 100% as leavers can tick as many of the options on the questionnaire as they wish.

Table 6

SOURCE OF FUNDING FOR STUDY, TRAINING OR RESEARCH IDENTIFIED BY HE LEAVERS RESPONDING TO THE DLHE SURVEY 2005-06 WHO WERE REQUIRED BY

THEIR EMPLOYERS TO UNDERTAKE FURTHER STUDY OR RESEARCHvi

Headcount As % of total employed and required to study (who answered this question)

Self-funding eg savings/loans/employment

430 12%

Grant/award eg Research Council Studentship/LEA Award for PGCE

185 5%

Sponsorship 120 3%My employer provided financial support

2,465 70%

Other 325 9%Total 3,525 100%

C. INCOME TO HE FROM EMPLOYERS FOR TEACHING ACTIVITYTable 7

MAJOR SOURCE OF TUITION FEES 2006-07vii

First degree Other undergraduate

Postgraduate research

Postgraduate taught

Total

Major source of tuition fees

Full-time

Part-time

Full-time

Part-time

Full-time

Part-time

Full-time

Part-time

Absent for year

0

Charitable foundation

210 50 45 175 855 40 700 240 2,315

Departments of Health/NHS/Social Care

7,670 2,895 11,605 21,345 265 65 1,265 3,690 48,805

Departments of Social Services

60 95 60 130 180 145 670

EU Commission

50 120 105 45 0 190 45 550

Fee waiver under government unemployed students scheme

30 30 15 75

Fees paid under part-time graduate apprentice study programme

5 10 5 15 40

Government/Local authorities

335 445 235 3,535 235 95 1,330 3,550 9,760

Institutional waiver of support costs

1,600 1,210 370 6,620 3,210 520 4,145 2,520 20,195

Local government—Channel Islands and Isle of Man/Scottish FE Bursaries

655 15 20 40 5 10 90 125 965

No award or financial backing

102,090

30,150 20,120 127,720

6,245 3,480 79,295 48,515 417,615

Overseas

1,990 50 785 1,225 2,140 70 4,230 390 10,890

Research Council

25 5 10 70 3,690 40 1,595 130 5,440

Student 1,075 6,225 995 29,780 460 410 1,750 20,695 61,385

's employerUK industry/commerce

65 535 10 315 155 70 310 1,310 2,765

Whole or part SLC, SAAS, DELNI

189,545

12,250 12,715 11,050 60 20 15,195 2,350 243,175

Other 820 1,100 765 4,615 805 150 1,580 3,575 13,405No fees 1,535 560 1,795 10,140 290 115 1,070 2,545 18,055Not known

1,170 270 535 2,150 745 140 1,215 1,390 7,610

Total 308,900

55,895 50,180 219,055

19,205 5,220 114,135

91,245 863,840

Table 8

MAJOR SOURCE OF FUNDING FOR THE PROGRAMME OF STUDY 2006-07viii

First degree Other undergraduate

Postgraduate research

Postgraduate taught

Total

Major source of funding for the programme of study

Full-time

Part-time

Full-time

Part-time

Full-time

Part-time

Full-time

Part-time

Departments of Health/NHS/Social Care

11,770 4,135 17,000 24,475 110 1,365 2,395 61,250

Departments of Social Services

35 50 5 60 150

EU Commission

5 10 115 60 85 270

Funded entirely by student tuition fees

550 1,090 2,595 4,040 240 135 3,130 2,650 14,425

HEFCE

288,250

49,215 29,610 182,980

18,730 4,940 86,880 68,110 728,720

Joint 5 10 75 90

between two sources including a funding councilLEA/DfES

235 195 430

LSC 25 25Overseas government or other overseas organisation

30 45 80

Own institution

5 45 260 315

Research Council

30 55 30 10 125

TDA 7,780 115 345 3,760 5 10 21,635 15,645 49,290UK charities

10 10 5 25

UK government

365 180 225 1,280 400 395 2,845

UK private industry/commerce

25 675 35 415 1,155

UK public corporation/nationalised industry

195 140 335

Other funding

120 1,070 350 1,220 85 70 585 805 4,310

308,900

55,895 50,180 219,055

19,205 5,220 114,135

91,245 863,840

Table 9

EMPLOYEES STUDYING PART-TIME WHO WERE SUPPORTED BY THEIR EMPLOYER (2005-06)ix

Headcount As % of PT qualifiers employed

Yes: my tuition fees were paid 7,515 48%Yes: I was given a grant to cover my tuition fees and living expenses

245 2%

Yes: I was given study leave 4,980 32%Yes: I was supported in other ways

4,245 27%

No: my employer did not support me in any way

4,385 28%

Note: Percentages sum to more than 100% as leavers can tick as many of the options on the questionnaire as they wish.

Table 10

INCOME FROM COURSES FOR BUSINESS AND THE COMMUNITY—CONTINUING PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT (CPD) COURSES AND CONTINUING EDUCATION (CE)

(2003-07) (EXCLUDING THOSE FUNDED BY THE NHS OR TDA)x

It should be noted that Tables 10-16 are taken from the HE-Business and Community Interaction Survey. Figures for 2007-08 are provisional ahead of the publication of the report which is scheduled for 10 July 2008. It should be noted that the survey is in two parts. Financial information is accurate up to the period 1 August 2006-31 July 2007. Qualitative data on employer engagement is taken as a snapshot of activity in January 2008.

Year CPD for SMEs, other (non-SME)commercial businesses and othernon-commercial organisations

CE and CPD for individuals

Total

2003-04 198,122 57,560 255,682 1312004-05 229,109 87,642 316,751 1292005-06 236,518 99,758 336,276 1292006-07 290,840 110,738 401,578 130

D. ENGAGEMENT BETWEEN HE INSTITUTIONS AND EMPLOYERSTable 11

HEIs REPORTING ENGAGEMENT WITH SECTOR SKILLS COUNCILS (SSCS) AS PART OF THEIR BUSINESS AND COMMUNITY STRATEGY (2004-08)xi

Year Asset Skills

Automotive Skills

Government Skills

Construction Skills

Cogent

Creative and Cultural

e-skills UK

Energy and Utility skills

Financial Services Skills Council

GoSkills

2004-05

18 n/a 25 52 54 15 18

2005-06

22 15 34 14 71 63 16 23

2006-07

28 24 40 18 86 70 20 28

2007-08

11 32 25 43 25 89 70 25 34 10

Year

Improve Ltd

Lantra Lifelong Learning

People 1st

Proskills

SEMTA

SkillsActive

Skillfast-UK

Skillset

Skills for Care

2004-05

18 41 14 2 25 13 12 33 14

2005-06

30 59 17 3 29 19 18 47 23

2006-07

13 30 73 21 5 35 26 22 57 38

2007-08

16 32 77 26 7 46 29 24 62 46

Year

Skills for health

Skills for Justice

Skills for logistics

Skillsmart

Summit Skills

Other Total HEIs responding

2004-05

37 15 10 11 130

2005-06

50 26 17 16 130

2006-07

68 34 19 17 128

2007-08

74 40 14 20 10 16 130

Table 12

HE INSTITUTIONS REPORTING THEY HAVE A CENTRAL DEDICATED UNIT TO PROVIDE SUPPORT FOR SMEs (2004-08)xii

Year An enquiry point for SMEs

Assistance to SMEs in specifying their needs

Total number of HEIs responding

2004-05 116 102 1302005-06 117 105 1302006-07 118 107 1282007-08 119 110 130

Table 13

HE INSTITUTIONS REPORTING THEY OFFER ENTREPRENEURSHIP TRAINING TO SPIN-OFF COMPANIES (2004-08)xiii

Year Entrepreneurship training (HEI provided)

Entrepreneurship training (Partner provided)

Entrepreneurship training (Both provided)

Entrepreneurship training (None provided)

Number of institutions responding

2004-05 66 7 31 25 1302005-06 66 8 35 21 1302006-07 67 4 39 18 1282007-08 66 6 42 16 130

Table 14

HE INSTITUTIONS REPORTING THEY OFFER COURSES FOR EMPLOYERSxiv

Year Distance Continuous Short bespoke Short bespoke Total HEIs

learning for businesses

work- based learning

courses for business on campus

courses at companies' premises

responding

2004-05 86 79 109 103 1302005-06 88 82 113 106 1302006-07 89 86 115 110 1282007-08 88 87 117 109 130

Table 15

HE INSTITUTIONS REPORTING THEY MONITOR SKILLS NEEDS AND SECTORAL CHANGE THROUGH LABOUR MARKET INTELLIGENCE, AND TAKE THIS INTO

ACCOUNT IN PLANNING PROVISION (ON A PREDEFINED SCALE of ONE TO FIVE) 2004-08xv

Year 3 4 5 Total HEIs responding

2004-05 42 59 10 1302005-06 36 67 7 1302006-07 36 69 7 1282007-08 28 78 8 130

See Annex B of HE-BCI publication 2007/17 for full description of levels 3, 4 and 5 (http://www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/hefce/2007/07_17/)

Table 16

HE INSTITUTIONS REPORTING THAT EMPLOYERS ARE ACTIVELY INVOLVED IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CONTENT AND REGULAR REVIEWING OF THE CURRICULUM (ON A

PREDEFINED SCALE OF ONE TO FIVE) 2004-08xvi

Year 3 4 5 Total HEIs responding

2004-05 31 62 32 1302005-06 24 66 36 1302006-07 24 58 43 1282007-08 23 60 44 130

See Annex B of HE-BCI publication 2007/17 for full description of levels 3, 4 and 5 (http://www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/hefce/2007/07_17/)

GLOSSARY AND ACRONYMSChannel Is. Channel IslandsCE Continuing EducationCPD Continuing Professional DevelopmentDELNI Department of Employment and Learning

Northern IrelandDLHE Destination of Leavers from Higher Education

SurveyDfES Department for Education and SkillsEU European UnionFEC Further Education CollegeHE Higher EducationHE-BCI Higher Education-Business and Community

Interaction SurveyHEFCE Higher Education Funding Council for EnglandHEI Higher Education Institution

HEIFES Higher Education in Further Education Students Survey

HESA Higher Education Statistics AgencyHESES Higher Education Students Early Statistics

SurveyI. of Man Isle of ManLEA Local Education AuthorityLSC Learning and Skills CouncilNHS National Health ServiceNVQ National Vocational QualificationOU Open UniversityPGCE Postgraduate Certificate in EducationSAAS Student Awards Agency for ScotlandSLC Student Loans CompanySME Small and Medium Sized EnterprisesSSC Sector Skills CouncilTDA Training and Development Agency for SchoolsUK United Kingdom

References

i HESA Record 2006-07 (Figures for HEFCE-funded HEIs only. OU students domiciled in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have been excluded.

ii Data source: Columns 1 + 2 of HESES and HEIFES (2007-08 values are provisional).The numbers of overseas entrants for 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08 are estimated by assuming they represent the same proportion as for the other years, that is 4.6% for full-time and 5.5% for part-time.2001-02 student numbers include some continuing students from 2000-01 which were marketed as foundation degrees but which may not have had all the attributes described in the HEFCE foundation degree prospectus.

iii HESA Record 2006-07.

iv Destination of Leavers from HE survey 2005-06 (Figures for HEFCE-funded HEIs only. Only those records counted within the DLHE target population are included.

v Destination of Leavers from HE survey 2005-06.

vi Destination of Leavers from HE survey 2005-06.

vii HESA Record 2006-07.

viii HESA Record 2006-07.

ix Destination of Leavers from HE survey 2005-06.

x HE-Business and Community Interaction Survey.

xi HE-Business and Community Interaction Survey.

xii HE-Business and Community Interaction Survey.

xiii HE-Business and Community Interaction Survey.

xiv HE-Business and Community Interaction Survey.

xv HE-Business and Community Interaction Survey. See Annex B of HE-BCI publication 2007-17 for full description of levels 3, 4 and 5.

xvi HE-Business and Community Interaction Survey. See Annex B of HE-BCI publication 2007-17 for full description of levels 3, 4 and 5.

@HR25@

Memorandum 21

Submission from Ufi

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY1. Background

1.1 Ufi is the company behind the nationally renowned brand of learndirect, aiming to transform skills in the UK using technology. Established in 1999, Ufi is now the largest provider of skills and training in the UK.

1.2 Ufi is responsible for three customer-focused services which are all unique to the UK:

@UL@— learndirect skills and qualifications, web delivered learning with 1-1 tutor support@/UL@

@UL@— learndirect business, learning services to employers@/UL@

@UL@— learndirect careers advice, the national careers and advice service for adults currently available by phone and over the web@/UL@

1.3 Ufi operates across the nine English Regions, Wales and Northern Ireland. Over 300,000 people do learndirect courses each year and nearly 90% have either no or only Level 1 qualifications.

1.4 Ufi welcomed Lord Leitch's findings and recommendations published in December 200661. As implementation gets underway across the sector, as outlined in the DIUS Implementation Plan62 and more recently the DIUS/DCSF Machinery of Government announcements63, Ufi has stepped up to the challenge by strengthening its regional delivery and increasing its contribution to new PSA targets, thereby establishing itself as a major provider in the new demand-led landscape.

2. Key Messages for the Inquiry

2.1 Effectiveness of regional structures. Ufi believes there is a lack of consistency with regard to the effectiveness of structures and partnerships across the regions. For example there is often tension between the LSC and RDAs in the regional planning process due to conflicting priorities, eg LSC focus on Level 2 v RDA focus on higher level skills (Level 3/Level 4 and beyond). The North East is one region where the key agencies work well together, and this view is supported by the fact that the North East is often a pilot region for new policy initiatives.

2.2 Reform of the FE sector post Leitch. There is a danger that the recent Machinery of Government proposals in the White Paper “Raising Expectations: enabling the system to deliver" may replace one complex system with another. Ufi welcomes the adult responsiveness model to create a truly demand led system through the development of Train to Gain and Skills Accounts. The responsibility on employers and learners to choose their provision needs to be supported by clear information and a genuinely level playing field for providers. In managing the transition, the lessons from Train to Gain should be applied to Skills Accounts so that performance meets ambitions.

2.3 Impact on students. The impact of these initiatives on students will become clearer as more funding is routed through Skills Accounts and Train to Gain over the next three years. In order to make the system work, individuals and employers need informed choice and greater personalisation of services. The AACS pilots need to be undertaken against a robust blueprint which urgently needs to be developed, including full use of web and phone technology.

61 Prosperity for all in the global economy—world class skills (December 2006)62 World class skills: implementing the Leitch Review of Skills in England (July 2007) 63 Raising Expectations: enabling the system to deliver

2.4 Further detail on these key points can be found below.

SPECIFIC AREAS FOR CONSULTATION3. Role of RDAs in implementing skills and training policies

3.1 Ufi has been delivering skills training at regional and sub regional level since learndirect was launched in 2000 and since then we have developed variable relationships with the RDAs as a strategic and delivery partner. We believe the RDAs do not always work well with Regional LSC given their focus on Level 3 skills and above and the LSC's priority to focus funding on Level 2. This often creates tension in the regional planning process.

3.2 RDAs have a broad remit; we believe they are strong in reinforcing messages but weak on implementation of policy.

3.3 We have also experienced inconsistencies across regions in relation to partnership working. For example, Ufi has secured representation on Regional Skills Partnership Boards in only three regions. Where we have been successful, for example in the South East, Ufi has worked hard to build strong relationships with RSP members, and to ensure that they fully understand how Ufi/learndirect can add value at regional and local level. Ufi is not a member of the first Employment and Skills Board (ESB) in London but our aim is to be involved in the relevant sub-groups as they are established and to ensure that regional ESBs understand Ufi/learndirect's contribution to regional objectives.

3.4 Policy affecting the role and remit of RDAs in relation to skills and training is still evolving through implementation of the DCLG Sub National Review. Under the proposed changes top-tier councils will be given a new duty to assess the economic conditions of their area: those assessments would then form the basis of a Regional Strategy, drawn up by the RDAs and covering areas including skills. Strategies would then be scrutinised by regional forums of Local Authority leaders. Also under new legislation, Councils rather than RDAs could lead on projects using funding delegated to them from the RDAs.

4. Regional structures

4.1 It could be argued that the recent Machinery of Government proposals in the White Paper “Raising Expectations..." may confuse the regional and sub-regional landscape further—with one complex planning and funding structure being replaced with another. Ufi believes further clarity is needed around the potential gaps that will be left when the LSC ceases to exist in 2010, including the current role of LSC Regional Councils and potential constraints imposed by Local Authorities, DIUS etc.

4.2 More clarity is needed around responsibility and leadership of regional bodies. In Ufi's experience, unless bodies such as Regional Skills Partnerships have clear authority with budget, they do not have impact. For example the Regional Skills Partnership in the Eastern region only became effective when it became responsible for managing ESF funding.

4.3 As skills and employment policy and delivery become more integrated it will be increasingly necessary to bring together the key agencies and delivery partners in a region. In the North East the key bodies, including LSC, JCP and Regional Skills Partnership, are focused on delivering the Regional Employability Framework (REF). Ufi supports the focus of the Framework to remove duplication of funding however it is proving difficult for some providers to enter the employability market as the regional LSC already have provision that JCP refer into to meet their targets.

5. The role of the LSC

5.1 The LSC restructure in 2005 strengthened their regional presence by creating regional LSC bodies with a responsibility for strategies, planning, some commissioning and delivery across the nine English regions, in addition to the National Employer Service.

5.2 Pre-19 funding will transition to Local Authorities in 2010 and the LSC will move to become the Skills Funding Agency (SFA) within the next three years. It is still unclear where the balance of power will lie for Adult Skills Strategy in new regional structures post 2010. It is possible that DIUS will take responsibility for strategy and that the SFA will become a planning and funding body. This may create a significant distance between the policy makers and the delivery, although it may create opportunities for national providers such as Ufi to respond to policy on a national level, providing an opportunity to become a significant national delivery partner and potentially securing national contracts.

6. The role of SSCs

6.1 Ufi believes SSCs have struggled with the regional agenda and not had the impact expected because of their national focus on qualifications reform, 14-19 and apprenticeships. Ufi agrees with Leitch's observations that SSC performance is variable but much of this is down to their differing heritage and start up resourcing.

6.2 It is believed that SSCs have not successfully addressed the employer engagement agenda partially due to weak strategies for partnership working, particularly with brokers and Chambers of Commerce. SSCs are the voice of the employer, but they often do not make a significant contribution to regional priorities. SSC membership is not always a true reflection of businesses in a region, eg not representative of sole traders/micro-businesses.

6.3 There have been difficulties in aligning Sector Skills Agreements (SSAs) with local strategies such as Regional Economic Strategies and there is a danger that since the closure of SSDA there will be little attention to SSAs going forward. Some SSCs may feel their future is uncertain given the UK Commission's plans to re-license later this year and there is an expectation that the number of SSCs may be rationalised.

7. Respective roles of FE and HE in delivering a region-based agenda

7.1 Bridging the gap between FE and HE is still a policy priority. Ufi is a national organisation which delivers regionally and sub-regionally and is the only national organisation with an offer ranging from Entry Level to Post Graduate level. Ufi believes more innovation is required in the sector to make the adult responsiveness model successful. Ufi's unique learning model packages technology, outreach, tutors and products enabling a personalised learning experience to be delivered to individuals and employers cost effectively.

7.2 The online, flexible nature of learndirect makes learning “portable" and Ufi has been particularly innovative, for example the development of a secure model delivering learning into prisons. learndirect has now been rolled out in 25 prisons, with another 10 prisons coming on board by July 2008. The offer includes a tutor-supported portfolio of learndirect skills and qualifications including Skills for Life, IT and work based learning—offering a pathway which can lead to employment. Offenders have an Individual Learning Plan which can be transferred to the learner on release enabling them to continue to access their learning and learner records online in the community.

7.3 Ufi is also using the learndirect model to address regional issues such as graduate migration. Through its Learning through Work programme, Ufi partners with a number of HEIs and FECs to deliver qualifications from Level 3/4 to Level 7 including Foundation Degrees, Honours Degrees and short CPD courses so that graduates can be “grown" in a region where there is a shortage of skills. learndirect Learning through Work is delivered through a custom-built Learning Support Environment enabling the development of tailored programmes for individuals and groups. It particularly responds to the needs of business because it:

@UL@— enables staff to gain relevant (and QAed) learning and qualifications without taking time off work;@/UL@

@UL@— demand led: programmes can be tailored specifically to the work related needs of the employer and the individual;@/UL@

@UL@— tailored programmes can be developed for employers within a short timescale.@/UL@

@UL@— existing, relevant in-house courses an be incorporated;@/UL@

@UL@— includes a range of on-line learning packages relevant to business need@/UL@

8. Impact on students

8.1 To date, the impact of Leitch's review has been more on systems and processes rather than the learner. The impact of these initiatives on students will become clearer as more funding is driven by demand over the next three years. In order to make the new system work, individuals and employers need informed choice and greater personalisation of services and Ufi supports a contestable, demand led system which routes funding through Skills Accounts and Train to Gain to empower students to make informed choices based on quality and flexibility of provision in an area.

8.2 The AACS pilots need to be undertaken against a robust blueprint which urgently needs to be developed, including full use of web and phone technology.

April 2008

@HR25@

Memorandum 22

Submission from CRAC: The Career Development Organisation

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY1. This submission focuses on the impact that the responses to the Leitch Review will

have on students. Primarily it is focused on the impact responses will have on the career decision-making of those considering entry to or already engaged in higher education, in all contexts.

2. Given the diversity of the student cohort, CRAC is concerned primarily with the coherence of IAG provision for 14-19, FE, HE and adult clients.

3. CRAC, through the UK GRAD Programme, supports the career development of postgraduate and research staff. This group of highly skilled individuals also requires coherent as well as “specialist" support; current arrangements are insecure due to the nature of the relevant funding streams, and the relationship between advisers working with this cohort and those working in the broader HE and adult sectors requires clarification.

4. In order to support the development of the workforce on local and regional levels, CRAC strongly feels that access to relevant labour market information is vital, and is concerned that currently there is no onus on Sector Skills Councils or Regional Development Agencies to provide this from a career development perspective.

5. Finally, CRAC believes that all students should have access to opportunities to actively enhance their employability, and institutions can support this by developing closer relationships with industry, embedding employability initiatives in the curriculum, supporting work experience or work placements and encouraging engagement in voluntary activities. However, in order to maximise the potential of these opportunities, students should also have access to resources or to structured support for them to reflect upon the learning they have gained through such participation.

INTRODUCTION6. CRAC: The Career Development Organisation is pleased to submit to the

committee's inquiry on the implementation of skills and training policies. CRAC is the independent, charitable organisation dedicated to career development and active, career-related learning. We have a passionate belief that individuals have the ability to achieve their career goals if they are equipped with the skills to do so.

7. CRAC supports:

@UL@— those who help people make career decisions with up to date knowledge of career pathway options and resultant decision making @/UL@

@UL@— employers in their understanding of national education and skills policies and their development of career-related learning programmes@/UL@

@UL@— career development for specific sectors, industries, age or educational groups.@/UL@

8. CRAC believes that a commitment to career development by individuals and employers alongside the provision of impartial, good quality information, advice and guidance will contribute significantly to the success of the proposed Leitch implementation plan on both regional and national levels.

THE IMPACT ON STUDENTS9. This response focuses primarily on students entering higher education, in either an

FE or HE context. Although the Leitch implementation plan focuses on provision for adults, there is reinforcement for the raising of the participation age for those still in compulsory education. As such,

this response will look at both the traditional entrants to higher education and the target group for participation (adults in the workplace).

10. It is imperative that the opportunities on offer post-Leitch reflect the diversity of the student cohort.

11. Patterns of study for traditional entrants to higher education (18-20 year olds) have been shifting over the last decade. Many studies64 have shown that an increasing number of the traditional cohort choose to study at a local university in order to remain in the parental home for the duration of a full time undergraduate degree. The primary reason cited for this is financial. Further, those students living at home during their undergraduate degree are more likely to remain and gain employment in the local area after graduation.

12. For these students, the transition from secondary education to higher education and from higher education into employment involves a number of decisions, often taken with the aid of their parents and peers and utilising information from the internet and from careers offices. Access to independent advice and guidance at the required stages becomes ever more important.

13. However, it is also of importance that those providing careers advice themselves have access to properly researched labour market information. In particular, this cohort must be aware of the needs of the local labour market, as well as have access to the skills, training and degree programmes which meet these needs and are provided in their locality. The new 14-19 prospectuses, for example, could have some reference to LMI (which the majority do not), which could then be built on at post-19 level. In its work with employers CRAC has already found that such information is seen as important and valuable and it is our belief that employer engagement around the provision of knowledge about the employment market, both national and local, should be secured by incentivisation. We would be willing to help structure such programmes.

14. Understanding the pattern of regional migration eg that, currently, the biggest “losers" of graduates are the North East and the East Midlands, with the biggest gains being in London and the South East must also be addressed in order to ensure adequate supply of skills to core industry sectors.

15. In order for this to happen, Sector Skills Councils and Regional Development Agencies must work together to ensure there is accurate, regionally-focused LMI which is accessible from the point of view of the careers or IAG practitioner and the end user (the student). Currently provision for these groups is patchy, with the focus being on provision of LMI for business growth—ie it is written for the business user. From a recent CRAC survey there is very low awareness amongst practitioners of reliable tools to support the usage of LMI in careers practice.

16. For the traditional entrant, formal IAG provision will comprise a tailored local service at 14-19 level, access to a university or college careers advisory service at HE level but also, presumably, access to the services provided by the new adult advancement and careers service (nationally led by the new Skills Funding Agency) from the age of 19 until the end of their working lives. CRAC believes that the interaction between these services must be transparent and coherent to the end user. Beyond this, there is a need for better use to be made of new technology and for the various agencies and advisory services to know how technology might be used to aid choice and decision making by young people and their parents.

17. For the non-traditional entrant, support will come from employers, training providers and the adult advancement and careers service (AACS). CRAC welcomes the recent Higher Level Skills Strategy consultation paper which asks higher education and employers to increase their level of interaction in order to meet the demands of the Leitch implementation plans.

64 What drives graduate regional retention? Education Research Services on behalf of Coventry Solihull and Warwickshire Partnership (CSWP) 2007; The choices and experience of HE students living in the parental home, Jackie Patiniotis and Clare Holdsworth, Department of Geography, University of Liverpool 2005; NatWest Student Money Matters Survey 2006; Patterns of Higher Education Institutions in the UK, Universities UK 2006

18. CRAC again states the importance of coherence between providers of information and advice to this cohort. Given the proposed co-financing arrangements between SSCs and employers, which will build on the HEFCE Level 4 Train to Gain pilots, employers will need to be clear about progression paths open to employees undertaking higher education; at the same time, the AACS must be able to provide an impartial service.

19. However, the development of the Adult Advancement and Careers Service and how the existing services will interact with it will have a significant impact on all students at all levels of higher education. For example, there is already some level of employer engagement at doctoral level, through schemes like the Industrial CASE awards65, collaborative and doctoral training accounts (CTA and DTA). Some employers also support their employees in undertaking “professional" doctorates, whereby support is provided in terms of time, and sometimes funding.

20. CRAC, through the UK GRAD Programme, supports the career development of postgraduate and research staff. Many of the same issues around coherency of service apply to this cohort.

21. Research into the career expectations of doctoral researchers66 by the UK GRAD Programme shows that very broadly, the key motivation for undertaking a PhD was to improve career prospects. 34% of respondents were undertaking a PhD to enhance their career prospects inside academia and that 49% wanted to pursue a career in research. 45% indicated that the chance to research their field in greater depth was a core reason for further study. It is interesting that 40% considered that undertaking a PhD would enhance their career prospects outside the academic sphere.

22. The Roberts' Review highlighted a need for careers support for postgraduate researchers and research staff. Currently, careers support for this cohort comes from national, regional and local provision, funded through the UK GRAD Programme by Research Councils UK, through direct funding to universities provided in response to the Roberts' Review and through institutions' own careers advisory services. On a local level, many institutions have acknowledged the need to provide specialist careers advice for researchers. The Roberts funding stream is not yet embedded. Many institutions face challenges posed by the insecurity of funding, often leading to “specialist" careers advisers being employed on short term contracts. This instability makes it difficult for institutions to support a long term strategy for flow of highly skilled individuals into the workforce. Any reduction in the Roberts funding stream would further compromise the ability of careers services to provide the required specialist support.

23. The UK GRAD Programme seeks to engage with Regional Development Agencies, Sector Skills Councils and employers nationally and through its regional hubs (hosted by HEIs and funded through the UK GRAD Programme). It is vital that stronger links are built between these stakeholders in order to support doctoral researchers' career decision making through access to relevant labour market intelligence; the UK GRAD Programme is keen to engage in more in depth discussion around this.

24. CRAC supports the transparency of provision which the new credit arrangements for higher education should facilitate, but questions how this will work in practice for the non-traditional entrant, who has an active Skills Account, recommences learning at Level 3 and wishes to progress to Level 4 (ideally, supported by their employer).

25. CRAC supports the aim as stated in the Higher Level Skills Strategy to create more, and more employable, graduates. CRAC strongly believes that access to formal work placements, participation in voluntary activities and engagement in part time work can all provide excellent opportunities for students at all levels to become more employable—as well as to enhance the student experience. This is also a common belief amongst employers.

65 http://www.epsrc.ac.uk/PostgraduateTraining/IndustrialCASE/default.htm66 A survey into the career motivations and expectations of doctoral researchers, UK GRAD Programme 2006, http://www.grad.ac.uk/downloads/documents/Reports/Career%20expectations%20survey%20(pdf).pdf

26. Students must have access to such opportunities, either through their programme of study or as part of the extra-curricular offering.

27. CRAC also believes that in order to realise the full potential of these opportunities, students must have access to resources or to structured support for them to reflect upon the learning they have gained through such participation. Much of CRAC's work with undergraduates and with doctoral researchers through the UK GRAD Programme is based on such experiential learning.67

28. Whether this is achieved through further HEI/business engagement, through financial support for volunteering activities or through embedding employability in the curriculum, it represents a significant culture change.

April 2008

@HR25@

67 The CRAC-led European Framework for Work Experience illustrates a basic programme of support for all kinds of “work experience": www.efwe.org

Memorandum 23

Submission from the Council for the Mathematical Sciences (CMS)

The Council for the Mathematical Sciences (CMS), comprising the Institute of Mathematics and its Applications, the London Mathematical Society, the Royal Statistical Society, the Edinburgh Mathematical Society and the Operational Research Society, is pleased to present its evidence to the Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills Select Committee Inquiry on Implementing Skills and Training Policies.

The CMS is an authoritative and objective body able to speak on the role of the mathematical sciences in UK higher education, research, business, industry and the public sector, and to engage with and respond to policy decisions that affect the mathematical sciences in these areas.

1. The Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills Select Committee has invited submissions of evidence on what regional structures exist for delivering the Leitch agenda on skills, and the role of the higher education sector in delivering a region-based agenda. This submission concentrates on structures for mathematical sciences skills at level 4.

THE IMPORTANCE OF MATHEMATICAL SCIENCES COURSES AND DEPARTMENTS TO THE LEITCH AGENDA2. The Leitch report recommended a commitment to increasing the proportion of

adults trained to level 468, and called for a focus on economically valuable skills69. The report argued that economically valuable skills can be identified where employers are prepared to pay higher wages to those with particular qualifications70.

3. Maths skills at all levels are a crucial element of a well-trained and flexible workforce. It is important that all those who undertake HE courses have a proper understanding of the mathematics underlying their subjects, be they other STEM subjects, economics, business or marketing courses. Mathematics graduates are highly sought-after and are well-placed in tables of comparative earnings71—that is, mathematics skills at level 4 are economically valuable. The implementation of the Leitch agenda should therefore encompass availability of mathematics courses and departments, both to provide training in the mathematical sciences and to underpin training in other subjects.

4. This requires that all HEIs recognise the role that mathematics plays in providing local, regional and national skills for mathematicians for industry, mathematics teachers, engineers and technicians, or graduates in commercial subjects. The loss of mathematics departments, courses and educators from a university will have wide-ranging effects across all these areas.

THE IMPORTANCE OF REGIONAL PROVISION OF HE COURSES TO WIDENING PARTICIPATION AND THE IMPACT OF DEPARTMENTAL CLOSURES

5. There is evidence to suggest that regions benefit by graduates remaining there after qualification; conversely, a poor geographical distribution of courses can therefore be expected to lead to a shortage of specialist mathematics teachers in an area and hinder the regional delivery of the Leitch agenda with respect to improving the teaching of numerical skills teaching in schools and colleges.

6. Lord Leitch's report concluded that “it is critical that access to university is dramatically improved so that young people from all backgrounds have a fair chance of attending"72. The existence of high-quality honours degree courses in mathematics distributed throughout the UK is vital to widening participation to students who, for a variety of reasons, need or wish to live at

68 Prosperity for all in the global economy—world class skills: Paragraph 3.5969 Ibid. Paragraph 3.6870 Ibid. Paragraph 4.3271 See, for instance, NC O'Leary and PJ Sloane: “The Return to a University Education in Great Britain" National Institute Economic Review.2005; 193: 75-89, Universities UK: Research Report: The economic benefits of a degree (February 2007), and others.72 Prosperity for all in the global economy—world class skills : Paragraph 3.63

home whilst studying. In particular, the existence of “local" courses with more moderate entry requirements (termed “broader entry" courses below) is essential.

CURRENT REGIONAL STRUCTURES FOR DELIVERY OF MATHEMATICS SKILLS IN HE7. Our analysis of course provision (based on A-level achievement) shows significant

sub-regions of the UK where there is no “broader entry" course provision. We refer the Committee to our recent report Keeping HE Maths Where it Counts73, which examined the drivers and implications of the decline in provision of “broader entry" mathematical sciences courses, noting the effects of RAE funding decisions on the sustainability of departments and therefore courses. Termination of recruitment to courses at Bangor and Hull in recent years has had a noticeable effect on the provision of broader entry courses in North Wales and East Yorkshire, and provision is sparse in the whole of Eastern England, Wales and in the central and western parts of southern England.

April 2008

@HR25@

73 Available from www.cms.ac.uk/reports/2007/steele_report.pdf, and attached to this submission for the Committee's reference (not printed)

Memorandum 24

Submission from the University of Hertfordshire and Oaklands College (CMS)

INTRODUCTIONi. This is a joint submission from the University of Hertfordshire and Oaklands

College to the Select Committee Enquiry as we see a strong case for HE-FE partnership being the core of delivering the Leitch agenda.

ii. The University and Oaklands College are part of the Hertfordshire Higher Education Consortium, which has been successfully delivering vocational higher education in four colleges across the county and seamless progression routes since 1992. Currently, around 1,300 undergraduates and nearly 60 postgraduate students are studying HE courses at the Consortium's colleges, taking advantage of flexible access and study paths towards a nationally recognised qualification validated by the University. More than 13,000 students have graduated through these progression routes since the partnership was formed.

iii. The four Hertfordshire colleges also deliver around £100 million of Further Education annually and are involved in a wide variety of educational provision—this includes working with over 70 schools on the 14—19 agenda as well as skills delivery and apprenticeships.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARYiv. Our submission is focused on the need for skills strategies to be developed at sub-

regional level, which is the level at which needs can be best identified and appropriate solutions delivered; a demand-led system is necessarily a locally-focused system. We propose a system of sub-regional partnership bodies, including independent providers, contracting directly with national funding bodies, with the support and advice of a regional agency. We further suggest that partnerships sub-contract the management to a third-party organisation, possibly owned by the providers themselves. That organisation would be delegated the brokerage and interface role between the partnership of providers and the market, and would take on sales and marketing as part of its remit. Any solution must be underpinned by a consortium-based approach to ensure user need, not supplier preference, shapes the service.

SUBMISSION EVIDENCEOur submission evidence is as follows, organised according to the areas of interest stated by

the Committee:

The responses of RDAs to Leitch and how coherent and structured these are

1. The appointment of an Executive Director for Skills & Communities by EEDA is a tangible response in the East of England. Skills as an issue features strongly in the Regional Economic Strategy and corporate objectives include reference to demand-led skills.

2. By their very nature, regions are too large, too diverse in their skills needs, profiles and provision to allow these mechanisms to operate effectively; skills needs are not homogenous across the region, but highly dependent on the economic geography and the skills base of sub-regions.

3. We would argue that it is therefore problematic to address skills at regional level. Strategy and delivery need to do more than articulate; there needs to be mechanisms to ensure that they consistently and coherently inform each other, and this requires a sensitivity to local demands rather than region-wide initiatives.

What the existing regional structures of delivery are and what sub-regional strategies may be required

4. We would argue that skills strategies are better made at sub-regional level and propose that sub-regional groupings of Local Authorities as commissioners of services would be the best level to site the development of strategy, informed by local demand. It would bring a valuable

strategic and joined-up perspective the design and delivery of skills development within a coherent economic geography. This approach is in line with the Government's thinking on the delivery of the 14-19 agenda, as expressed in Raising expectations: Enabling the system to deliver. Questions of expertise within Local Authorities—as well as the potential for effective collaboration across administrative boundaries—deserve serious consideration.

5. A key question is whether there remains a role for the region. The White Paper calls for a regional planning group, for example. We would argue that available funding must be focused at the point of delivery. There is a role for the region to act as a facilitator of sub-regional delivery, with a regional oversight to ensure dissemination of good practice and co-ordination of sub-regions, but that role should not diminish the demand-led characteristics of a localised system.

6. Within regional structures however, RDAs consider strategic policy themes like skills as they re-focus on economic development through their new responsibility for the Single Regional Strategy. Their role would be to support the development of sub-regional strategies, but, we would emphasise, not to determine skills strategy in their own right. For example, it is at regional level that engagement with the Sector Skills Councils should happen—for example, a discussion about the bio-pharma industry needs to embrace both Hertfordshire and Cambridge in the East—but advice based on that engagement needs to be directed sub-regionally, for sub-regional decision-making. So, while the region will embrace sectoral concerns, create balance and coherence above the level of delivery and, of course, undertake the planning that underpins economic development, individual skills strategies should be made at sub-regional level, where needs and priorities can best be identified and delivery achieved. A demand-led system is necessarily a locally-focused system.

7. So how should sub-regional skills strategies develop? We propose a system of sub-regional partnership bodies, contracting directly with national funding bodies, with the support and advice of the regional agency. It is local providers, FE and HE, working in partnership to create learning pathways that will deliver the targets around skills, including 50% HE participation.

The role of the Learning and Skills Council and Sector Skills Councils in this context

8. The transfer from LSCs to Local Authorities of 16-18 funding is being accelerated where relationships are strong. We would endorse this approach and propose such acceleration is considered across the country where it is appropriate to local circumstances and where authorities can demonstrate expertise, whether in-house or through a sub-contracted body. The existence of a mature and successful Local Strategic Partnership (LSP) will benefit this process. Within this proposal we also suggest that the adult agenda be driven through the sub-regional level, with LSPs at their core.

9. A clear understanding of the role of Sector Skills Councils needs to be established. In our view, their role should not be to fund, validate or commission, but rather to inform skills requirements and planning in these areas by the local partnership. Their input would be most valuable in terms of identifying in what skills/roles additional training is required in that particular sector and as a channel of communication with employers around curriculum design. This would ensure that partnerships develop the right qualifications for each sector, government funding is channelled to qualifications that employers need, and yet also maintain sensitivity to local need.

The respective roles of the further education and higher education sectors in delivering a region-based agenda for Leitch and their coordination with one other

10. Demand should be identified at local level—that is the strong message from both providers and business—and an effective partnership body responds to that demand and creates appropriate pathways within and between providers. The Hertfordshire HE Consortium has been operating in this way since 1992, each partner meeting demand according to its capability. There are many examples of success here, including STEM skills development and construction skills pathways. The partnerships would offer the full range of programmes, including those co- or fully funded by Government and others delivered at a price set by the partnership. The four Colleges in Hertfordshire operate as a Federation, which has allowed a collective FE approach to the County's needs, both in representation and delivery (for example, the very successful Train to Gain Hertfordshire Consortium).

11. These partnerships would help to bring LSC-driven (currently) course developments at FE level and HEFCE-influenced (through ASN allocations) course developments at HE level into complete alignment at sub-regional level, the level where they are needed. While the Hertfordshire HE Consortium has a strong track record of success, we would acknowledge that there improvements could be made. A key task is to achieve the co-ordinated planning of educational provision to ensure not only that there is seamless progression from primary school or from adult entry level to graduation and beyond, but also that the entire system is designed to meet skills needs. That means partnerships taking input from a wide range of stakeholders, including employers.

12. Our proposal for sub-regional partnerships would build on the existing HE in FE consortium model, introducing independent providers, to address remaining gaps in provision and ensure clarity about the educational offer to individuals and employers.

13. This model requires partnerships to establish a sales and marketing role in engaging employers, a role in which, historically, providers have been less than optimally effective. There are a number of solutions to this issue, but a consortium approach will need to underpin any solution to ensure user need, not supplier preference, shapes the service.

14. This opens up a broader question about how best to manage and deliver an effective partnership. One option that deserves serious consideration is the sub-contracting of the management to a third-party organisation, possibly owned by the providers themselves. That organisation would have a key relationship with the LSP; it may be that it is directly accountable to the LSP or that the LSP has a formal role inputting into the understanding of local needs. It is vital that the sub-contracted body could operate effectively, without conflicting pressures from the LSP, the provider base and the sectoral needs of each economic area.

15. That organisation would be delegated the brokerage and interface role between the partnership of providers and the market, and would take on sales and marketing as part of its remit. It would be vital, however, that the next stage of engagement, that is, the creation of the educational offer, was led by the appropriate provider or group of providers.

16. We would propose that within each partnership, leadership for provision in particular sectors is taken by the provider/s with particular expertise and capacity, within an overall consortium approach. Where FE-HE progression pathways are needed, the appropriate FEC and HEI would hold that leadership jointly. This is a new challenge for many in the education sector as it requires a group of individuals who would be considered “technical sales" in the corporate world. Their role calls for a skill set that includes a deep understanding of the curriculum and of the delivery of learning and skills, as well as the ability to communicate with employers in their language and understand the business need, ie neither a broker nor a traditional academic.

17. We would argue that this sectoral leadership is best done by providers, informed by SSC guidance. It is important that the educational offer is developed as close to the actual provision as possible. Proximity matters, both in terms of content development and delivery and in terms of access and geography.

18. This devolutionary drive will also help to create local accountability as part of a genuinely demand-led system. With local partnerships taking direct commissioning responsibility there would be an opportunity to streamline the bureaucracy of the skills system—including funding—and reduce the burden on the public purse.

19. The partnership model has the potential to transform the approach to meeting skills needs and gaps. Current thinking often focuses on planning, with SSCs expected to direct curricula to address present requirements. A key issue with this approach is its lack of agility; it may take years before the effects of changing curricula are translated into skilled individuals in the workplace, by which time the critical competencies for the area may well be different. Graduates trained only in sector-specific skills will be left behind as their area of employment evolves; employers will find themselves with ongoing skills gaps.

20. This skills obsolescence—and hence upskilling requirement—requires a two-fold approach that partnerships could take. The first phase would ensure that employability, innovation

and enterprise skills are embedded across their curricula, meaning all students passing their courses are ready for work and equipped with the generic skills and adaptability that employers consistently say they value. A second phase, addressing skills renewal, would develop a “rapid response" CPD offer, which employees and employers can access to address specific skills needs and gaps as they emerge in a rapidly changing and increasingly global marketplace.

21. The Hertfordshire Consortium is currently developing a flexible and responsive 5-credit short course offer, in which new programmes can be validated in 3 weeks using short course descriptors. We believe this system of generic skills plus CPD would be a powerful, effective and agile solution to skills needs as well as being demand-led.

22. The third party brokerage organisation also meets this requirement; it also makes the link between economic development and skills. These two core skills themes have until recently been considered separately; the creation of DIUS—and the IUSS Select Committee—reflect a recognition that these agendas are essentially interlinked. But making this linkage really deliver at local level, which is where people learn and progress and businesses innovate and grow, means applying that same thinking at that level.

23. In Hertfordshire, economic development has been contracted by the county to a local economic partnership called Hertfordshire Prosperity, which reports directly to the LSP. As an apolitical organisation, it can really drive economic development in the county. While it is not within the remit of this Inquiry to consider the merits of such a model, it does represent an opportunity to bring the two core policy themes together, and to produce coherent needs-driven sub-regional skills strategies.

The impact on students of these initiatives, particularly in the context of policies for lifelong learning.

24. The current system does, in our view, create confusion for both students and employers, the key target markets for this agenda. Even where partnerships between providers exist, the set-up often doesn't meet consumer needs and gaps in provision make entry into the system and progression within it unclear. Our proposal is strongly demand-led and accountable to the community through the LSP.

25. Furthermore, lifelong learning—particularly for people in employment—is generally driven by the need for specific competencies; the current pattern of provision, with its emphasis on full awards (eg honours degrees), often appears to be an inefficient and discouraging way to meet those needs. We would emphasise, therefore, the value of the bite-sized learning approach, driven by and focusing on, local and sub-regional needs.

26. We would be delighted to provide further evidence and to have the opportunity to appear as witnesses should the Committee require.

April 2008

@HR25@

Memorandum 25

Submission from the Council for Industry and Higher Education (CIHE)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY1. The Council for Industry and Higher Education (CIHE) is pleased to offer the

following input to your inquiry “into how responses to the agenda set out in the Leitch Report will affect the broader structure of further and higher education and lifelong learning."

2. We do so from the premise that the UK has to up-skill those in the workforce as well as develop more enterprising and employable graduates—the fundamental belief in the Leitch review. Equally we are clear that a highly skilled workforce is a necessary but not sufficient condition for business success. Employers need to be ambitious and demanding in the strategies they set for their businesses. High value-adding strategies backed by investment in new knowledge will pull through a demand for high level skills. The Government's innovation and skills strategies are therefore linked. Universities and colleges can help organisations reposition themselves through knowledge exchange as well as through the supply of skilled graduates, post-graduates and learning for those already in work.

LEITCH AND HIGHER LEVEL LEARNING3. The Leitch Review had twin aims that created an internal tension. These were to

consider the learning and skill needs appropriate in the face of ever increasing global challenges notably from Asia, and to consider how to address the skill needs of those who currently have low levels of qualifications especially in maths and English. The result was a report that was strong on the latter and on up-skilling to levels below higher education but weaker on the former. However, its analysis on how the jobs of the future will increasingly require higher levels of learning and its recommendation that at least 40% of the working population should be qualified to level 4 (HE) by 2020 were extremely important.

4. Generally it was weak on the roles of higher education in raising the capabilities of the workforce and building the knowledge intensive and high value-adding economy we need to face the global challenges. What it did say was founded on a questionable presumption that employers think in terms of levels and qualifications. Hence it underplayed the substantial changes needed to establish in England74 a comprehensive system of learning credits and funding by credits as well as the quality and other frameworks needed to support universities and colleges to engage in work-based learning.

“WORLD CLASS SKILLS"5. The Government's initial response in World Class Skills 75 displayed the same

tensions as were evident in Leitch. It also seriously underplayed the need to up-skill a workforce that can only compete with Asia on the basis of higher level learning, enterprise and innovation.

6. Hence the report had little to say about the development of higher level skills or management and leadership. HEFCE funding for just 5,000 additional student numbers (ASNs) in 2008, 10,000 in 2009 and 15,000 in 2010 should be seen as just a holding response. There are some 23,000,000 who are in the workforce and 70% of these have had no assessed experience of higher level learning. We need tens of thousands of learners every year rising to hundreds of thousands per year to have their existing learning assessed and then upgraded if organisations are to have the capacity to absorb knowledge and reposition themselves against global competition as rightly envisaged by Lord Sainsbury in his report The Race to the Top76 and in the DIUS Innovation Nation report of April 2008

7. HEFCE will also want to rethink the notion of ASNs. Offering ASNs is appropriate to full-time or part-time courses where there is a substantial amount of learning over a year. For bite-

74 A credit and qualifications framework exists in Scotland while Wales has a system of funding by credit.75 DIUS 30th May 200776 HM Treasury 2007

sized learning where the credit rating may be uncertain at the start and/or may be only 10 to15 credits, it is less appropriate and could be excessively bureaucratic for HEIs to agglomerate the learning to FTEs. It may not prove attractive if the learner/employee has to pay fees and the employer half the cost of the provision (as stated in the HEFCE guidance letter to HEIs 04/2007). We need to make the process as attractive as possible to all parties.

HIGH LEVEL SKILLS STRATEGY CONSULTATION DOCUMENT8. We welcome the thrust of the recent Government's Higher Education at Work

consultation document77. We agree that this high level skills strategy complements the DIUS Innovation Nation and the BERR Enterprise Strategy and that a key aim has to be “to raise the skills and capacity for innovation and enterprise of those already in the workforce".

9. The commitment in the new DIUS consultation document to drive towards an approach built on credits is particularly welcome. Small businesses in particular cannot release staff for long courses at universities or colleges and many people want to take one step at a time down the learning road. They want learning in small chunks delivered at times and in ways that suit them—often in the workplace or at evenings or weekends. They do not necessarily want to have to go to an institution. They may want the learning they have already acquired in the workplace to be assessed and accredited. They may want to build up credits towards a range of awards such as certificates, diplomas, two year degrees or MBAs.

10. Credits also help those learners from non-traditional backgrounds get a taste and drop in and out of learning. Currently if you do not finish a whole course of study you and the university or college are classed as failures. In fact a person may well have learned a lot and benefited even though a year long course could not be completed all at once. They might like to return later and the credit route makes that possible.

11. The Higher Education at Work consultation document states78:

@UL@”For the first time, we now have a clear timetable and prospect for nationwide credit arrangements to be in use in higher education. By 2009-10, HE institutions should have credit-rated their main provision and be publishing details in the descriptions of the programmes they offer. This more consistent and transparent approach to the use of credit will encourage learners and aid progression."@/UL@

We urge the Select Committee to press the Department on the need for a credit based approach to high level learning as the key to engaging businesses and individuals in lifelong learning and progression.

THE IMPORTANCE OF CREDIT FRAMEWORKS 12. While there are regional consortia79 we need a system-wide approach that embraces

all the players: universities, colleges, private sector providers and in-house provision. England has nothing equivalent to the Scottish Credit and Qualifications Framework. Each sector has its own architecture and nomenclature of levels; and in neither has credit been fully adopted as a measure of transferable learning. While some universities, mainly post `92, do use and accept credit transfer, this is not generally the case with the pre-'92 universities. There is little here, and elsewhere, to compare with the currency of credit in the American system across diverse institutions and the amount of mobility afforded to (and taken by) its students as a result of the centrality of credit within State-wide systems.

13. Lifelong Learning Networks were established with the main aim of constructing local vocational pathways to HE. In their relatively short lives, they have gone some way to addressing this issue through the development of Progression Accords. However, these local arrangements are often between one course at one College and one particular course at one

77 DIUS April 200878 cf Para 7.979 The Greater Manchester Strategic Alliance which incorporates all universities, colleges and some other key players is particularly promising in being extensive and inclusive

University. As Lifelong Learning Networks come to the end of their lives, what will be their lasting legacy?

14. If we are serious as a nation about enabling learners of all ages and backgrounds to develop higher level skills, to acquire learning when and where it suits them and to explore and progress around the climbing frame of learning, then systems of credit accumulation and transfer have to be implemented80 and be made compatible across the country. Individuals need to be able to have the learning and skills they have acquired in the workplace validated and credited, go on an in-house or external course whether provided by a private sector provider, a College or an HEI and build further credits.

15. New initiatives on a sub-regional basis such as across learning providers in Manchester offer potential. In the Thames Gateway all of the HE and FE institutions have signed to support a guarantee of progression for all with a level 3 qualification. This commitment is indeed an important part of the Thames Gateway Plan. “But generally UK hierarchies have mitigated against federal FE/HE structures and Government/HEFCE incentives are needed. LLNs simply do not go far enough. Despite getting a lot of their students from FE, many pre-92s keep FE at arms length for fear of dumbing down by association."81 By contrast we note that credit and credit transfer lies at the heart of the Community College and university systems in many US States82 and that all of Hong Kong's top rated Universities have an FE college within their governance83.

16. The moves under Bologna to develop an EU wide European Credit Transfer System (ECTS) credit and transfer system offer a way forward that international employers want to see implemented as soon as possible. All universities and colleges will want to consider how they might best work together to learn from the best practice in the US, implement ECTS and make credit frameworks central to their provision. We have to help learners transfer their learning when they transfer their job. We have to help them build their learning from all learning sources including on-the-job practical learning. We have to help learners value every step they take down a learning road and stop classifying those who “stop out" as “drop outs". An English credit framework can help enormously with these aims.

We urge the Select Committee to stress the need for a comprehensive qualification and credit system in England along the lines of that already in place in Scotland.

FOUNDATION DEGREES17. When first announced, the Foundation Degrees (FD) was described as akin to the

American Associate Degree. But it has always tried to face in two directions. It is required to function as a transfer qualification (offering progression to the final stages of the bachelor degree) as well as a complete qualification keyed to the needs of employers in specific occupational areas. The emphasis given to the transfer or the exit function has varied with universities being more interested in the latter and the preservation of their supply chain than in it being a terminal award that would meet the skills gap at supervisory and higher technical level. The tensions inherent in this dual role became particularly open when the Government announced that future expansion would be at FD level. Those universities that saw themselves in that FD market were naturally keen to preserve and expand their offerings even at the expense of local Colleges. Foundation Degrees also lack the broad base of the US Associate degree and are specifically aimed at skills development in a way Associate degrees are not. This in turn may affect transition as some HEI third year programmes are based on broad approaches in years 1 and 2 thus creating the bizarre position where some FDs may be too focused on employer need to afford easy progression.

18. High performing colleges should be at least as well-placed as certain business facing universities to contribute to the growth and development of foundation degrees. Indeed, where they have a particular vocational niche they may be the most appropriate player with the credibility

80 There have been many attempts to implement such schemes; see eg. the INCCA Report for the then DES in 1999-2000 chaired by Dr Geoffrey Copland and supported by the then Minister Tessa Blackstone81 Private communication from a recent CIHE Vice-Chancellor82 CIHE forthcoming publication on US and UK colleges83 Professor Sir David Melville communication

and understanding to develop such awards. Some learners may welcome the local nature of their College or do not want to be constrained by an academic year and timetable. Currently, 140 FE Colleges are directly funded by HEFCE to deliver HE. The Government agrees that direct funding might be appropriate in some instances where niche provision is offered or where there are no obvious higher education partners. Understandably colleges seeking additional funded numbers must also meet criteria including critical mass, their track record on quality and standards, and the nature of such provision. The Further Education and Training Act 2007 enables those Colleges who have major provision of higher level learning to award their own Foundation Degrees.

19. But generally Colleges are now expected to develop Foundation Degrees on the basis of structured partnerships with universities where they are funded indirectly through franchise or consortium arrangements. Such partnerships, the government argues, can help stimulate demand for the Foundation Degree and establish its currency. But Colleges have to rely on their HEI partner to accept their proposal for a Foundation Degree and not submit a competing one when student numbers from the school leaving cohort is about to turn down. There is every incentive for universities to squeeze out foundation degree provision by Colleges. Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) might have a role in brokering partnerships between universities and colleges to see how they can be built on a mature appreciation of the strengths that each side can bring.

20. Up to 72% of FDs are reportedly delivered in Colleges which have a presence in areas where there are no local universities or none interested in FDs. Colleges also have close associations with businesses, a track record in widening participation and encouraging progression and an apparent ability to deliver at competitive rates.

The select Committee might like to question the Government on its policy stance and the priority it attaches to the delivery of high level learning by Colleges as well as Universities.

FUNDING COLLEGES21. Roughly 140,000 students are taught on prescribed courses at higher education level

in Colleges84. Some 140 colleges are funded directly for their prescribed higher education by HEFCE. Funding for the significant amount of “non-prescribed" higher education geared to professional qualifications comes from the Learning and Skills Council which historically has had a focus (driven by Government priorities) on the development of lower level skills and qualifications.

Might the announced demise of the LSC and its replacement by a new Skills Funding Agency (so far as adult learning is concerned) be an opportunity for all higher level learning to be funded by HEFCE?

22. The Select Committee might like to probe on why there does not appear to be much enthusiasm in Government and HEFCE for this proposition. Such a unified approach to funding high level learning might make it easier for an integrated view of skills (ie integrated across levels) to be taken by RDAs as skills brokers. LLNs, HLSPs and Aimhigher have all reinforced the role of the RDA as planning bodies and this has been reinforced by placing Business Link with the RDAs.

23. An aspect of plural funding arrangements is that the regulations governing prescribed higher education in Colleges do not allow these institutions to receive direct funding for short and flexible forms of provision, such as might be required by employers to enhance the skills and knowledge of their workforce. Funding for this kind of provision is allowed and available to higher education establishments. In these circumstances, colleges could seek indirect funding for such work but, as in all franchise relationships, some of the funding would be retained by the higher education institution to meet the costs of its quality assurance. Unit delivery can already be done with indirect funding. But directly funded colleges are unable to offer anything other than whole courses, thus hampering their flexible response to business need.

The Select Committee might like to probe the logic of this distinction. Do the safeguards on quality and the need for colleges to set out and justify their strategies for the delivery of higher level learning justify a change of approach?

84 Roughly 100,000 students are taught at levels below higher education in HEIs—largely in what were previously Colleges which have been absorbed into universities.

STIMULATING BUSINESS DEMAND24. The key to achieving the aims set out in the Leitch Review and reiterated by the

Government in Higher Education at Work will be the reaction of businesses.

25. We suggest that the Select Committee might like to note the lessons learned in Scotland. We agree with the statement in the Scottish Government's report Skills for Scotland85:

@UL@”Simply adding more skills to the workforce will not secure the full benefit for our economy unless employers and individuals maximise the benefits that they can derive from these skills. Furthermore, how skills interact with the other drivers of productivity, such as capital investment and innovation, is crucial." @/UL@

26. We suggest that it will be ambitious employers who realise that they have to reposition their businesses for a more knowledge intensive age who will pull through a demand for high level skills. Organisations are unlikely to demand more skilled people without changing their business strategies, their products, processes and management styles. Scotland has for many years had levels of higher education participation amongst young people considerably above those in England. But in the absence of organisations able to absorb them, offer them graduate level jobs or free them to transform the organisations they join, many have either drifted south or remained as a wasted resource in non-graduate occupations. GDP and productivity has lagged that in England despite the high output of graduates.

27. Businesses have to be helped to add greater value in what Lord Sainsbury has rightly called “The Race to the Top"86. Government can help most through the power of innovative public purchasing. The Government spends some £150 billion per year on procurement against some £10 billion on research. If just 2.5% of the former encouraged small businesses to be more innovative, link with universities and upgrade their capabilities, that would represent an injection of some £3.75 billion87. That compares with the £150 million that the Government intends to inject via the supply side of universities in knowledge transfer under the Higher Education Innovation Fund (HEIF 3) in 2010, £350 million going to the Technology Strategy Board (TSB) for their business led activities and perhaps £100 million from HEFCE for delivering Leitch.

28. There is an increasing recognition that the future competitiveness of the UK rests on continuous innovation88. It is innovation that will drive businesses to be more knowledge intensive, to add still greater value to the products and services they offer and the management practices they use in their quest for international competitiveness. It is this repositioning that in turn will drive the skills agenda and make it necessary for the organisation to recruit more highly educated people and up-skill their existing workforce. The DIUS innovation agenda will drive the realisation of the Leitch agenda.

29. Currently we know little about the demand from businesses for higher level learning89. HEFCE is funding a number of mostly post-'92 universities to pilot a range of approaches and specific projects. The Government is funding three Pathfinder regions in the NW, NE and SW to the same end. But it will take some time before it is possible to assess what works and why, whether the small scale initiatives are scaleable and on what conditions90 and before a range of co-funded pilots at the local and sector levels enable us to assess the range of options that might work.

85 The Scottish Government September 200786 HM Treasury November 200787 The 2.5% figure reflects the US Government's approach under Federal public procurement policy deployed under the SBIR/STTR schemes. The CIHE report Using Public Procurement to Stimulate Innovation builds on the support for this approach in the Sainsbury review and makes specific recommendation on how US experience can inform the practical steps that now need to be taken.88 See also International Competitiveness: Businesses working with UK Universities, CIHE 200689 See the summary of available evidence in Workforce Development: how much engagement do employers have with higher education? Madeleine King, CIHE March 200790 See however an interim assessment Workforce Development: what works and why; Helen Connor, CIHE July 2007

30. The Government's preferred approach appears to be to rely on an expanded Train to Gain brokerage service to build relationships between businesses and learning providers. “The commitments in the Train to Gain Plan for Growth will ensure that Train to Gain provides an advice and referral service which truly meets employers' high level skills."91 This is high risk as the service is unproven at HE level and the experience so far in the NE is that brokers have had only limited success at bringing in new learners at HE level. We would prefer to see a range of approaches including via Sector Skills Councils and through expanding the business focused expertise that exists in HE and FE institutions—including through an expanded HEIF allocation. Universities and colleges are well placed to understand not only what it is feasible for them to provide but also their local markets. They need to be encouraged to augment their market knowledge and focus. A range of appropriately funded approaches will be needed to raising business and individual learner demand.

31. We welcome the roles that Sector Skills Councils (SSCs) have to engage more in working to help their businesses articulate the high level skills they consider they need. SSCs are business organisations much more than RDAs and should be the main route through which business demand is articulated. Equally RDAs are largely artificial geographical constructs. Universities, colleges and businesses work across such boundaries. So while RDAs are useful in pulling together regional and local partnerships both from the supply and demand side, it is our view that business led organisations must take the lead. As we noted above, Local Learning Networks have had only limited success and there is no reason to believe that RDAs will be more successful at dealing with essentially sector focused learning needs.

The Select Committee might like to probe the Government on how far the innovation agenda will drive the skills agenda, the linkages between the two and how far available funding focused on stimulating innovation and enterprise might bust pull through a demand for higher level skills.

The Select Committee might consider whether business demand is most likely to be articulated and driven forward by business led organisations such as the SSCs rather than organisations such as the RDAs and whether resources should be allocated accordingly.

April 2008

@HR25@

91 DIUS op cit Para 7.4

Memorandum 26

Submission from the Humanities Subject Centres of the Higher Education Academy

This submission from the Humanities Subject Centres of the Higher Education Academy argues that there is no fundamental incompatibility between promoting Leitch and public support for the Humanities. Through teaching and research the Humanities disciplines minister to “quality of life" and sustain the environment within which economic and cultural creativity flourish. They should therefore be taken into consideration within any proposals for the implementation of the Leitch agenda.

1. In their role of supporting learning and teaching, the Humanities Subject Centres of the Higher Education Academy have debated the Leitch report. In the light of this discussion, we wish to make the following brief observations. These bear particularly (though not exclusively) on the fifth bullet point in the call for evidence: “the impact on students of these initiatives, particularly in the context of policies for lifelong learning".

2. Broadly, our position is that while we do not wish to dispute the general case for raising the UK skills profile, we believe that Leitch's proposals for improving the national skills base need to be interpreted in a larger and more encompassing educational and cultural environment. (We also note that a major area of the Leitch recommendations lies largely outside the remit of higher education: the review stresses that the current UK skills deficit is “most severe at the bottom end" (3.3.8). The UK seriously trails comparator economies in basic and intermediate skills. Obviously, the universities can only act very indirectly on that situation.) We argue that the development of skills should be informed by an awareness of the ways in which university teaching and research sustain and promote qualities and aptitudes essential to national and global citizenship.

3. We do not believe that there need necessarily be conflict between the promotion of skills and the larger purposes of higher education. High order skills are developed and applied by individuals and communities within frameworks of values and aspirations. The Leitch report itself speaks of raising aspiration and “embedding a culture of learning" (chapter 6 throughout). But while applauding the ambition to raise aspiration, we press for a richer and more inclusive definition of all that might be encompassed by such aspiration. Highly complex and rapidly evolving societies require a correspondingly high level of articulacy and mental acuity on the part of their citizens. Twenty-first century citizens require high levels of historical, cultural, and political awareness. Above all they need to be able to learn quickly, to assess and evaluate complex information, to appreciate and engage in sophisticated arguments, and entertain a lively and informed sense of the beliefs and values of communities different from their own. These observations apply as much to adventurous and responsible economic activity narrowly conceived as they do to the processes of democratic engagement. A society marked by vast disparities of cultural access (made up of cultural and linguistic “haves" and “have nots"), is at much at risk of succumbing to hatred and destructive resentment as is one characterised by large disparities of material wealth.

4. The integrated teaching and research carried out by the Humanities disciplines in Higher Education has a major role to play in all the cultural aspirations sketched above. Between them, the Humanities group of subjects carry out research in history, language, argument, and creativity. Thus they not only play a major part in safeguarding the national treasury of knowledge (and in so doing contribute extensively to the symbolic role of Britain in the world, to the cultural industries, and the desirability of Britain as a destination for overseas students and tourism). They also, through their long-standing commitment to teaching and public communication, contribute to the cultural health of our diverse national communities. Around 55,000 students graduate from UK HE humanities programmes each year,92 and—whether or not their subsequent employment is directly linked to the subject of their degree—they enter into the national life as citizens equipped with high order verbal and reasoning skills, the aptitude for going on learning, and a zest for cultural knowledge. We also note the direct relevance of this argument to current debate over HM

92 Source: www.hesa.ac.uk, HE qualifications obtained in the UK, 2004-5—2006-7. This figure is an approximation based on an aggregate of student numbers in the subject areas of Languages, Historical and Philosophical Studies. Note that this figure represents the number of graduates from all HE programmes in these subjects; of this figure, nearly 36,000 are first degree graduates.

Government's recent decision on funding ELQs (equivalent or lower qualifications). The Humanities subjects have traditionally been hugely popular in university continuing education programmes. So we also argue that the public sharing of knowledge in the Humanities domains makes a significant contribution to the well-being of the culture through lifelong learning. As one effect of the ELQ decision is to force contraction upon already beleaguered continuing education providers, we urge that thinking about Leitch plainly needs to be aligned with imaginative thinking about access for “mature" students.

5. Whether in terms of the UK's diverse heritage, of lifelong learning, or of graduate skills and aptitudes, the Humanities disciplines minister through both scholarship and teaching to what is often referred to as “quality of life". They produce publicly assimilable knowledge and they produce graduates equipped with high order skills and aptitudes. Their work in providing a home for cultural knowledge and creativity must—in any serious estimate of public advantage—be considered alongside the work of those agencies (eg the Health Service or the Prison Service) which deal with the by-products of suffering and inadequacy. We do not offer the Humanities as a panacea, but note that creativity, learning, and engagement with cultural knowledge provide sources of fulfilment of which many of our fellow citizens feel themselves starved. To put it succinctly, poetry (or philosophy) is cheaper than Prozac.

6. Much of cultural life is of course sustained by the market (music, publishing, film and TV production, the world-wide web). But—just as few societies trust the market to conserve or promote national heritage—there is a case that much of the production of the cultural market tends to infantilise the individual, riveting attention on celebrity, consumption, envy, and the immediate gratification of needs. The study of Humanities subjects on the other hand performs some of the functions served historically and in other societies by organised religion: maintaining a space within the larger culture for the fulfilment of more profound needs, and the consideration of longer term human values.

7. The upshot of our summary case is that, just as the market is not a sufficient mechanism for supplying all cultural needs, the Humanities subjects should not be left simply to sink or swim under the review of student funding. Nor can they simply be sustained through their role in “knowledge transfer" to the cultural industries. While on the face of things they may appear distinct from the pre-occupations of the Leitch report, the teaching and research carried out by Humanities disciplines is of direct relevance to the cultural and economic well-being of the United Kingdom. Those disciplines therefore have a strong case to be included within any discussion of the implementation of the proposals made by Leitch.

April 2008

@HR25@

Memorandum 27

Submission from the University of Central Lancashire

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1. RDAs should not be involved in detailed skills planning. Their function is to ensure

there is an environment in which a regional labour market can thrive. Their focus should be on investing in business—HEI links to achieve regional economic strategy objectives.

2. With the LSC to be dissolved in 2010, it is unclear what impact, ability or role it will have to play in the intervening 18 months to promote and deliver on the skills agenda. In particular, it should not be investing in long term initiatives.

3. Sector Skills Councils need to play a critical role in providing higher and further education institutes with authoritative labour and skill market analyses but they need more HEI representation and focus on higher level skills. This needs to be supplemented by employers, who have first hand knowledge of the skills required for a business to be competitive, but who need to focus on long-term needs rather than short-term threats.

4. Partnerships between HE and the FE sector are crucial for the delivery of the Leitch agenda and should look to offer a seamless route for learners from NVQ level through to post grad. There must however be a stronger focus on higher level skills where genuine competitive advantage can be secured against international competitors.

5. Region-based agendas will not serve the needs of the UK workforce. We should take a more holistic approach to skills and analyse the needs of the global economy. Regeneration requires a sub-regional agenda while international competitiveness needs a sectoral approach.

6. We should look to expand the provision of work based learning, as a viable solution for those in employment to access new skills and training. A large number of employees will be unable to leave the workplace to train full-time. Real life work projects could form part of a portfolio for achieving qualifications. However, there needs to be greater recognition of the upfront costs and challenges in this area. There is a need for DIUS/HEFCE to share more of the risk with HEIs on this activity.

INTRODUCTION TO UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL LANCASHIRE: 7. The University of Central Lancashire (UCLan) is based at campuses in both

Lancashire and Cumbria. We are one of the UK's largest universities with more than 30,000 students undertaking, full-time, part-time and post graduate courses. We also support over 5,000 students studying at our network of partner colleges.

8. In addition, UCLan has a very strong international base comprising over 3000 students. This is replicated abroad, where we are one of the leading UK Universities in terms of students studying on its programmes in-country in China and Hong Kong.

9. UCLan is a major employer with over 2500 employees, an annual turnover of over £160 million, and with an indirect annual contribution to the local economy of £400 million. We are committed to supporting and playing a significant role in the regeneration of both the local and regional economy, and in 2007 opened the John Tyndall Institute for Nuclear Research—a first of its kind in the UK offering consultancy, research and training for future nuclear and engineering workers.

10. 2007 saw UCLan launch its Medium Term Strategy (MTS), which sets out the University's vision for the next decade. Focusing on four key themes—internationalism, employability, sustainability and the student experience—our new strategy aims to enhance the University's standing as a leading, student-focused higher education institution at a regional, national and international level.

FURTHER DETAIL

The responses of RDAs to Leitch and how coherent and structured these are:

11. The labour market is constantly evolving and changing. This has led to increasing difficultly for higher education institutes to prepare students with the skills that will stand the test of time.

12. With a fast paced market, it would not be helpful or practical to have RDAs involved in central planning or funding for skills provision. Instead, RDAs need to work to ensure any given regional market works effectively in driving economic prosperity.

The role of the Learning and Skills Council and Sector Skills Councils in this context:

13. There continues to be confusion and uncertainty regarding the role of the LSC in delivering the Leitch agenda, particularly with a date already set for its dissolution. While the government recently announced that that a new agency will be created for adult learners and that local authorities will be responsible for young people, it is unclear how these two entities will work together to ensure a streamlined and cohesive approach to delivering training and skills.

14. Sector Skills Councils meanwhile have an important role to play in advising providers in both the higher education and further education sector about the skills needs of employers. We believe that the Sector Skills Councils, as part of their role, need to undertake in-depth analyses of the labour market and skill needs for the medium term. This would act as an authoritative guide for universities, who are both keen and willing to meet the demands of employers and learners alike.

15. In order for Sector Skills Councils to work effectively, however, there needs to be an open and transparent dialogue with HE institutions. At present many Sector Skills Councils do not have higher education representatives, which is a major stumbling block for meeting skills-related employment demands.

16. Alongside Sector Skills Councils, employers also need to play a much bigger role in advising universities on the skills required for businesses to compete effectively. This is particularly critical given the need for a flexible labour market that must be able to adapt quickly to the ever-changing demands of the global workplace. UCLan would welcome the involvement of employers in curriculum design as well as delivery of academic programmes both on university campuses and business premises. As an example, the University has formed a successful partnership with BAE Systems whereby students work on real projects for the company.

The respective roles of the further education and higher education sectors in delivering a region-based agenda for Leitch and their coordination with one other;

17. Strong partnerships between the HE and FE sector are critical for the delivery of the Leitch agenda. There is no point in the two factions competing. UCLan would welcome strengthened partnerships that offer a step by step route for learners from NVQ level through to post-grad. This would act as a one stop shop for employers. UCLan was one of the first University's in its field to franchise courses to FE colleges, and now has one of the largest national networks in terms of student numbers and partner colleges.

18. Additionally, we are not convinced that a region-based agenda for Leitch is the best approach. There are a number of regions throughout the UK without a high concentration of big businesses and companies. In order to serve the UK economy as a whole, we would support working collaboratively with businesses throughout the UK in areas such as nuclear engineering, where UCLan has significant expertise and knowledge. We firmly believe that this approach presents us with the best chance of up-skilling our current and future workforce.

The impact on students of these initiatives, particularly in the context of policies for lifelong learning:

19. There are a huge number of people already in work, to whom the Leitch agenda is aimed. Many of these people can't afford to give up full-time work or re/up-skill. As a result, we need

to find ways of providing and supporting flexible education solutions such as part-time, or those that are concurrent with work.

20. One solution to this is a significant expansion in work based learning. The workplace can be a rich environment, in which potential students can access mentors, resources and real life projects that could form part of a portfolio for achieving post-grad qualifications. While this would require engagement from managers, the benefits to a company could be huge. UCLan has already begun to experiment with work based learning, having developed an injury and rehabilitation clinic, where members of the public can seek expert advice and treatment from student's undertaking “hands-on" training.

21. A key outstanding question is of course, who would fit the bill. While Leitch does not address funding issues in his report, we feel there is a good case to be made for investment from both employers and the government. In addition, individuals could be incentivised to pay for some of their own training with the promise of tax reductions.

April 2008

@HR25@

Memorandum 28

Submission from YWCA England and Wales

This response focuses on the impact on students of these initiatives.

SUMMARY1. YWCA works with the most disadvantaged young women in England and Wales.

We have examined the impact of the Leitch review and subsequent responses in education on the young women we work with. We support the Leitch review recommendations to improve skills for all and we are keen to see skills strategies work for disadvantaged young women as a route out of poverty.

2. We are however concerned that the gender pay gap in apprenticeships and low pay for young women act as a financial disincentive to them gaining vital skills. We are also concerned that the careers education and guidance they receive is poor quality and directs young women into low paid work in traditionally female sectors.

3. We have worked with government to make positive steps in improving equality for young women. We want to be sure that the changes in the education structures over the coming years do not lose these important steps.

4. We want to make sure that the most disadvantaged young women, those who have chaotic lives, caring responsibilities or who move frequently and those who have difficulty with the transitions from secondary education to training and FE/HE will have tailored support and flexible funding that follows them and their need.

INTRODUCTION TO YWCA5. YWCA is the leading charity working with the most disadvantaged young women

in England and Wales. We run services to support them and campaign with them to combat the discrimination they face. Our campaign, More Than One Rung, seeks to ensure that young women have the opportunities to meet the challenges of poverty, gender stereotyping and financial disincentives to gain skills and training to get off the bottom rung of the careers ladder.

IMPLEMENTING SKILLS AND TRAINING POLICIES AFTER LEITCH: APPRENTICESHIPS6. YWCA welcomed the launch of Leitch. We were keen to make sure disadvantaged

young women's needs were addressed in the skills strategy and that policy changes worked for the young women we work with. The recent DIUS publication Apprenticeship Pay: 2007 Survey of Earnings by Sector93 highlights the disparity in apprenticeship income, the persistent gender pay gap and occupational segregation. Figures show that in 2007 the gender pay gap was 21%. It has reduced by 5% since 2005 but it still has a long way to go. The majority of Apprenticeship sectors are still heavily weighted towards one sex or the other. Young women are still entering the lowest paid, stereotypically female jobs with fewer prospects for increased future income and progression.

7. The £80.00 per week minimum has been a welcome step in the right direction but more needs to be done. It still equates to less than the National Minimum Wage for most young people. The survey also reported that 5% of apprentices questioned said that they were earning less than the £80 per week minimum. Although the £80 minimum is a step in the right direction YWCA believes that there must be more of a safety net and that Apprentices should receive the equivalent of the National Minimum Wage. We are also concerned that such low levels of income contribute to the current high drop-out rate from Apprenticeships.

THE GOVERNMENT'S STRATEGY FOR THE FUTURE OF APPRENTICESHIPS IN ENGLAND8. YWCA welcomes the proposals in the Apprenticeships review and we are keen to

offer help with the roll out of the strategy.

93 Fong, B. and Phelps, A. (2008) Apprenticeships Pay: 2007 Survey of Earnings by Sector, DIUS Research report 08 05.

@UL@— We welcome the recognition of the importance of gender within the Apprenticeships review. The review's diversity and equality proposals are urgent and pivotal to the successful increase in the number of apprenticeships, uptake and completion rates. We want to see the measures implemented soon and be given a high priority@/UL@

@UL@— Disadvantaged young women need support and pre-apprenticeships courses to gain the confidence and skills they need to get an Apprenticeship@/UL@

@UL@— We are particularly keen to work with the new National Apprenticeships Service and Government to support development of the positive action pilots.@/UL@EQUALITY AS A PRIORITY

9. Government has made a number of positive steps towards addressing inequality in Apprenticeships and access to training and skills. It is essential that, in the new proposed structures to education funding, these measures are not lost. For example, introducing positive action pilots on equality issues will be a good way of ensuring equality stays at the top of the agenda.

CAREERS ADVICE AND GUIDANCE SERVICES10. The new 14-19 education agenda requires young people to make decisions about

their future careers early on. Good quality careers advice and guidance are an essential component to the success of the Diplomas, Apprenticeships and the wider skills agenda. YWCA is concerned that:

@UL@— Girls and young women from disadvantaged backgrounds are not getting the careers advice and guidance they need. They are being directed into low paid work, which has “traditionally" been done by women@/UL@

@UL@— Girls do not know that their career choice can affect their lifetime earning potential. They do not know about gender differences in work or the difference in pay between jobs@/UL@

@UL@— Disadvantaged girls struggle to find out about work and the labour market. Gender stereotypes influence the decisions they make about what career to go into@/UL@

@UL@— Young women need support to build confidence and self esteem, deal with personal problems and overcome barriers to work@/UL@

@UL@— Young women need to know how to enter the labour market and gain the right skills. At present many are instead channelled into gender stereotypical work which offers low pay and little chance of progression@/UL@

@UL@— Work experience placements assume young people have equal access to the labour market, which is not true. The barriers created by poverty and disadvantage mean that gender and class stereotyping is commonplace in work experience@/UL@

11. YWCA has found that:

@UL@— Non-formal education and youth work can offer girls a chance to challenge gender stereotypes, learn about careers choices and make informed decisions about the work they want to do@/UL@

@UL@— Working with girls in women-only settings is a successful way to raise self confidence and challenge gender stereotypes@/UL@YOUNG MOTHERS AND TRANSITIONS

12. YWCA is concerned that the forthcoming changes to the Learning and Skills Council and education funding may not meet the needs of young people who have not been able to follow traditional patterns of progression from secondary education to FE/HE and training. For example, young mothers and young women who have had difficult childhoods or who move frequently. We want to see structures in place that make sure any young person who has experienced breaks or disruptions in their education and training is able to re-enter the system with the necessary support. We want assurance that that support will be able to follow young people who move frequently or change courses across local authorities.

13. We support plans in both the Leitch review and the Apprenticeships review to offer training opportunities to adults. Funding for those over the age of 19 is essential. This is especially true for disadvantaged young women who are carers. They may need to take time out of education and will need childcare and financial support to return.

14. CASE STUDYSian 24

Sian is 24 and the mother of two children aged 3 years and 8 months. She left school with few qualifications and worked in a nursing home before having her children. She would like to go back to work when her youngest is one. She would re-train but says she would not be able to afford this.

@UL@”I don't want to go into just any job. I want to have a career, but that's the college thing and you don't get childcare and I wouldn't be able to afford on just benefits to go to college." @/UL@

Sian did a YTS scheme gaining NVQ levels 2 and 3 in Care. She now needs to do an access course to become a nurse. That would mean being in education for another 5 years; something she cannot afford to do on the family's income. Childcare costs would be a major barrier as Sian's partner works in a low paid job and they struggle to pay for even the basics.

@UL@”In ten years what do I see for myself? I'd love to see myself as a qualified nurse; or a qualified anything. Not just working as a shop assistant. I'd love to be able to do something else, but at this present moment I can't."@/UL@

April 2008

@HR25@

Memorandum 29

Submission from the Academy for Sustainable Communities

The Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills Committee has decided to hold an inquiry into how responses to the agenda set out in the Leitch Report will affect the broader structures of further education (FE), higher education (HE) and lifelong learning. The Committee invites evidence on:

@UL@— the responses of RDAs to Leitch and how coherent and structured these are; @/UL@

@UL@— what the existing regional structures of delivery are and what sub-regional strategies may be required; @/UL@

@UL@— the role of the Learning and Skills Council and Sector Skills Councils in this context; @/UL@

@UL@— the respective roles of the further education and higher education sectors in delivering a region-based agenda for Leitch and their coordination with one other; and @/UL@

@UL@— the impact on students of these initiatives, particularly in the context of policies for lifelong learning. @/UL@BACKGROUND ON THE ACADEMY FOR SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES (ASC)

1. ASC is the national centre for delivering the skills and knowledge needed to make better places. Our remit is to foster a shared understanding of what it takes to make sustainable communities and encourage an integrated, cross sector approach to ensuring there are enough people equipped with the skills and knowledge to develop and maintain them. ASC was established as a result of the recommendations set out in the Egan Review, Skills for Sustainable Communities which concluded that key factors hampering the delivery of sustainable communities were:

@UL@— A combination of a lack of generic skills@/UL@

@UL@— Labour shortages in the core professions@/UL@

@UL@— A lack of opportunities for cross-sector, cross-professional learning@/UL@

2. ASC's role involves increasing the skills base of the sector as a whole by promoting generic, technical and specialist skills in the core professions -planning, community development, environmental management, architecture and urban design, engineering, housing and regeneration—and encouraging them to work more effectively in multidisciplinary, cross sector teams. The focus is on building capacity and changing working practices on the ground.

3. Our strategic objectives are focussed on continuing to strengthen the nation's capacity to develop and maintain sustainable communities achieving the maximum impact in the shortest time. Specifically, we aim to:

@UL@— Build the skills, knowledge and capacity of individuals in the public, private and third sectors responsible for creating sustainable communities.@/UL@

@UL@— To champion a shared understanding of sustainable communities and provide practical knowledge to support delivery.@/UL@

4. ASC will become part of the Homes and Communities Agency (HCA) by 2009/10. The HCA is the new housing and regeneration agency in England, which is being introduced to join up the delivery of housing and regeneration, and will bring together the functions of English Partnerships, the Housing Corporation and the housing and regeneration delivery functions of CLG, as well as ASC. This new agency will be a new delivery partner for local authorities, and will support them in strategic place-making as well as helping them to create and shape prosperous communities.

The agency will also pioneer innovative and more efficient ways of working with key partners in the public, private and voluntary sector to get better outcomes from public investment in places.

ASC RESPONSE 5. We have looked at the reforms proposed by Lord Leitch and the issues raised by the

Select Committee Inquiry and their implications for skills for sustainable communities. Our response, which draws on current research into the impact of recent policies on the sustainable communities agenda, is summarised below. This research will be completed and published in the summer. The full response is included in Annex A.

SUMMARY6. The establishment of new regional and sub regional structures will result in a more

strategic role for RDAs in which there is less influence in project work and funding, but increased working in partnership with local authorities and delegation of their budget to sub regional partners.

7. For the new arrangements to be effective, programmes need to be put in place to develop the skills and capacity of those involved in the delivery process both regionally and locally. These skills will need to include both technical and generic skills. As part of the wider HCA team, ASC will be part of the single conversation with local partners. ASC will identify existing capacity issues and emerging skills needs through a single co-ordinated approach to regional and sub regional partners.

8. ASC is keen to work with partners in due course to help develop these mechanisms. We are hopeful of trialling new ways of working regionally later in the year in 2009 as part of establishing the regional arrangements of the new Homes and Communities Agency.

April 2008

Annex A

After Leitch: Implementing Skills and Training Policies(i) The evolving role of RDAs in the post Leitch agenda

Following the Review of Sub-national Economic Development, the remit of the RDAs is to be simplified so they take on a more strategic role, with less influence in project work and funding. There will be an increase in partnership working with local authorities and delegation of their budget to sub regional partners. This will require improved partnership working and co-ordination in the regeneration/sustainable communities sector to ensure that everyone is “talking the same language" and that partners are working to maximum capacity rather than duplicating or overlapping work. RDAs will increasingly need people with skills in policy and strategy, with less focus on delivery as they move towards managing programmes of funding rather than project delivery. The RDAs may also need more skills such as financial and budget management, as well as a need for more programme managers.

There is a question about the impact of the disbanding of the Regional Assemblies and the transfer of their housing and planning functions to the RDAs. This will produce one regional strategy, combining the previous RSS and RES documents. In terms of the skills implications of this restructuring, the changes are intended to represent a simplification and stream-lining of the organisations involved. Several RDAs we have spoken to, which will become the regional planning bodies, noted that at present they have only limited spatial development capacity and will therefore need to develop skills in this area. It is possible that policy experts will transfer from the Regional Assemblies as there is a need for continuity to ensure that skills stay in the region and are not lost. However, the details of how staff may transfer from the regional bodies are not yet determined, although RDAs are aware of the labour shortages and skills gaps in certain professions and are therefore keen not to lose experienced staff or “poach" staff from partner organisations and exacerbate existing skills shortages. Nevertheless, it was highlighted that culturally, RDAs and RAs are quite different organisations and individuals may chose not to work in the new RDAs on merged RSSs.

There is also a suggestion from our conversations with RDAs that they will need to build skills in change management. Evidence shows that some organisations shut down during periods of flux and do not move forwards whereas for others it can be a very fertile time that provides an opportunity for growth. The handover period will need to be carefully managed since many of the programmes funded by the RAs and RDAs still have considerable time left to run and changes in roles will not occur immediately. Indeed, some RDAs feel under pressure that the government has “upped the game" in terms of targets and housing delivery, while at the same time “changing the organisational landscape", which can lead to organisations becoming overwhelmed with bureaucracy and re-structuring rather than focusing on their priorities.

In terms of the skills impact of regional restructuring on local authorities, officers, councilors and other sub-regional organisations, which will receive projects and budgets transferred from the regional level, will need to build capacity in a wide range of generic skills and develop a more outward-looking approach. They will need to increase their capacity to deliver projects in the built environment. There will be an increased need for well developed commissioning, community empowerment and partnership skills and better leadership in each of these areas. Individuals will need to improve skills in contract and project management, economic development, finance and accountancy skills and monitoring and review. It is suggested that officers working in planning, environment, housing, and regeneration/economic development departments will be the most in need of this type of training provision.

In relation to the organisational changes set out in the Sub National Review, a number of those we have spoken to referred to the skills sets of elected Councillors, board members and Planning Inspectors. It was suggested that there needs to be focused provision of training for elected members in planning, master planning and spatial visioning. Members need an improved knowledge and evidence base to be able to steer their planning departments in an informed manner. The skills of RDA board members will also need to be developed to make sure that they fully understand how to carry out their new functions under the revised arrangements. For example, it is likely that business-led boards are fully aware of regional economics and business issues, but are potentially less aware of regional planning and transport issues. Therefore RDA boards will need further training before the Sub National Review changes are implemented. It was also suggested that Inspectors undertaking the EiP process for the new overarching RSS may also need further training, since this document will now address subjects wider than spatial planning issues.

(ii) Existing regional delivery structures and the sub-regional strategies required; (iii) roles of LSC, SSCs; and (iv) Further and Higher Education Sectors

ASC currently works with a range of partners, including the Sector Skills Councils (SSCs) and the Higher Education/Further Education sector, local government agencies and key regional and national partners, to ensure that the skills gaps in the sustainable communities sector are narrowed, by promoting work on generic skills94. ASC also works with the professional bodies, such as RIBA, RICS, RTPI, IED, and the CIH, to help them tackle the technical skills issues and resulting gaps faced by their professions.

It would be helpful to ensure clarity in relation to the roles and responsibilities of all those involved in the skills agenda. The focus on regional and sub regional activities has to be right, but there needs to be continued scope for a national perspective. In particular, this should enable a small national organisation such as ASC to be recognised as supporter and influencer in the sustainable communities sector, and there should be the mechanisms in place to ensure that our impact on the delivery of skills is reinforced and not undermined.

This includes recognition amongst the regional and local agencies that tackling the sustainable communities agenda can help to deliver economic development in the regions. For example, empowering local communities and community leaders enables planners and architects to successfully engage with local communities on plans affecting their neighbourhoods. By also

94 Generic skills include: decision making, breakthrough thinking, communication, conflict resolution, customer awareness, financial management, inclusive visioning, making it happen given constraints, project management, change management, stakeholder management and team working and leadership skills.

providing local authority officers and elected members with leadership and visioning skills, it will enable them to promote master plans and regeneration schemes to the local community. There is also a need for the sustainable communities agenda to be incorporated in the regional economic strategies, and huge potential for the RDAs, LAs, FHE institutions and ASC to join forces with other partners to deliver joined up approaches to tackling skills issues. In this context, for example, ASC and EP recently published for consultation a strategy for developing the skills required for the efficient and effective re-use of Brownfield land95.

There needs to be clear communication on how the RDAs are planning to fulfil their new role in tackling skills and recognition that sustainability doesn't end with economic development. ASC has recently undertaken research96 “Mind the Skills Gap" in 2007 to update the findings of the Egan Review97 which looks at the sustainable communities skills gaps on both a national and regional level, as we appreciate that some regions face different scales of issues compared to the national picture. “Mind the Skills Gap" confirmed that there are significant and growing generic and technical skills gaps nationwide and that these differed qualitatively and quantitatively from region to region. It highlighted the lack of leadership and generic skills and emphasised the gap in specialist knowledge areas eg low carbon and cohesion. It concluded that we face a significant shortage of qualified practitioners with the skills to deliver between now and 2012. This research is currently being updated to take into account CSR 07 and the Housing Green Paper, and the updated evidence will be available from May 2008.

Finally, while ASC is supportive of Sector Skills Councils (SSCs) and their role in articulating the needs of employers, as part of the re-licensing process that the new UK Commission will oversee there is scope for greater attention to be paid to working with ASC to address shortages in specialist skills of the type identified in Skills Gap (MSG). This is particularly important, as some of the issues raised in this research need to be tackled to enable the government to meet its aspirations and deliver 3 million new homes by 2020.

(v) The impact on students, particularly in the context of policies for lifelong learning

It is essential that the changes lead to greater coherence in the offer to students. There need to be better information and advice to help learners make the best career and skills choices; clearer signposting on entry and progression routes; oversight of demand-led approaches to avoid the surpluses and deficits; closer partnership with FHE and SSCs informed by labour market information and intelligence of the type Mind the Skills Gaps provides for sustainable skills. Work also needs to be driven forward on qualifications reform.

@HR25@

95 ASC and English Partnerships (2008) Draft Brownfield Skills Strategy—Securing, retaining and developing the workforce, Leeds: ASC.96 ASC (2007) Mind the Skills Gap, Leeds: ASC.97 Egan, J (2004) The Egan Review: Skills for Sustainable Communities, London: Stationery Office.

Memorandum 30

Submission from the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD)

BACKGROUND1. The CIPD's primary purpose is to improve the standard of people management and

development across the economy and help our individual members do a better job for themselves and their organisations.

2. The CIPD is well placed to comment on skills and training policy, with 130,000 members, from organisations of all sectors of the UK economy, many of whom are their organisation's principal decision-makers in the recruitment, deployment and development of skills within the workplace. Our members are both front line deliverers of training and development and key stakeholders for anyone involved in delivering learning on behalf of government or private sector suppliers.

3. Our numerous surveys and research draw on the experiences of our substantial membership base and provide a solid benchmark with which to analyse both current and emerging trends in the skills agenda.

4. This memorandum to the Innovation, Universities and Skills Committee draws upon this benchmark and summarises our observations of skills and training policy implementation to date.

MAKING THE MOST OF HIGHER EDUCATION, FURTHER EDUCATION AND LIFELONG LEARNING5. The CIPD believes higher education (HE), further education (FE) and lifelong

learning have a vital role in making the United Kingdom more productive. If led by market demand, both FE and HE can give employers and employees the skills and qualities they need for economic productivity and growth. In an ever changing market, lifelong learning can ensure individuals and business are well positioned to adapt to shifts in demand.

6. The CIPD believes that FE and HE will be better placed to meet market demand and contribute towards increased productivity if skills acquisition is combined with effective people management.

7. Findings from our extensive research show that skills acquisition alone does not automatically produce higher productivity. Instead, our research shows that skills development is more effective if it is combined with other people management practices such as job appraisal and reward, job design, job quality, flexible working and staff communication. CIPD research also emphasises the importance of developing the capability and capacity of managers in this process.

8. Staff members need not only the skills but also the opportunity and the motivation to deploy them effectively, which further underlines the importance of job quality and job design. Given that job design is a technical process, with responsibility shared by HR and line managers, CIPD argues that training in job design should be made more widely available to UK managers and that such training should receive government subsidy to incentivise acquisition of the key skills involved in job/organisational design and development.

9. CIPD strongly believes that the impact of skills acquisition via further and higher education, is most beneficial when organisations have the right people and the right functions in place to:

@UL@— Identify what skills are needed to drive organisational performance and increase business productivity—and to map skills development to specific training and education, including further and/or higher education; and @/UL@

@UL@— Regularly assess whether the skills sets of existing staff match the skill needs of their role and of the business—and where they don't match, engage individuals in the appropriate learning and development, including further and/or higher education. @/UL@

10. CIPD research also emphasises the importance of developing the capability and capacity of managers in this process. Employers acknowledge the importance of people management in driving individual and organisational performance and productivity. In a recent survey of over 700 of our members 90% of respondents felt management and leadership skills were the key to driving their business objectives over the next two years. Moreover, as a recent CIPD survey of 2,000 UK employees shows, almost one in three employees feel that they are not being managed well enough to make effective use of their existing skills. CIPD therefore argues that the government should provide incentives and targets geared to improving the quality of management and leadership practice and development in the UK.

11. Further and higher education courses should more obviously be encouraged to favour a strong practical, applied approach to curriculum geared to the development of managers and leaders. FE and HE providers should be encouraged to include practitioner experience in course delivery.

12. We also argue that government-sourced research funding should be actively geared to stimulating research outcomes that are practitioner-friendly, accessible to line managers and aimed at influencing better leadership and management practice.

IMPLEMENTING SKILLS AND TRAINING AND POLICY—THE IMPACT SO FAR13. The extent to which skills and training policy has influenced organisations' learning

and development activities is perhaps still open to question. Our recently released 2008 CIPD Learning and Development Survey, shows that that two in five respondents feel their learning and development activity has been influenced by Leitch recommendations. Just over half however (53%) do not feel that their strategies have been influenced by the recommendations at all.

14. Public sector organisations are most likely to say their learning and development activity has been influenced by changes to skills and training policy (56%). However, almost two-thirds of private sector organisations (61%) don't feel that strategies have been influenced by the policy changes at all.

15. While some organisations may not have been greatly influenced by the recommendations, findings show respondents are actively involved in learning and development. Nearly 80% of respondents have specific training budgets, with a median training spend per employee of £300.

16. The CIPD's research indicates that most popular skills and training initiatives amongst employers appears to be the provision of vocational or occupational specific training for employees and the involvement of government-sponsored NVQs/SVQs (52%).

17. The popularity of this type of training is certainly a useful step towards addressing skills requirements of business. However, the CIPD also believes that such initiatives will be more likely to pay a genuine productivity dividend if combined with efforts to raise employers' investment in intermediate and higher levels skills—particularly in higher education.

ASSESSING THE ROLE OF SKILLS BODIES OR AGENCIES 18. Considering the nature of their work, many of the CIPD's members interact with a

wide variety of public and private sector bodies to help them identify their training needs, offering advice on training and providing training courses. Based on this experience, the CIPD has asked employers to rate these bodies (refer Table 1).

19. Findings from this research show that private sector training providers are rated most highly (described as “good" by almost two-thirds of respondents and “bad" by only 3%). Universities, employer networks and further education colleges are rated relatively highly by employers.

20. By contrast, most public agencies are given low ratings, including the Learning and Skills Council and Sector Skills Councils. Of particular interest is the low rating given to Regional

Development Agencies, with only a quarter of respondents describing their service as “good" and 18% rating them “bad").

21. When employers were asked to identify what would increase their contact with publicly funded skills bodies, over two thirds referred to increased help with funding training. However, half of the respondents surveyed also want agencies to be more responsive to their needs and to operate with less bureaucracy. These results highlight both the need for improving the existing public bodies, and ensuring any new bodies quickly demonstrate their credentials amongst employers.

Table 1: How employers rate training bodies (%)

Good Average BadPrivate training providers

63 34 3

Universities 59 39 2Employer networks 50 47 3FE colleges 48 46 6Business Link 33 54 13Learning and Skills Council

33 52 15

Chamber of Commerce 30 57 13Sector Skills Councils 28 59 13Regional Development Agency

24 58 18

Source: Labour Market Outlook, CIPD/KPMG Spring 200722. This memorandum has summarised our observations of skills and training policy

implementation to date.

April 2008

@HR25@

Memorandum 31

Submission from Semta

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1. Progress since the publication of Leitch and the government's response is

unsurprisingly still at a very early stage, but the picture overall is of a combination of disquieting and encouraging signs. As an SSC, Semta is experiencing first-hand the potential power of Leitch in the development of its Sector Compact, but also shortcomings in other areas, such as RDA support and qualifications reform. Progress is slower than hoped in many areas for our sector, given Leitch's support for the high level and technical skills essential to science, engineering and manufacturing technology.

SEMTA, THE SECTOR SKILLS COUNCIL2. Industry owned and led, Semta aims to increase the impact of skilled people

throughout the science, engineering and manufacturing technologies sectors.

3. We work with employers to determine their current and future skills needs and to provide short and long term skills solutions, whether that be training and skills development, or campaigning with government and other organisations to change things for the better. Through our labour market intelligence and insights from employers across our sectors, we identify change needed in education and skills policy and practice, and engage with key industry partners and partners in the education and training sector, to help increase productivity at all levels in the workforce.

4. The sectors we represent are: Aerospace; Automotive; Bioscience; Electrical; Electronics; Maintenance; Marine; Mathematics; Mechanical; Metals and Engineered Metal Products.

5. Semta is part of the network of 25 employer-led Sector Skills Councils.

SEMTA RESPONSEImpact of Leitch on employers across the UK

6. We believe that the majority of employers, especially those who are not engaged with their SSC, are not particularly connected with the Leitch agenda. Even for those who do a lot of work in skills and training, the impression they have is that the activity currently coming from Leitch is primarily concerned with lower level skills. The launch of the Skills Pledge in England, with its headline commitment to addressing basic and Level 2 skills has reinforced that view.

7. For the science, engineering and manufacturing technologies sector, initiatives originating from Leitch such as apprenticeship expansion, are still at early stages. These mechanisms to increase high level technical skills for our workforce will be key in future, and must be flexible to enable the right people to gain the right skills at the right time.

8. In terms of provision, as more “demand-led" funding in England is channelled through Train to Gain for employers (and Skills Accounts for individuals), it is essential for our sector that funding is more flexibly available to support high level technical skills, and second qualifications in relevant subjects. Semta is currently negotiating to deliver a Sector Compact, which should address these issues, and bring the publicly-funded structures and processes closer to the needs of our employers.

9. There is an inherent risk that the Leitch proposals are implemented in different ways and leading to different outcomes across the four UK nations. Our companies which cross the borders of the 4 nations are concerned that different interpretations of requirements, and timescales for implementation, of Leitch will mean more confusion and result in employer disengagement (see Welsh/Scottish/Northern Ireland Response sections following).

Implementing Leitch in a changing landscape

10. In England, the system is facing extraordinary upheaval and change over the next three to five years, with the creation of the UK Commission for Employment and Skills, the Business Simplification initiative, raising the learning leaving age, the proposed changes and expansion to apprenticeships, wholescale reform of qualifications, initiatives to improve quality in FE, the further development of National Skills Academies, devolution of funding for 16-19 year olds to Local Authorities, and relicensing of Sector Skills Councils. While many of these are directly linked to achievement of the Leitch targets, it means creating a landscape of astonishing complexity and perpetual change. There is perhaps a danger that, unless properly funded, the energy required to create the mechanisms necessary to achieve Leitch may sap enthusiasm for the actual delivery.

Regional/Devolved Administration response to Leitch

RDA RESPONSE11. Our experience so far is that there is little improvement in the approach of RDAs in

promoting the Leitch findings. In some cases, RDAs have reduced staffing in support of the skills agenda, making it more difficult for the Semta representative in the region to engage. There is some evidence that a few RDAs are focusing even more closely on the immediate economic impact on the Gross Value Added for individuals in terms of training—which is in the “letter" of Leitch, but perhaps not in the “spirit". Raising skills for productivity is a long process requiring a holistic approach, and focusing solely on provision which delivers an immediate and quantifiable boost to productivity is to miss the wider and more long-term benefits of, for example, helping a company plan their training effectively, link that training to a longer term business plan, reduce staff turnover, increase staff confidence, and prepare for the challenges of the future.

12. In other RDAs, there are more encouraging signs that the overall approach of Leitch is welcome, but activity is slow, and there is a frustrating amount of dialogue which has yet to demonstrate how the targets will actually be achieved in practice. “Leitch" is becoming a popular term invoked by some RDAs, but a little more detail and more in terms of delivery plans would inspire greater confidence that they are willing to change their approach in support of it.

13. A particular frustration which Semta is experiencing relates to the propensity of some RDAs to wish to continually revisit the “drivers of skills"—the reasons behind skills needs and measurements of skills requirements. Through the Sector Skills Agreement process, Semta has already identified these for our sector (which is regional economic priority in the majority of RDAs) and is now in the implementation and delivery stage. There is a strong feeling among Semta regional staff that RDAs are not giving the Sector Skills Agreement the appropriate authority to inform strategy, direction and funding.

WELSH RESPONSE14. The recent consultation issued by the Welsh Assembly Government (WAG) on

“Skills that work for Wales" draws on the Leitch Review, but makes few direct links between the Leitch targets and activity to support them. One area where WAG made specific reference to Leitch relates to the strengthening the SSC network in Wales to deliver its enhanced remit. Semta is actively engaged in projects and strategic developments which will result in improving skills in Welsh science and engineering companies, and is confident it can deliver on this enhanced remit.

SCOTTISH RESPONSE15. “Skills for Scotland—A Lifelong Skills Strategy" similarly contains many of the

Leitch aspirations, but few direct references to meeting Leitch targets. Again, the role of Sector Skills Councils is underlined and supported, which is welcome.

NORTHERN IRELAND RESPONSE16. In Northern Ireland, the government has directly linked further development of its

“Success through Skills" initiative to achievement of NI's contribution to the Leitch targets through its “Statement of Skills in Northern Ireland".

Role of LSC and SSCs

LSC—NATIONAL RESPONSE TO LEITCH17. The most recent Statement of Priorities from the LSC rejected Leitch's target for all

public funding to be delivered through “demand-led" mechanisms such as Train to Gain (for employers) and Skills Accounts (for individuals) by 2010 in England. With the introduction of Sector Compacts, Semta believes that this process could now safely be speeded up, without excessive risk to provider stability. The National Skills Academy for Manufacturing is already raising the capability of the provider network to deliver the skills our sector needs, and other initiatives such as the new Training Quality Standard will continue to bring providers closer to a fully responsive system.

18. The LSC has also used Leitch to accelerate full cost recovery from employers and individuals for provision which is outside existing entitlements. While this is helping level the playing field for private providers and non-profit training organisations such as Group Training Associations when competing with FE colleges, the increasing costs to employers and individuals of training will inevitably have an impact. We expect the Sector Compact to address some of these issues, by providing additional funding for those qualifications and learning which our sector has identified as priorities, and which currently fall outside existing entitlements.

19. Inevitably, the impending changes in funding for skills (the dissolution of the LSC and devolution of funding for 16-19 year olds to Local Authorities) is causing confusion and concern, particularly around the ability of the proposed Skills Funding Agency to deliver the demand-led agenda in future. It remains to be seen whether the changes in 2010 will have the required impact, but there will undoubtedly be a degree of uncertainty as the new agencies and structures are put in place. This will be taking place while the learning system in England is attempting to reach the first round of targets contained in the Public Sector Agreements by 2011, which are themselves a stepping stone to Leitch in 2020.

LSC—REGIONAL RESPONSE TO LEITCH20. In our experience, the LSC at a regional level is still struggling to change its

approach from one focused on delivery of basic skills and Level 2 qualifications, to one based more closely on articulated employer need. The Sector Skills Agreement for science, engineering and manufacturing technologies calls for a focus on higher level technical skills, leadership and management, etc, rather than these lower level skills and qualifications. Following Leitch, everyone involved in the demand for, delivery of and funding of skills needs to make a step-change in their approach—from a supply-driven approach to one which is based on demand, and we believe that the LSC at an operational level has yet to effectively and comprehensively do this.

SSCS—RELICENSED AND REFORMED21. Semta was one of the first SSCs to receive a licence, and is proud of its

achievements since then. Our Sector Skills Agreements are now UK-wide and cover the whole of our “footprint", and are providing the evidence and key drivers of our activity. Leitch recognised the role of SSCs in helping the UK improve its competitiveness through skills, and we are enthusiastic about delivering on this enhanced remit in the future. However, we acknowledge that confidence in the SSC network as a whole needs to be improved, and this could be achieved through the relicensing process, and through improvements to funding for the network as a whole.

22. The Leitch recommendations relating to skills are certainly in line with the findings of our Sector Skills Agreements, which called for more focus on higher level skills, and more support for companies to upskill and reskill existing employees in a rapidly changing environment.

SSCS—SECTOR COMPACT IN ENGLAND23. If the Leitch targets are to be met, it is essential that they are understood and

applied on a sectoral basis. The proposed Sector Compacts should enable SSCs to apply public funding and support in a more appropriate way for our sector. We are also planning on working directly with several thousand companies, not only to actively encourage their participation in training, but to ensure that training is appropriate and linked to the company's strategic direction. This shows a willingness on the part of the national LSC to embrace the Leitch approach, which was strong on sectoral flexibility. It means relaxing the rigid focus of funding on basic skills and first full Level 2 qualifications, to encompass areas specifically identified by our employers as key priorities—areas such as Business-Improvement Techniques, leadership and management, technical upskilling and reskilling of adults in the existing workforce, etc.

SSCS—QUALIFICATIONS24. SSCs were given an enhanced remit around qualifications by Leitch, but in some

areas, progress has been disappointing. At a national level, we are particularly concerned about the SSC role in “ownership" of the standards and qualifications for their sector. Semta has been actively involved in the development of a Sector Qualifications Strategy, and our view is that we are not yet being given the authority to manage the process appropriately.

25. The proposed changes to apprenticeships would see SSCs effectively relinquishing ownership of the “blueprint". At a time when SSCs are mandated by Leitch to take an increasing role in ensuring quality and national standards, the proposed changes would seem to mitigate against this.

26. The migration of existing qualifications from the National Qualifications Framework to the Qualifications and Credit Framework in England has proved difficult, with QCA effectively stating that it is not the role of SSCs to manage this process. The additional task of the development of new vocationally-related qualifications, which QCA are expecting SSCs to undertake, is similarly problematic, with awarding bodies unwilling to populate the framework as there is so much uncertainty around this area. The whole process has also been bedevilled with technical problems, which must be resolved if SSCs are to manage these qualifications and standards effectively. Without proper testing and trials, the whole system is in danger of employer disengagement.

27. For SSCs to take the role envisaged for them by Leitch in terms of qualifications, they need to be properly resourced and empowered to manage the process, and the early indications are not positive at the moment. The roles of QCA/SQA, awarding bodies, and Sector Skills Councils need to be more clearly defined and agreed if this process is to be successful.

ROLE OF FURTHER EDUCATION28. FE is undergoing radical changes, some of which could significantly impact (and

enable) the Leitch vision. Engineering has a long tradition of Group Training Associations, which received an additional boost in the recent apprenticeships consultation for England (“World-class Apprenticeships: Unlocking Talent, Building Skills for All"). If the Leitch targets on apprenticeship are to be met with meaningful and well-managed programmes, GTAs have a strong role to play in engaging small and medium-sized firms in offering places, and in supporting both the employer and the apprentice through to completion. Future reform of the FE system, and funding support provided by government, should be entirely free from bias in terms of provider, enabling colleges, private providers, GTAs and employer training bodies to compete and innovate on an equal footing. This is essential to the achievement of the Leitch targets, as “more of the same" in terms of provision will not have the desired impact. Provision must be more responsive, tailored to the employer's/ individual's needs, and available at a fair price.

ROLE OF HIGHER EDUCATION29. In higher education in England, HEFCE has recently provided £50 million in

funding for employer engagement projects as recommended by Leitch, but most of these projects relate to the setting up of HEI infrastructure to improve employer engagement processes and resources. This means that it is too early for outputs from the projects to have had much impact on employers in terms of actually delivering on employer workforce development and expanding employer co-funded student places.

30. In terms of Semta's particular experience with HEFCE, recent sector-specific discussions have been increasingly positive and constructive. Semta is finalising its Sector Skills Agreements for the Metals, Mechanical and Electrical sectors, and for Bioscience (which has a particularly strong need for improvements to undergraduate and graduate level learning), and HEFCE has welcomed this opportunity to make a positive contribution. It is very early to say with confidence, but we are hopeful that a real and permanent change is taking place in terms of the availability of funding for more employer-led and employer-responsive provision.

31. The three higher level skills pathfinder projects have had a mixed impact so far for our sector—Airbus has benefited from the programme in the South West, and Semta was offered the

opportunity to influence and offer sector guidance in the North West, but we are disappointed with the lack of engagement which has been possible in the North East project.

SEMTA RECOMMENDATIONS32. We recommend that, in its report, the Committee sends a strong signal to regional

and local bodies that they should take a holistic approach to Leitch, enabling a wide span of activity to be considered in the context of the particular sector's needs, and for this activity to be informed by the Sector Skills Agreements. The national LSC is potentially leading the way on this through funding of Sector Compacts.

33. We also recommend that the Committee underlines the role of Sector Skills Councils in the post-Leitch landscape, as the strong employer voice on skills. As an SSC, we are expecting to feel the impact of Leitch strongly over the coming months, as we prepare for relicensing. If SSCs are to fulfil their revised remit, they need support and funding to achieve this, and to bring all areas of the network up to the very highest standard.

April 2008

@HR25@

Memorandum 32

Submission from the Open University

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY1. Current regional and sub-regional arrangements for delivering the skills strategy

can be confusing to learners and employers. It is hoped that the new arrangements outlined under “Raising Expectations" will address this. However, it is currently not clear how the higher education sector will relate to these developments. Neither is it clear how The Open University (OU) can effectively deploy its national scale and reach to support objectives and activities that are conceived and managed at regional and sub-regional levels.

2. We are concerned by the prevailing and implicit view that further and higher education providers should give greater priority to employer needs than learner demand. The University recognises that employers have a legitimate voice that needs to be better articulated. However, employer demand (as expressed by what they will pay for) can often be focussed on addressing relatively short-term skills gaps rather than on developing a broader range of transferable competences.

INTRODUCTION3. The Open University (OU) is committed to increasing the opportunities for students

to engage in lifelong learning and skills development. We believe that both are vitally important to ensuring personal and professional development, social inclusion and wealth creation.

4. The OU is a national university teaching students in all parts of the UK through a system of supported open learning. It therefore has a distinctive role to play in the development of higher level knowledge and skills and a unique perspective on the operation of national, regional and sub-regional strategies for change.

5. Our submission concentrates on the following two issues on which the Committee has invited evidence:

@UL@— The respective roles of the further education and higher education sectors in delivering a region-based agenda for Leitch and their coordination with one other. @/UL@

@UL@— The impact on students of these initiatives, particularly in the context of policies for lifelong learning.@/UL@

The respective roles of the further education and higher education sectors in delivering a region-based agenda for Leitch

6. In the Open University's view current regional and sub-regional arrangements for delivering Leitch can be confusing to providers and employers. At the moment it is unclear what aspects of the skills agenda are being co-ordinated at the regional, sub-regional and local levels with the responsibilities of the RDAs and the LSC in transition. This does not necessarily impact directly on the University but in our view it does not help employees or employees understand the “Leitch offer" that the sectors are able to deliver.

7. Co-ordination of the “skills" agenda at a regional level has in recent years been attempted by the establishment of the Regional Skills Partnerships (RSPs). RSPs have mainly focused on pre-HE provision but some RDAs, such as the North West Development Agency, have made real efforts to include the HE sector. However, it is not clear to the University if the contribution HE can make to the skills agenda has been fully valued across all RSPs. In some regions there has also been unnecessary competition between organisations as to which organisation should take the regional lead on skills.

8. Higher Education has traditionally asserted its independence from attempts to plan at a regional level. The Open University has sought to co-operate with initiatives such as Lifelong Learning Networks, Aim Higher Partnerships and, more recently, Higher Level Skills Pathfinders.

This is despite the fact that, as a national provider, we do not always find it as easy as other providers to fit into regionally or sub-regionally constructed projects. It has not always been transparent to the OU how these regional and sub-regional developments correspond to the development of national priorities or the requirement that some activities can only be effectively developed at a national level. In three regions the Higher Level Skills Pathfinders (HLSPs) have been implementing the Leitch agenda. The Open University is active in all three HLSPs. Interestingly, they have operated quite differently and have demonstrated different levels of engagement with the further and higher education sectors. This seems to us to arise from a lack of clarity as to how the two sectors should be working together to deliver the Leitch agenda.

9. It is also important to point out that, as far as many large employers are concerned, regional and sub-regional demarcations can be barriers to development. It is important that the structures developed to implement Leitch appropriately reflect the national and international dimensions of the skills agenda. An international bank does not necessarily want courses tailored to sub-regional or regional planning and funding requirements. The challenge is to ensure that broader sub-regional and regional “agendas" support and do not interfere with the delivery of the “Leitch UK agenda". The Open University has a valuable role to play in delivering the Leitch agenda and we want to ensure that we are able to operate effectively at the national as well as at the regional level.

10. The Sub National Review (SNR) confirms that the RDAs will continue to have responsibility for managing Business Link and ensuring a one-stop-shop for high quality diagnosis and brokerage services. The Government considers that a single brokerage service is the simplest way for business to access government support on skills, and intends to fully integrate skills brokerage with Business Link to ensure a single brokerage service managed by the RDAs by April 2009. So far the brokerage service has, perhaps understandably, been pre-HE focused. There is insufficient understanding of the progression pathways to HE and the traditional local University offer never mind that of the Open University. It is not clear to the Open University how our unique role as a national UK university offering flexible, high quality distance learning opportunities will be maximised by the nine regional brokerage services.

11. The SNR supports the establishment of Employment and Skills Boards (ESBs) and stated “it is at this (sub-national) level that local employer-led Employment and Skills boards should operate". There is a recognition that these boards need to work flexibly to meet different needs in different areas. It is not clear to us how these sub- national ESBs will articulate with the Commission for Employment and Skills at the national level and provide an appropriate framework for employers and for universities (such as the Open University) that are operating at national and international levels. We would welcome further discussion with the relevant agencies on this.

12. In the English regions the roles of both the Regional Development Agencies and the Learning and Skills Council (LSC) are changing. The recent publication, on 17 March 2008, of the joint DCSF/DIUS consultation “Raising Expectations: enabling the system to deliver" outlines proposed roles, from 2010, for the successor bodies of the LSC including the creation of a national pre-HE Skills Funding Agency (SFA). However, it is not entirely clear what the regional and sub-regional planning structures will be in relation to the proposed SFA. Therefore it is not clear to us how the Higher Education (HE) sector and the OU might wish to relate to these developments.

The impact on students, particularly in the context of policies for lifelong learning

13. Comprehensive lifelong learning can be understood as the provision of education and training from early years to post-retirement which enables learners to realise their potential to contribute fully to the economy and society.

14. The Open University supports both lifelong learning and the objectives of Leitch. We strongly believe that both are important and should be supported by government. However, Leitch raises, rather than answers, a number of important questions about the relationship between the two. Broadly, Leitch promotes the idea that further and higher education providers should primarily address employer demand rather than learner demand. The University recognises that employers have a legitimate voice that needs to be better articulated. However, employer demand (as expressed by what they will pay for) can be focussed on addressing relatively short-term skills gaps which are known to be impeding the achievement of more fundamental national targets.

15. The growing internationalisation of economies, the accelerating pace of change, and the introduction of new technologies and company structures, require many employees to posses up-to-date specific job-related skills and more generic competencies that enable them to adapt to change. Overall, individuals and the economy “require" high levels of transferable skills which can be taken from one job to another as economic structures and opportunities change. Employers also want employees with longer-term, good transferable “employability" skills such as communication, problem solving and learning to learn skills—though it is not clear that they are willing to pay for these.

16. Government policy can be implemented with a “broad brush" and it is always limited by the funding available. The Open University regrets that the current policy climate tends to promote the view that the Leitch agenda is the preferable alternative to lifelong learning rather than regarding it as a necessary complement to it. It is this climate that in the long-run will need to change. If Leitch is interpreted crudely as only being about narrow specific job related skills then individuals, employers and the economy will all be the ultimate losers.

April 2007

@HR25@

Memorandum 33

Submission from the Entertainment and Leisure Software Publishers Association (ELSPA)

INTRODUCTIONELSPA (the Entertainment and Leisure Software Publishers Association) is the trade

association for video games publishers. ELSPA was formed in 1989 to establish a specific and collective identity for the UK video games industry, and has grown to its current membership of almost 60 companies.

ELSPA works to protect, promote and provide for its members' interests via a number of activities including anti-piracy enforcement, research, political lobbying, sales charts and reports. It also ensures its members publish games which are responsibly age-rated with the pan-European PEGI ratings system ensuring parents can make informed choices when purchasing product for their children. ELSPA also helps organise a number of key gaming events in the UK including the annual London Games Festival, staged every October, and the Edinburgh Interactive Festival, in August.

ELSPA'S RESPONSE1. ELSPA welcomes the enquiry, “After Leitch: Implementing Skills And Training

Policies". While we do not believe the focus of this review is central to the video games industry, ELSPA is keen that the job market is buoyed by skilled entrants. We would also like to take this opportunity to highlight our concerns about the future of the industry if the number of high-quality entrants is not significantly increased. ELSPA will be submitting a more extensive response to the recently-announced DIUS consultation, “Higher Education at Work—High Skills, High Value".

2. The enquiry states that the UK aims to become a world leader by 2020. It must be made clear exactly how the UK is to become a leader, in order that achievable and definable objectives can be set for Government and industry to jointly work towards. ELSPA believes that the UK should aim for a highly skilled workforce which not only develops UK industry and productivity, but also attracts investment from overseas companies who recognise the potential of the UK workforce.

3. The UK video games industry is a significant contributor to UK plc, generating sales of around £1.72 billion and employing 22,000 people. The industry has specific skill requirements in terms of school leavers and graduates, and is currently losing out significantly to the financial services industry which appears to dominate recruitment of highly skilled graduates entering the job market annually. The video games industry offers an attractive career option for science and maths graduates, and has the potential to encourage gifted youngsters to pursue science and maths education paths and so boost levels of suitable graduates to satisfy the industry's requirements for skilled entrants.

4. ELSPA and other creative industry stakeholders require a highly skilled workforce in order to continue to produce innovative, high-quality products and maintain the UK's position as a world-class producer of audio-visual content. Increasing numbers of high-calibre English-speaking graduates already enter the creative industries job market around the world each year—the UK Government should work with UK industry to produce a more qualified workforce enabling us to compete on a global scale.

5. Developing a robust, highly-skilled workforce in the UK is crucial for industry, and the UK's economic future. Otherwise, video games publishers and other creative industries stakeholders might well be increasingly tempted to move operations overseas to countries with higher concentrations of skilled workers and enticing tax breaks and pay incentives.

6. In support of the above aim, ELSPA believes that children must be encouraged to engage with the traditionally “difficult" academic science and maths subjects. ELSPA would highlight the Scottish Government's forward-thinking and proactive review of education, which will give school children the chance to develop video games in the classroom. We would like to see other education authorities in the UK follow this example. The Scottish Government has recognised the skill requirements which need to be addressed in schools and has found a way to incorporate

appropriate measure into the curriculum, addressing the skills shortage and inspiring students to explore the video games industry as a quality career option with long-term prospects.

7. ELSPA also believes that higher education and industry could benefit greatly from an increased number of “sandwich" courses, in which undergraduates are able to spend time within a video games company gaining first-hand experience of the industry, both contributing to their education and increasing their employability. Further, we envisage Government/industry co-funded degrees forming a key means of developing a robust graduate base in the UK—with universities and industry working together to create and accredit courses which fulfil exacting industry requirements.

April 2008

@HR25@

Memorandum 34

Submission from Age Concern

Age Concern is the UK's largest organisation working with and for people over 50.

Four national Age Concerns in England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales and a federation of over 400 local organisations work together to promote the well-being of all people over 50. Our work ranges from providing vital services to influencing public opinion and government. Every day we are in touch with thousands of people aged over 50 from all kinds of backgrounds—enabling them to make more of life. Age Concern is a provider of training and welfare-to-work services through Age Concern Training and through local initiatives in around 15 communities across England. We also offer a national information and advice service for individuals about their rights under the new age discrimination legislation.

The Age Concern England Policy Unit develops public policy proposals on ageing and older people with respect to England and UK-wide policy. We influence government, public bodies and professional organisations by commissioning and undertaking research, responding to consultations, liaising with decision makers, holding policy events and developing partnerships with other organisations.

Most of our policy responses and summaries are available to download on our website: www.ageconcern.org.uk.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARYAge Concern welcomes the inquiry into how responses to the agenda set out in the Leitch

Report will affect the broader structures of further education, higher education and lifelong learning. Our response to the inquiry is split into four sections: government policy and vocational learning, government policy and non-vocational learning, older people's views about non-vocational learning and practitioner perspectives on non-vocational learning. In line with our remit, its primary focus is on the 50+ age group.

GOVERNMENT POLICY AND VOCATIONAL LEARNING:@UL@— We calculate that to achieve the government's overall aim of an 80% employment rate by 2015-2020, an extra three million people will need to be in work. About 900,000 people over 50 who are not in work want to find jobs. If they were all in work this would add around £30 billion to the economy. @/UL@

@UL@— The government's employment and skills ambitions cannot be met unless more people over 50 are helped to improve their skills: around a quarter of the 2020 workforce—and an even higher proportion of those with low skills—are already aged over 40. The government will miss its targets for Level 2 skills unless there is a step-change in the training of workers over 40, who make up half the non-pensioner adults without these skills.@/UL@

@UL@— Workers over 50 are less likely to participate in training than those under 50. The focus on achieving a first full Level 2 qualification is not the best or most cost-effective way of improving employability for all workers aged 50+. For example, it precludes those who wish to make a career change.@/UL@GOVERNMENT POLICY AND NON-VOCATIONAL LEARNING:@UL@— Non-vocational learning is proven to maintain good health and well-being, which has knock-on benefits for health and local government budgets.@/UL@

@UL@— The government's focus on funding basic skills, Level 2 qualifications, and Level 3s for under 25s has left less money available for other forms of learning, including many of the courses valued by people in retirement. As a result, non-vocational learning providers are being forced to reduce costs, including by limiting student places and removing concessionary fees. @/UL@

@UL@— Some local authorities and colleges who are removing concessions for people over State Pension Age are using the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006 to justify their actions. @/UL@

@UL@— The number of people aged 60 and over participating in Further Education halved between 2003 and 2006. @/UL@OLDER PEOPLE'S VIEWS ABOUT NON-VOCATIONAL LEARNING@UL@— Older people value non-vocational learning for a range of reasons, including alleviating loneliness and maintaining mental and physical health. It also enables them to help others and give back to the communities they live in.@/UL@

@UL@— The barriers older people face to participating in non-vocational learning include cost, lack of information provision, size and timings of classes, poor transport and inaccessible buildings. @/UL@PRACTITIONER PERSPECTIVES ON NON-VOCATIONAL LEARNING:@UL@— Non-vocational learning benefits both the individual, for example in terms of better health and well-being, and society, for example in terms of increased community engagement.@/UL@

@UL@— Learning provision can reinforce structural inequalities. In particular, it tends to be harder to attract people from black and minority ethnic communities to non-vocational learning activities.@/UL@

@UL@— There is a need for better information and better communication about funding opportunities.@/UL@1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Age Concern welcomes the inquiry into how responses to the agenda set out in the Leitch Report will affect the broader structures of further education, higher education and lifelong learning. Our response to the inquiry predominantly focuses on the impact that responses to the Leitch Report have had on students in the 50+ age group. Our response categorises the impact on these students' learning activities in terms of government policy and vocational learning, government policy and non-vocational learning, older people's views about non-vocational learning and practitioner perspectives on non-vocational learning.

2. GOVERNMENT POLICY AND VOCATIONAL LEARNING2.1 We calculate that to achieve the government's overall aim of an 80 per cent

employment rate by 2015-2020, an extra three million people will need to be in work, a significant proportion of which could be over 50. About 900,000 people over 50 are not in work and want to find jobs. If they were all in work this would add around £30 billion to the economy.98

2.2 However, government support overwhelmingly prioritises young adults preparing to enter the labour market for the first time. At present, most education and training policies do not distinguish between a person of 26 and a person of 36, 46, 56 or 66. Such an approach presents a real challenge to government if it is to meet its employment and skills ambitions.

2.3 For example, around a quarter of the 2020 workforce are already aged over 40 and about a third of this group are without Level 2 skills. On current trends few will reach Level 2 standard over the next 15 years and their employment prospects will reduce in that time as employers expect employees to have progressively higher skills. If action is not taken today to address the skills of people over 40, employers will be unable to meet their workforce needs in 2020—in terms of either overall headcount or skills requirements. The government will also miss its targets for Level 2 skills unless there is a step-change in the training of workers over 40, who make up half the non-pensioner adults without these skills.99

2.4 Workers over 50 are less likely to participate in training than those under 50. But a range of evidence suggests this pattern is not inevitable in the future, not least because of evidence from the pilots which preceded the Train to Gain initiative. Workers over 50 who do participate in training are just as likely to succeed as younger adults. The attitudes of employers, and individuals themselves, still remains a significant barrier.100

98 Age Agenda 2008 Report. Age Concern, 2008.99 Age Agenda 2008 Report. Age Concern, 2008.

2.5 The training and qualifications the government is currently promoting are not always appropriate for many adults over 50, for whom achieving a full Level 2 qualification is not the best or most cost-effective way of improving employability. Instead, these workers may need accreditation of existing skills, together with support to plug specific skills gaps with bite-sized training. The focus on first full Level 2 qualifications also precludes those with historic qualifications who wish to make a career change or those who may have been away from work for some time, for example raising children.101

3. GOVERNMENT POLICY AND NON-VOCATIONAL LEARNING3.1 Non-vocational learning is proven to maintain good health and well-being, which

has knock-on benefits for health and local government budgets. Moreover, it is an issue that older people themselves care greatly about. Age Concern is concerned about the impact that the government's skills strategy is having on non-vocational learning.

3.2 The government's strategic focus on up-skilling workers has had a significant impact on the funding and provision of non-vocational learning provided by both the further education sector and community education institutions. The government's focus on funding basic skills, Level 2 qualifications, and Level 3s for under 25s has left less money available for other forms of learning, including many of the courses valued by people in retirement. As a result, non-vocational learning providers are being required to reduce costs, including by limiting student places and removing concessionary fees.

3.3 Some local authorities and colleges who are removing concessions for people over State Pension Age are using the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006 to justify their actions. However, as there have not been any test cases under the new legislation, it is not possible to say when or if concessions are unlawful. We believe that many education providers will be able to rely on the argument that the concessions are justified, or that some non-vocational learning could be covered by an exemption in the Regulations allowing positive action to address disadvantage or under-representation of particular age groups. It will then be for a court or tribunal to decide whether or not this is justified. However, for risk-averse providers facing mounting financial difficulties, removing concessions for retired people has seemed to be the easiest solution.

3.4 The number of people aged 60 and over participating in Further Education halved between 2003 and 2006. The number of people aged 60 and over participating in Adult Community Learning decreased by 12% between 2005 and 2006. This shift is set against the backdrop of a rapidly ageing population. The number of people aged 50 and over is set to rise even faster than was previously expected: in 10 years time there will be an extra 4.5 million, which is up 1.9 million from the previous estimate. Given rises in life expectancy, this means that an increasing number of people will be spending longer periods of time in active retirement than ever before.102

4. OLDER PEOPLE'S VIEWS ABOUT NON-VOCATIONAL LEARNING4.1 The evidence in this section is based on two unpublished deliberative workshops

with people aged 50+ in April 2008. The workshops were held in London and Exeter.

Value of non-vocational learning

4.2 Participants cited a range of reasons for getting involved in non-vocational learning. These reasons ranged from improving mental and physical agility to tackling feelings of isolation and loneliness. A significant finding was that some participants also undertake non-vocational learning courses so that they can help and contribute to others and give back to the communities that they live in.

Barriers to getting involved in non-vocational learning opportunities

100 Learning in Later Life: A public spending challenge. NIACE, Age Concern England and the Centre for Research into the Older Workforce, 2006. 101 Learning in Later Life: A public spending challenge. NIACE, Age Concern England and the Centre for Research into the Older Workforce, 2006.102 Age Agenda 2008 Report. Age Concern, 2008. For more information see: http://www.ageconcern.org.uk/AgeConcern/FCDAC740D6034C12A01334ED4E597059.asp

4.3 Participants also cited a range of barriers which prevented them from undertaking non-vocational learning. A key barrier was fees, particularly with the removal of adult education concessions following the introduction of the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006 (see section on government policy and non-vocational learning for more details). Other barriers include, the timing of classes, class sizes, the accessibility of buildings, the locality of learning centres, poor transport and poor information provision.

5. PRACTITIONER PERSPECTIVES ON NON-VOCATIONAL LEARNING5.1 The evidence in this section is based on unpublished interviews with eight local

Age concerns between February and March 2008. The organisations that we interviewed are:

@UL@— Age Concern Bath and North East Somerset@/UL@

@UL@— Age Concern Berkshire@/UL@

@UL@— Age Concern Bolton@/UL@

@UL@— Age Concern Brighton, Hove and Portslade@/UL@

@UL@— Age Concern Cheshire@/UL@

@UL@— Age Concern Croydon@/UL@

@UL@— Age Concern Doncaster@/UL@

@UL@— Age Concern Hertfordshire @/UL@

The value of non-vocational for the 50+ population

5.2 Non-vocational learning benefits both the individual, for example in terms of better health and well-being, and society, for example in terms of increased community engagement.

5.3 Older people participate in non-vocational learning for a variety of reasons. Some want to learn new skills or develop their skills further. While others learn for social reasons: that is, to meet new people, get themselves out of the house and/or to help them add structure to their days. Learning has numerous individual benefits. It can foster mental and physical health and can help break patterns of depression, isolation and social exclusion. A number of local Age Concerns commented that people over 50 are much more specific about their learning needs or requirements than they were five years ago and that they expect more from their retirement than previous generations.

5.4 Ensuring the 50+ population has up-to-date ICT skills has particularly important benefits. It enables individuals to more effectively communicate with their relatives, including grandchildren, and more effectively use ICT in their everyday lives, for example to take up cheaper internet deals.

5.5 Learning can also engender a sense of belonging to the community and to the wider society, which can foster social cohesion. Individual benefits, such as improved mental and physical health, also have knock-on benefits for health and local government budgets.

Equality of access

5.6 The interviews with local Age Concerns suggest that lifelong learning provision can reinforce structural inequalities. Those who participate in learning activities tend to be aware of the value and benefits of learning and want a healthy and active lifestyle, which corresponds to those of higher socio-economic status. Generally, it tends to be harder to attract people from manual occupational backgrounds and people from black and minority ethnic communities. These groups have been most successfully engaged where outreach work has been undertaken in local community

centres and taster sessions have been offered. Overall, improving equality of access to non-vocational learning tends to be about being proactive and imaginative.

5.7 Initial drop-out rates have increased for organisations that have recently increased the fees they charge for learning activities. Although many people who dropped-out of courses after the fee increase subsequently returned, others have not had the means to.

Funding

5.8 Since there are many funding streams through many government departments, it can be difficult to identify those responsible for lifelong learning. There is a general feeling among the local Age Concerns interviewed that in order to access funding, particularly in relation to self-organised learning, individuals have to be very proactive and resourceful.

5.9 This suggests that there is a need for better information and better communication about funding opportunities. One way of achieving this could be through an information portal, where people could go and access all different funding opportunities provided by government as well as private businesses. It is important that the funding system is flexible enough to cater for differing local needs.

April 2008

@HR25@

Memorandum 35

Submission from the Lifelong Learning Networks in the Yorkshire and Humber Region

SUMMARYLifelong Learning Networks (LLNs) are partnerships funded by the Higher Education

Funding Council for England (HEFCE). The overall objective for LLNs is to improve the coherence, clarity and certainty of progression opportunities for vocational learners into and through higher education. They are also increasingly seen as change agents within the higher education system, supporting institutions to respond to the challenges of the Skills Agenda. Their work encompasses three main objectives in relation to Leitch:

a. Preventing waste of local talent within regions/sub-regions by ensuring that clear and realistic articulated progression routes are available for vocational and work-based learners into and through higher education.

@UL@— Ensuring that the higher education curriculum delivers the skills needed by employers through involving sector skills councils, employer organisations and individual employers more closely in curriculum development, especially at (though not restricted to) Foundation Degree level.@/UL@

@UL@— Development of accredited higher education provision as flexible CPD to meet ongoing higher skills development needs for employers and groups of employers.@/UL@

This paper sets out the potential role of LLNs in supporting the delivery of the High Level Skills / Leitch Agenda using the Yorkshire and Humber Region as a demonstrator case study. It contends that LLNs are the only structures that currently involve all HE providing institutions, both HEIs and FE Colleges, and therefore are able to play a unique role, both through their existing funding and their membership, in co-ordinating HE and FE responses to Leitch.

MAIN PAPER1. The Yorkshire and Humber Region is home to four LLNs: Higher York; Higher

Futures (South Yorkshire); West Yorkshire LLN and Yorkshire and Humber East LLN. They are inclusive of all higher education providing institutions in the region. Between them they have received grant funding of over £15M from HEFCE, and approximately £6M in allocated funding to their partner institutions for student places covering the period 2007-9.

2. The four LLNs are working strategically with the RDA (Yorkshire Forward), Regional LSC, Regional Universities' Association (Yorkshire Universities), the Regional Skills Partnership and Foundation Degree Forward to develop a strategy for ensuring that higher education can contribute to its full potential to the support and development of the Yorkshire and Humber economy, and to deliver a regional, integrated approach to the Skills Agenda.

3. Yorkshire and Humber has not been designated a Higher Level Skills Pathfinder Area and therefore has not previously been required to develop a regional infrastructure to stimulate demand for, and meet employer expectations in relation to, higher level skills. Instead solutions have begun to emerge organically in the post-Leitch environment through a strong collaboration between stakeholders as detailed in 3 above. We propose this as a case study of note in considering national strategy for higher level skills development in that:

@UL@a. It brings together all the institutions in the region delivering funded higher education through existing, proactive partnerships that are already focused on vocational / work based learners (LLNs). @/UL@

@UL@b. There is an emerging model of joint regional planning and strategic development between the RDA, LSC and higher education delivery partners. This allows for a sharing and co-ordination of effort and resources across the boundary of HEFCE funded HE and all other vocational and work-based training. This builds on and contextualises work carried out by the Joint Forum for Higher

Levels. Crucially, it also aligns the developing work of the Train to Gain brokerage with individual HE and FE institutional efforts to stimulate employer demand for higher level skills.@/UL@

@UL@c. Fully coherent with this regional strategic context, city-regional approaches are emerging through the work of the partners which reflect the diversity of the region and are better placed to respond to local higher level skills requirements. It is envisaged that these will empower local groupings of higher education providers, facilitated by the LLNs, to achieve a local response to employer needs and to cohere with sub-regional bodies (such as local authorities, chambers of commerce and economic partnerships). This will be fully coherent with HEFCE strategic frameworks for Employer Engagement and the Higher Education Innovation Fund, and proposals within Innovation Nation for similar capacity building programmes for Further Education.@/UL@

4. The remainder of this paper addresses two of the key consultation questions set out in the inquiry.

The respective roles of the further education and higher education sectors in delivering a region-based agenda for Leitch and their coordination with one other

@UL@Sheffield Hallam University and Rotherham College have developed a new Foundation Degree in Control Technology targeting four advanced manufacturing sectors—Metals, Glass, Food and Packaging—with collaborative involvement of CORUS, Cadbury Schweppes and British Glass, and consultation with Yorkshire Forward and SEMTA. This initiative has also sparked interest from the NPower in the energy sector and current thinking is to develop a range of industry-specific routes to support product and process technology.@/UL@

5. Both HE institutions and FE institutions that deliver HE are well positioned to address employer and individual skills needs, and most can already demonstrate effective examples of such work. However capacity building, additional or changed structures and a closer degree of cross-agency partnership working are likely to be required if this activity is to scale up to the level required to meet Leitch targets. While there are, for example, just over 8,000 students registered on Foundation Degrees in the Yorkshire and Humber Region in 2007-8, additional 850,000 individuals would need to qualify at Level 4 in order to reach the new Regional Economic Strategy targets by 2016.

6. All HE providing institutions are proud of their institutional distinctiveness and are able to provide expert education, higher skills training and knowledge transfer in different niche areas. There are obvious benefits, therefore, to strong and enduring partnerships between different institutions within a region or sub-region, with expertise sourced from outside the area where necessary. Joint approaches to planning, resourcing and recognition/reward are essential in maintaining these partnerships and in tempering the tendency for institutions to compete where co-operation could also deliver a competitive market advantage. This will allow for the skills needs of an area, and of individual or groups of employers within the area, to be approached in a holistic way that has the potential to be demand rather than supply led.

7. Intensive public investment has already gone into developing such partnerships through the LLNs—the only spatially-based partnerships that are inclusive of HE delivered in FE Colleges. In Yorkshire and Humber there are four LLNs that are able to respond to the diverse needs of different parts of a large region, and yet work closely together through their Directorates. This allows for realistic planning and genuinely collaborative and inclusive working between institutions in a way that a single regional partnership would be unlikely to achieve, but within a regionally coherent framework.

@UL@The Yorkshire and Humber East Lifelong Learning Network, in partnership with Aimhigher Humber and Foundation Degree Forward, have worked closely with a range of employers including Jefco Services (an SME), HGB UK Ltd, and Hull and East Yorkshire NHS Trust to create a generic specification for a Foundation Degree in Construction Project Management. This award is now being developed collaboratively between FE colleges in Hull, Grimsby and York, with the first cohort of employer-supported students enrolling in the autumn.@/UL@

@UL@Northern College is undertaking pilot development for a new City and Guilds Higher Professional Diploma in Community Development. Work is progressing with both universities in Sheffield to create progression routes into Foundation and Undergraduate Degrees in sustainable communities, working with communities and related fields. This is an entirely new Level 4 qualification for the sector, designed to offer professional development and HE progression for people working in community, voluntary and public service environments.@/UL@

@UL@Higher York has worked across the partnership to develop a number of Foundation Degrees working with a range of employers. These employers include those from the voluntary and community sector. The Foundation Degree Visual Impairment was developed with the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association and is delivered by York St John University. This qualification is being delivered offered both part-time and full-time to suit the needs of the learners.@/UL@

What the existing regional structures of delivery are and what sub-regional strategies may be required

@UL@All ten college partners in the Sheffield City-Region have approved a progression agreement through Higher Futures to provide a clear route from a wide range of Level 3 vocational courses in health and social care to a Foundation Degree at Sheffield College. This is the first multi-lateral agreement of its kind within the partnership.@/UL@

8. There is no national, regional or sub-regional body that takes an overview of the planning and delivery of education and skills at Level 4 and above. While, in common with other English Regions, Yorkshire and Humber has a regional universities association, this is not inclusive of the wealth of HE in FE provision that is strategically important across the region. The current framework tends to weaken the ability of HE providing institutions to act collaboratively and for employers and employer representing organisations to find a single point of contact to meet their skills needs.

9. The LLNs currently represent the only structures in which all HE providing institutions are represented and their resources are currently being used to begin to develop the employer HE offer and to ensure that this meshes with the current system of vocational and work-based education and training.

10. The LLNs, Yorkshire Forward, the LSC, the Regional Skills Partnership, Foundation Degree Forward and Yorkshire Universities have responded to this by initiating regular strategic meetings and developing a “World Class Skills for a World Class Region" outline strategy that is currently under discussion. This includes both a regional and a city-regional dimension. It seeks to create a coherent and planned approach to meeting employers' and employees' needs for higher level skills development, and to ensure that all HE providing institutions are able to respond in line with their institutional strengths and areas of expertise.

@UL@Through a franchise arrangement with the University of Hull, Yorkshire and Humber East LLN member colleges are able to offer “bitesize" 10 credit modules of higher education to those in employment in order to introduce both employers and employees to the benefits of higher education, and which offer progression into longer qualifications. Examples include modules in digital technologies such as Photoshop and Flash offered to small businesses in Scarborough by Yorkshire Coast College, and a module on the new animal legislation offered by Bishop Burton College to pet shops and equestrian centres across the East Riding of Yorkshire. Some colleges also offered two-hour “Expert Sessions" to businesses, which have proved successful in promoting the modules.@/UL@RECOMMENDATION

11. Lifelong Learning Networks represent the first policy attempt to bring together the HE and FE sectors to address high level skills needs. Substantial public investment has already gone into establishing these Networks and, although it is early days, results are already being seen. LLNs, in collaboration with other regional and sub-regional structures and agencies, have the potential to make a unique contribution to the delivery of Leitch targets. As such their continued role needs to be given consideration in decisions relating to regional and sub-regional structure for implementing skills and training policies for high level skills.

April 2008

@HR25@

Memorandum 36

Submission from the Regional Development Agencies (RDAs)

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY1.1 It is important to note for the purpose of this inquiry that the heart of the Leitch

Report was about creating a demand-led skills system which when aligned with a change in culture to value skills, would ultimately improve productivity: The focus very much on “prosperity for all in a global economy" with targets on growth and productivity.

1.2 Qualifications whilst an important part of the Leitch Implementation Plan have been utilised as a proxy for skills as they are easy to measure. It is however, important to recognise that they are not an end in themselves for either individual learners or employers. In looking at skills issues we need to consider supply, demand and effective use of skills and the links to the other drivers of productivity—particularly innovation and enterprise.

1.3 The infrastructure needed to enable the achievement of the Leitch ambition has already undergone big changes, with further changes proposed in the recent white paper, “Raising Expectations: enabling the system to deliver". Changes which flow from this will have a significant impact on whether the system is able to meet the Leitch aspirations. Aligned with this RDAs continue to work with Government and partners to develop SNR so that skills development is central within Regional Strategies and delivery is aligned to demand.

1.4 RDAs primary focus is on economic development and growth and has a statutory purpose of improving the development and application of skills to support this. In this sense RDAs have always worked to the spirit encompassed in the Leitch ambition.

1.5 Although RDAs work across 9 different English regions, there is a commonality in the response to Leitch which has built on existing good practice. RDAs have endeavoured to provide strategic leadership, bringing together key stakeholders to enable structured actions in response to Leitch that will add value.

1.6 Regional Economic Strategies, updated post Leitch, have been enhanced so that Leitch priorities are reflected coherently, this will continue with Single Regional Strategies and will give a clear regional “road map" in how regions will work to deliver the Leitch ambition.

1.7 In developing Regional Skills Partnerships and Regional Skills and Employment Boards—RDAs are ensuring that the Leitch agenda is not fragmented but looked at coherently to give a seamless approach for employers.

2. THE RESPONSES OF RDAS TO LEITCH AND HOW COHERENT AND STRUCTURED THESE ARE2.1 RDAs, with their primary focus on economic development and growth, have a key

statutory purpose of enhancing the development and application of skills relevant to employment, underpinning the Leitch ambition.

2.2 RDAs have always recognised the links between skills and the productivity agenda and this has been reflected in the Regional Economic Strategies (RES). Leitch provided a further opportunity to strengthen the importance of skills within the drive for increased productivity and competitiveness, and strengthen the links between employment and skills, supporting the drive to increase the size of the workforce including reducing worklessness.

2.3 RDA Corporate Plans have already incorporated this commitment to the Leitch ambition, and where appropriate a specific contribution to the Leitch targets.. There are different foci across regions but include; a focus on Leadership and Management Development, Enterprise and innovative skills development skills for all, Science, Technology, Engineering and Maths skills and Higher Level skills priorities,, FE & HE capacity building and support for sectors; these align with the RES and the Regional Skills Partnership Priorities.

2.4 Regional Skills Partnerships, (and the regional variations) become vitally important, they are led by RDAs and build upon the Leitch Implementation Plan., They provide a joint strategic approach to skills and employment for the region from a business led perspective.. These will seek to change the culture and drive up demand for skills from business, aiming to increase employer investment in developing their workforce and employment practice to maximise opportunities for those out of the workplace. A key factor is about avoiding duplication and aligning mainstream monies with other funding for maximum impact.

2.5 On a national level RDA Chairs and Chief Executives are developing relationships with the UK Commission for Employment & Skills and continue to meet with Ministers to inform policy around the Leitch agenda.

2.6 In the West Midlands, the timing of our review of the Economic Strategy has enabled reflection of the Leitch challenges in the revised Regional Economic Strategy.

2.7 In the South West a refresh of the delivery plan for the RES (2008/09) provides an opportunity to further strengthen the focus on productivity and worklessness in line with Leitch.

2.8 The North West has evolved the Regional Skills Partnership to a Regional Skills & Employment Board, continuing to enable partners like the Learning & Skills Council (LSC), Jobcentre Plus (JCP), sub-regional partnerships and the NWDA to come together with employers to formulate strategy and look at co-commissioning activity, strengthening the evidence base to ensure that investment gives the return needed.

3. WHAT THE EXISTING REGIONAL STRUCTURES OF DELIVERY ARE AND WHAT SUB-REGIONAL STRATEGIES MAY BE REQUIRED

3.1 Each region has a delivery plan for the implementation of their Regional Economic Strategy—including the skills aspects of the strategies. With the exception of London, the skills aspect of the Economic Strategies are overseen and delivered by partners within the Regional Skills Partnerships (or equivalent) working together. In London the focus of partnership working is mainly on the LSC budget, in contrast the regions have adopted a wider demand-led agenda that includes increasing getting more people into work by tackling workessness and the skills needs of employers from literacy and numeracy functional / basic and intermediate level skills through to more people with graduate level skills in employment.

3.2 Sub-regional strategies are being developed around local employment and skills board and local strategic partnerships but they will need to be refreshed in the light of the Sub National review and the recent announcements on machinery of government changes. Multi Area Agreements (MAAs) and Local Area Agreements (LAAs) are being developed in partnership with RDAs that will look “in the round" at employment and skills issues—relating these to place and productivity.

3.3 In some regions, within the framework of the Economic Strategy, a Skills Action Plan has been developed—the Action Plan focuses specifically on the Leitch qualification targets. The Skills Action Plan in the West Midlands sets out the roles of all the key partners (LSC, RDA, JCP, SSCs, Universities, Local authorities, FE Colleges, government Office and the Regional Observatory). The Plan recognises the contribution of Local Area Agreements and the role of local Employment and Skills Board.

3.4 In other regions the Regional Skills Partnership (or equivalent) is chaired by the RDA Chair or Chief Executive, instead of a Skills Action Plan there is a priorities statement, which is fully embedded within the RES and is reflected in the individual RDA's skills policy.

3.5 This focus on priorities where joint working will add value, include Leadership and Management Development, Skills for Innovation, Enterprise Skills, STEM Skills, Higher Level Skills, with the over arching theme of Sectors, sub-priorities include IAG, NEETs, Migrant Workers. All of the above has been based on a detailed skills, employment and enterprise analysis (2007). The RSP has also developed the ESF Regional Strategic Framework, which aligns the RES and RSP Skills Priorities with the ESF priorities.

3.6 In the South West the RSP has established a process for monitoring not only the delivery of the RSP Priorities but also achievement of the ESF Regional Framework, Partners skills plans (including LSC, JCP and HE) as well as the health of the labour market. Local employment and skills boards are being actively supported through the RSP and its partners.

3.7 The RDAs' corporate plans also take account of the Leitch challenges and agreed actions where RDAs can add strategic value.

3.8 Future sub-regional strategies will have a need for strong monitoring and the ability to evaluate impact. These should feed in to the overarching regional body to ensure that best practice can be shared, and skills investment is targeted.

3.9 Following further changes to the skills sector that are currently undergoing consideration—there needs to be a clear policy about the provider base, in particular FE colleges. Funding changes, specialisation, sixth form presumption and the ability for a general college to seek approval to become a sixth form could have a detrimental impact on a locality in terms of its skills delivery.

3.10 Government need to be clear about the impact, scale and scope of changes giving a message about if, when and how colleges will be allowed to fail and any rescue packages that may be available. Risk mitigation then needs to be addressed in any sub-regional strategies—ensuring that the provider base remains stable in order to deliver.

4. THE ROLE OF THE LEARNING AND SKILLS COUNCIL (LSC) AND SECTOR SKILLS COUNCILS (SSC) IN THIS CONTEXT

4.1 The role of the LSC in this context needs to be about understanding the provider base—what enables best practice and what constitutes barriers to this. They need to establish an effective way to contract with providers and Colleges that will not destabilise the business for those performing providers, but enable that the funding becomes demand led. Business planning cycles need challenging and the ability to flex funding across streams should be investigated—allowing providers to then truly offer “business solutions". The LSC should then contract and monitor to this new way of working—preparing the ground for the Skills Funding Agency and sharing some innovative practice with the Young People's Funding Agency. Primary role of SSCs is to be the voice of employers for skills and therefore need to provide the evidence on demand from employers both now and in the future, in sufficient detail that funders and providers can make decisions.

4.2. SSCs need to focus on the VQ reform and bringing up the quality of delivery in the provider base. As the voice of sectors, SSCs need to exploit their employers to drive forward on the reform of qualifications and work this into the Qualifications Credit Framework. They also have a role to play in supporting providers in delivering and quality assuring this new provision. Skills delivery should be at a time, pace and place to suit the employer and their business need. SSCs also should be in pole position in evidencing the need for and supporting the establishment of National Skills Academies.

4.3 Key areas for SSC activity:

@UL@— Drive the development of occupational standards@/UL@

@UL@— Lead VQ reform and align the QCF to business need @/UL@

@UL@— Collating and communicating sectoral labour market data, including international intelligence@/UL@

@UL@— Raise employer engagement, demand and investment@/UL@

@UL@— Understanding what collective employer action is needed to address specific sector skills needs@/UL@

4.3 The Skills Action Plan in the West Midlands, includes statements about the roles of the LSC and SSCs—LSC is responsible for commissioning public investment in training below Level

4 and SSCs are responsible for ensuring qualifications meet market need and public funding only supports qualifications employers want and for developing a more flexible Qualifications Credit Framework.

4.5 In the South West the RSP, through its Sectors Operations Group, is working with all SSCs to assess the contribution of their SSA and NSA plans to the economic performance of the Region. The development of the Qualification Credit Framework is of vital importance to ensure greater flexibility in delivery and every effort needs to be given to it working as intended.

4.6 In Yorkshire and Humber the Regional Skills Partnership approach is firmly based on sectoral priorities and Sector Skills Councils are engaged to both provide and share regional labour market intelligence with the partnership network.

4.7 RDAs would also see that the role of Jobcentre Plus and DWP in its commissioning role would be critical for inclusion here—given that a key spine of Leitch is the integration of the employment and skills agendas.

5. THE RESPECTIVE ROLES OF THE FURTHER EDUCATION AND HIGHER EDUCATION SECTORS IN DELIVERING A REGION-BASED AGENDA FOR LEITCH AND THEIR COORDINATION WITH ONE OTHER;

5.1 The further and higher education sectors have key roles, together with private sector training providers, in delivering high quality provision that meets the needs of employers and individual learners within the context of regional and local economic priorities. Ultimately, training and learning at a time, pace and place to suit business need and that gives identified business benefits.

5.2 The Universities are focused in particular on progressing young people through undergraduate programmes, post graduate progression and workplace progression for those in work. Given the reality that most of the workforce will be in employment by 2020—HEIs need to become even more focussed on working with employers, flexing provision and creatively delivering higher level skills in the workplace. Foundation degree forward are important partners in this agenda.

5.3 Universities also have a key role to play in research, innovation and the translation of these into the skills landscape. Innovation needs to become a key driver for skills if businesses are to capture maximum productivity—British industry needs to constantly drive forward with its knowledge economy and innovative working practices to achieve the Leitch ambition. There is certainly a place for this to be shared at some levels with FE.

5.4 FE is the cornerstone for many of the building blocks outlined by Leitch, with enhanced estate and better virtual and blended learning they are ideally placed to work with both the employment and skills agendas. They are embedded in communities and could provide a vital stepping stone for individuals—embedding a lifelong learning culture within even those hardest to reach. But FE has some clear capacity issues. It needs to increase its flexibility around leadership, HR practices, provision, overhead costs and funding models in order for the sector to respond effectively to business., FE needs to create the demand led skills delivery needed by employers that will enable UK productivity and skills levels to meet the Leitch ambition. This needs to be addressed and more emphasis brought back to the Foster Report “Further education; raising skills and life chances" which identified the conflicting messages facing FE and the need for clarity of mission coupled with intense capacity building.

5.5 RDAs acknowledge the importance of both sectors and are actively engaged with the FE Colleges in a capacity building exercise around the RES as well as support and interaction with HEIs. Ultimately the two sectors need to dovetail together to give individuals and employers seamless skills delivery.

5.6 Linked to this there are issues for development around the Adult Advancement and Careers Service. Most regions have worked with their Higher Education Institutes on graduate IAG, these are initiatives that should be integrated into the mainstream. If this is not done then there is a danger of duplication or that the higher end of the spectrum is omitted, instead of bringing existing regional services in to complement the national service.

6. THE IMPACT ON STUDENTS OF THESE INITIATIVES, PARTICULARLY IN THE CONTEXT OF POLICIES FOR LIFELONG LEARNING.

6.1 Students as customers have to be of prime importance in the context of these policies. Developing competitive people is paramount to achieving Leitch, as is embedding a culture for lifelong learning and progression.

6.2 The skills landscape has a proliferation of initiatives and funding streams—confusing even for practitioners. To lessen negative impact there has to be a rationalisation of this along the principals of BSSP.

6.3 However, an important aspect is that learning is not devalued and skills progression is rewarded or recognised in some way. Workplace learning needs to carry a value with it that is on a par with academic learning, although employers should be supported to develop their own accredited training packages—it is vital that these are portable and have currency in the overall job market.

6.4 The section below sets out the impact of new policies / ways of working for individuals as well as for businesses and for training providers.

6.5 For individuals

@UL@a. a universal Adult Advancement and Careers service to enable individuals to make informed choices about their employment options and career development needs at any point in their lives whilst of working age; the quality of the IAG is critical in ensuring that people are appropriately informed of future career opportunities as a result of changes in the regional economy. This service also needs to be able to give access to advice about funding and educational maintenance support@/UL@

@UL@b. this needs to be underpinned by appropriate support to access high quality skills training through future Skills Accounts@/UL@

@UL@c. it is essential that there is a stronger integration between employment and skills, focusing resources on disadvantaged communities and individuals @/UL@

@UL@d. the essential development of a single integrated programme structure where learning undertaken through Train to Gain and Skills Accounts combines to provide a single evidence statement of an individual's learning achievements, facilitating skills and career progression@/UL@

@UL@e. accreditation of training undertaken internally whilst in employment, through the Qualifications and Credit Framework allowing for transfer of skills and training qualifications between employers, through a nationally recognised award system @/UL@

@UL@f. much clearer progression pathways between intermediate and higher level skills through an enhanced local and regional infrastructure of Lifelong Learning Networks bringing together all FE colleges and HE institutions to deliver a major expansion of Foundation Degrees and Level 4 work-based programmes through regional brokerage, principally Train to Gain @/UL@

@UL@g. Supporting the transition to an Integrated Brokerage, and ensuring a pro-skills service to help support the delivery of Train to Gain service.@/UL@

April 2008

@HR25@

Memorandum 37

Submission from Million+

INTRODUCTION1. Million+ is a university think-tank supported by 29 subscribing universities which

teach the majority of the UK's higher education students. We welcome the opportunity afforded by this Inquiry to submit evidence in relation to the implementation of Lord Leitch's Report and should be pleased to be called before the Committee to add to and expand on this evidence.

2. Million+ has welcomed the challenge set down by the Leitch Report for the UK to be world class in skills by 2020 measured by the top quartile of the OECD. The Government has set itself the target of moving from 29 per cent of adults educated to Level 4 to at least 40 per cent by 2020. Universities which subscribe to Million+ have educated over 3 million additional graduates, offer flexible opportunities to study, have long traditions of responding to the needs of students and employers and are outstandingly successful in ensuring that all those who can benefit from higher education also have the opportunity to access higher education regardless of age or prior acquisition of traditional qualifications. As Universities they are vital to the economy and to delivery of the Leitch agenda and make a significant contribution to the 40% target for higher level skills set by Leitch

3. In fact Leitch raises the bar for Universities in a number of ways:

@UL@— Through an increase in the progression of young people to University with the impact of higher attainment and universal participation to 18 at school, college in an apprenticeship or in other work-based training.@/UL@

@UL@— Driving up entry to higher education from the adult population, by driving up acquisition of Level 3 qualifications in the work-place and progression;@/UL@

@UL@— Fostering closer links between business and higher education, to deliver higher level skills in the workplace.@/UL@

4. Universities which subscribe to Million+ already deliver and are well-placed to respond further to a diverse student group, more part-time and an older student demographic gaining higher skills and graduate and postgraduate qualifications if national student support and institutional funding regimes support these objectives.

REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCIES AND LEITCH 5. There are examples of excellent working relationships between Million+ members,

HE regional associations and RDAs, However the experience overall is one of variable RDA performance. This is set against a background of RDA variable resources to create quite a complex picture of RDA capacity and effectiveness. RDAs themselves have also been required by Government to meet additional expectations without additional or the allocation of specific streams of funding eg responsibility for delivery of the Lambert Review's recommendations re university-business collaboration was transferred to RDAs without any additional resource allocation although it could be argued that this regional agenda has now been superseded in funding terms by allocation of increased funding via a national formula of Heif (the Higher Innovation Fund) from 2008/09. The RDAs will also be required to contribute funds to support the innovation agenda being promoted by the Technology Strategy Board—an agenda strongly supported by Million+.

6. Demand from employers is not a one-way street. Students and institutions also play some part in creating demand. For example, universities have a role in being responsive to student demand and new and emerging markets in terms of course and curriculum innovation and graduate supply. The work of universities in applied research and knowledge exchange with employers, including SMEs, can create demand within those organisations for higher level skills and professional development which in turn leads to curriculum innovation. HE institutions also innovate curriculum content and higher level skills to meet the changing needs of the “not-for-profit" sector and the public sector eg the public sector professionalisation agenda for para-professionals in health, education and

early years sectors have been made possible as a result of the engagement between Universities and public sector employers and relevant professional bodies.

7. These activities will impact in their own right on regional and localities priorities and will be themselves the course of innovation. It is therefore important to recognise that the relationship of HE to RDAs structures and the Leitch agenda is moderated by the work of universities with local and national employers in both the private and not for profit sectors and by their interrelationship with student demand not only within the UK but also from the EU and internationally. Many universities which subscribe to Million+ make very substantial contributions to their regional economies not only through raising aspiration and opening access routes to HE and delivering graduate supply; they also provide and promote access to applied research and knowledge exchange for business, SMEs and the public and “not for profit" sectors providing regional and local access to these activities (research and knowledge exchange) that would otherwise not exist. These Universities are, nonetheless, working in the context of the national economy with national employers (and are international universities in their partnerships and student recruitment).

8. The aspirations of Leitch in terms of higher level skills will only be met if the national and international role of universities which have strong regional and locality presences in terms of access, graduate supply and applied research are also recognised. In this context, RDA structures are clearly important but they are by no means the only mechanism for delivery of higher level skills.

REGIONAL VS NATIONAL AGENDAS AND LEITCH 9. Universities operate in national, EU and international markets for students, and

research with a responsibility and interest in contributing to local, regional and community life and economies. While it is certainly true to say that Universities operate within a regional context and have important relationships with the RDA in regional economic planning that relationship must be seen in relation to the national and international framework within which HE institutions also operate and trade.

10. Universities are uniquely placed within the global market for skills to take advantage of the highly mobile student population, to expose and prepare their students to the realities of international competition. They are a conduit for bringing specialist skills to the local labour market from outside the region or outside the country. They are also responsible for fostering local talent to meet local, national and international labour market demands. These activities should be recognised as integral to delivery of the world-class skills to which Leitch refers.

11. Therefore it is right that mainstream university funding operates on a national level and funds activities through national allocation. Million+ would be worried by any move to shift mainstream resources for Universities away from the national level. However, the national funding regimes do have weaknesses in the context of the Leitch agenda as well as in other areas. Some of these weaknesses were highlighted in a research report commissioned by Million+ from London Economics (A reality check: student finance regimes pub Nov 2007). This identified the exceptional complexity of the finance and student support systems in the UK and the effect on both participation and institutional resources of the differential and less favourable treatment of part-time students. We will be feeding our views on these problems to the independent review of variable fees in 2009 and others, including the problems arising in relation to the funding of provision for widening participation and mature students which also affect the delivery of the Leitch agenda.

12. Million+ also submitted evidence to the Committee's inquiry on the withdrawal of funding for equivalent or lower level qualifications (ELQ) and on the negative impact of the changes in funding on subscribing universities because of their strength in recruiting “atypical students. We welcome the Committee's conclusions that the withdrawal of funding should have been considered in the context of the wider debate on funding in 2009 and have requested that the Secretary of State review current proposals for transitional arrangements and exemptions for 08/09 and defer implementation in 08/09 in the light of the Committee's Report. We have further noted that DIUS did not meet statutory requirements and failed to conduct an evidence-based equality impact assessment in advance of the announcement. It remains our view that the Government's current policy to withdraw public funding from institutions for ELQ provision over a three year period, is likely to undermine the aspirations of Leitch in relation to the need to re-skill (as well as upskill) the

workforce to higher levels. This is important, bearing in mind the anticipated demographic and the exemptions policy bears little relationship to the need to respond to new and emerging areas, new professional body requirements and the need to provide access to HE to those who, for whatever reason, are not in the paid workforce or are “hidden learners".

ROLE OF LEARNING AND SKILLS COUNCIL (LSC) AND SECTOR SKILLS COUNCILS (SSCS) IN THE CONTEXT OF LEITCH IMPLEMENTATIONLearning and Skills Council

13. On 17 March 2008 DCSF and DIUS launched a consultation on a new national Skills Funding Agency and the delegation of commissioning for 16-19 learning to the Local Authority. Million+ remains cautious about the demand-led funding models the Skills Funding Agency has been established to deliver and we have reservations about the effectiveness of the “Train to Gain" programme in delivering higher level skills. We look forward to further evidence of effectiveness of Train to Gain and impact from the evaluation. In particular we are concerned about lack of evidence of “additionality" in training at Levels 2 and 3. This is set against a backdrop of success of Million+ subscribing universities working with employers and charging full cost for higher level training.

14. The variety of work-based provision and the cost to institutions of work-based provision are often underestimated; for example, work-based provision and learning delivered by universities includes foundation degrees and foundation degree placements, employer engagement activities, professional placements such as nursing, social care, accredited work experience, accrediting a company's own training or delivering in-company accredited training. Costs will include course development, delivery, mentoring and supervision costs and assessment / Quality Assurance (QA) procedure costs. In-company accredited training is likely to incur all of these costs areas. In addition, there are often “hidden" institutional costs associated with work based learning which need to be considered in any evaluation of costs compared to “face to face" delivery solely on university premises.

15. Million+ endorses the drive to increase participation at age 17 and the legislation to increase the statutory leaving and training age to 18, which all support progression to higher level learning. We understand the logic of devolving funding for young people's learning to Local Authorities to create coherence with funding for the 14-16 age group. But we are concerned that the proposed arrangements for ad-hoc groups of Local Authorities to commission services for 16-19s may risk undermining the drive to increase participation at age 18.

16. The success of the Local Authority strategic commissioning role as currently described depends on capacity and coherence at the local level to effectively commission from a range of public and private providers. It also requires an understanding, not only of needs at 16-19, but routes of employment and progression across geographic boundaries where learner, employment and employer needs may be complex and may not be coterminous with local government boundaries

17. There has been varying degrees of success in applying complex commissioning models effectively in other areas of the public sector, for example, PCTs / the NHS. There have also been some unintended consequences in terms of HE supply routes and HEI funding when NHS funding parameters at national and thereafter Strategic Health Authority level have been amended. The proposed model for commissioning of 16-19 provision by Local Authorities is untried and untested. We also have concerns about the complexity for FE colleges of Local Authorities developing ad hoc arrangements to co-ordinate funding. While we would not want a rigid regional structure placed on colleges and Local Authorities, it is important that the arrangements do not add another layer to an already crowded landscape with Local Authorities, Employment and Skills Boards and RDAs all having an interest in skills at the sub-regional level.

18. Progression from FE to HE is vital to the Leitch agenda. Currently 48% of HE applicants come from FE taking into account both A-level and other qualifications.. It is intended that, in addition to their role as strategic commissioners, Local Authorities will also have a performance management role. But there is no reference to the need for Local Authorities to review performance in terms of progression to HE and no requirement to include any involvement from or discussion with higher education in the commissioning process. These omissions will need to be

addressed but any new arrangements for 16-19 must not compromise progression to HE as a result of variations in funding provision, inexperience of and / or complexity in commissioning arrangements at local or sub-regional level.

Sector Skills Councils

19. Million+ experience of Sector Skills Councils is again one of variable performance. However, we have great concerns about the capacity of SSCs to reduce complexity and deliver qualification reform. We do not dispute the need for employers to be involved in the design of qualifications but this needs to be regulated and to operate within a clear framework to ensure and all qualifications must support progression and prepare potential HE entrants for higher level learning. If not properly regulated, SSCs agreeing baskets of units proposed by employers will risk the robustness of the qualifications, to the detriment of the individual learner's future prospects of progression and it is absolutely crucial to learners that qualifications are transferable. This approach also seems to be counter-intuitive to the Government's proposals to streamline school / college qualifications. The involvement of SSCs in the qualification framework appears contradictory and we are concerned that public funding may also be tied or even limited to SSC qualifications. We see no merit in an ever more complex range of educational qualifications agreed by SSCs and others.

20. As far as Universities are concerned, qualifications also provide a valuable screening mechanism for admission and progression to higher level skills. A proliferation of qualifications from SSCs therefore has the potential to make the job of matching individuals, institutions and courses more difficult. Anything that makes the job of matching more difficult risks damaging the Leitch agenda because potential students need to be encouraged to progress and be confident that they can step back onto the qualifications “ladder" without risking failure. In particular, they need to feel confident that they will not be faced with undue difficulties and risk withdrawing from rather than successfully achieving a higher level qualification. So-called HE “drop out" comes at a resource cost to the HE institution but it also comes at a high cost to the individual in terms of lost self esteem. It will also be at a cost to the country in terms of the promotion of the dynamic and progressive skills base to which the Leitch agenda aspires.

21. Where there is reform of qualifications, care must be taken that Universities are involved and consulted at every step of the way. The development of diplomas is a good example of collaborative working where we hope there will be a positive outcome for the widening participation of young people. It is by no means clear that the design and award of qualifications by SSCs and FE Colleges will be backed by the same development work with HE and there needs to be further consideration of the interrelationship with HE. We are further concerned that, regardless of UCAS points, a hierarchy of value will be applied by some HE institutions in their HE admissions criteria to SSC qualifications. The transparency and credibility of any new SSC qualifications is not just a matter for the SSC and / or employers in the sector: all employers, students and universities would need to be convinced that an SSC qualification had transferability and currency in terms of wider employment and learner progression.

Higher Education, Further Education and Leitch

22. Universities and FE colleges interface on many different levels. One key interface is that FE provides an important supply route of students to Universities. 48% of HE students with A-level and other qualifications currently come from FE. As outlined, colleges working effectively as feeders are a meaningful source of on-going progression to HE both for younger and more mature learners. This works best where there is good information and communication between the institutions about prospective students to aid the matching process. This can work on a local or regional basis, but can also be as a result of specialisation or other close relationships and partnerships (of which there are many).

23. Million+ believes the relationship between HE and FE should be one of collaboration, not competition. There is a common misconception about FE capacity to deliver higher level learning with only 5.5% of HE currently delivered in FE. Higher level learning is done most effectively when done in partnership with the expertise of an HEI. Universities which subscribe to Million+ have considerable expertise in off-site delivery, working in the domestic but also the international context promoting and delivering progression and access to higher level and

postgraduate qualifications. These Universities have supported Higher Education Centres (HECs) as part of the HEI's activities and often in collaboration with FE but HECs should not be seen on a “stand-alone" basis. Experience suggests that there is a minimum geographical or demographic footprint for an HEI and there are important economies of scale that increase quality for students.

24. Complexity creeps into the interface between FE and University where there is uncertainty about respective roles, funding and qualifications—as occurred in the Government's proposals to extend foundation degree awarding powers to colleges, notwithstanding the partnership and franchise arrangements between HE and FE that were and are in place. Alongside part-time provision, work based higher level qualifications, foundation degrees and apprenticeships are in themselves important developments to deliver choice to the learner and to widen participation. However, there must be transparency and information for both students and employers about the quality and the returns of the different courses and routes on offer to the individual and there must be the potential for progression to HE in order to fulfil the Leitch aspirations.

25. We welcome in particular DCSF's commitment to progression routes to HE from apprenticeships as set out in their March 2008 document “Promoting Achievement, Valuing Success: a strategy for 14-19 qualifications". In order to deliver this and as part of the Leitch agenda, we would reiterate the need for there to be mechanisms (on similar lines to diplomas) to secure compatibility of apprenticeship skills and curriculum with higher level skills progression. Skill requirements and curriculum design change and are dynamic. Many HEIs with good records of promoting the employability of their students have experience in delivering practice-based curricula, applied research and placements which are all responsive to changing higher level skills requirements. Universities should be important partners in ensuring that qualifications deliver relevance for learners and that lower level qualifications deliver the potential for progression.

26. The risks of complexity are just as high when looking at funding regimes. As noted above, we believe that the relatively straightforward policy intention behind the ELQ decision will lead to serious adverse consequences for groups of individuals and institutions. When developing new funding models Hefce, LSC and the new Skills Funding Agency must take decisions with the maximum amount of information about the consequences. For example, differential funding for routes such as foundation degrees and co-funding of HE could lead to serious market distortion to the detriment of choice for the learner and the Leitch agenda.

Implementing Leitch: impact on students

27. There is broad consensus about the policy aim of increasing the proportion of part-time learners and to recruit older learners, including those with experience in the workforce and studying at higher levels. Our view is that the Leitch report underestimates the amount of part-time learning that is currently undertaken in Universities. Million+ previously submitted evidence to the Committee outlining reasons why many HE part-time students are “hidden" to employers, because they are looking to move on from a current employer, to retrain, or are with employers who are not supportive. There are also students who are out of or returning to work. All these factors emphasise the need for a strong individual route back into higher level learning, not one based around or reliant on employer funding and “co-operation".

28. Leitch concludes that funding for the world class skills ambition must come from a tripartite of employer, individual and state. While it is true that the benefits are spread, the logic does not follow that all parties must participate equally in all circumstances. Universities which subscribe to Million + are at the cutting edge of university-employer links with some examples of excellent practice. We would agree with the importance of working with employers to ensure that graduates have the attributes required and therefore stand a good chance in a competitive labour market. However, the emphasis on co-funding and work-place development must not be at the detriment of independent workers and potential workers seeking to advance their skills.

29. We see the announcement in Budget 2008 that Skills Accounts will be introduced from 2010 as an endorsement of the importance of the individual route back into learning which could provide flexibility for learners but we have concerns about operation and funding implications. Demand-side funding model and the individual choice agenda have the potential to undermine the unit of public resource for institutions by, for example, underestimating administration and overhead

costs of running a course and the need for stability in year-on-year funding. There is also some evidence that institutions end-up cross-subsidising study where the “price" of Skills Account funding does not meet the cost of delivery. While we are supportive of the principle of raising awareness of entitlement to learning, we are cautious about Skills Accounts and their potential to increase progression. Our experience points to the importance to students of certainty in financial support and paid time-off from the employer for those in work, in order to make a return to learning a viable option. We remain concerned not to lose sight of the importance of the individual when trying to stimulate new co-operation between business and HEIs but the extent to which Skills Accounts deliver additionality in terms of numbers and flexibility for individuals choosing to access Level 2 and 3 qualifications independently from their employers will need careful evaluation alongside the impact of the Accounts on institutional funding.

CONCLUSION30. The Leitch ambitions cannot be delivered without HEIs working to their strengths.

Universities which subscribe to Million+ are already well established in widening participation, employer engagement and delivering to a demanding student population and expect to play a key role in delivering on the Government's target to have at least 40% of the workforce with a level 4 qualification by 2020. However this ambition cannot be delivered through regional or employer agendas alone. Successful reform and capacity building can only occur on the back of rigorous evaluation and a deeper understanding of what HEIs are already delivering—and a proper evaluation of the limitations of current student support and institutional funding regimes in terms of mature and part-time students.

April 2008

@HR25@

Memorandum 38

Submission from UNITE and Civil Service Pensioners' Alliance (CSPA)

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY1.1 The Civil Service Pensioner's Alliance (CSPA) and UNITE welcome the IUS Select

Committee Inquiry into the implementation of skills and training policy following the Leitch Report.

1.2 We acknowledge that the implementation of the Leitch Review, and the emphasis on the development of the skills and qualifications of those of working age, is essential to ensure international competitiveness and economic wellbeing.

1.3 However, our members have expressed concerns over the consequential redistribution of funding, specifically the reduction in funding for personal development, community learning and other “first-step", non qualification bearing adult learning and further education provision. This has a disproportionate and negative impact on older adult learners who are often the least able to cope.

1.4 The provision of informal adult learning should be a cross-cutting Government objective, and should not just be looked at within the confines of the skills agenda. Evidence suggests that active older people are less likely to need health and social support if they participate in informal learning103. Therefore, informal learning can contribute to “active ageing" which will increase in importance, given the UK's rapidly ageing population. Consequently, we believe that cutting funding for informal adult education is something of a false economy.

2. INTRODUCTION2.1 The Civil Service Pensioner's Alliance is a voluntary body which campaigns on

behalf of the 500,000 civil service pensioners. The CSPA has approximately 65,000 members in the UK, organised into 100 local groups with membership drawn from all grades and all departments of the civil service and related bodies.

2.2 UNITE, the National Federation of Royal Mail and BT Pensioners, is the oldest and largest occupational pensioners' organisation in the UK, with over 100,000 members nationwide.

2.3 Both organisations campaign on behalf of their members, and older people more generally, on issues such as improving pensions, health services and equality.

2.4 The CSPA and UNITE welcome the opportunity to respond to this inquiry. Our members have a keen interest in learning, particularly learning for enjoyment, personal fulfilment and stimulation. Given the reductions in funding catalysed by the Leitch Review, we are grateful for the opportunity to comment on the impact on older students.

2.5 The Innovation, Universities and Skills Committee has invited views on the impact of Leitch on the structures of FE, HE and lifelong learning. We have, however, limited our evidence to the impact of new initiatives on students, particularly older students in the context of informal adult learning.

3. THE IMPACT OF LEITCH ON STUDENTS3.1 The Government's strategic focus on raising the skills of workers has led to a

concentration on funding basic skills, Level 2 and Level 3 qualifications for the under 25s. This has left less funding available for other forms of learning, including the non-vocational courses valued by many of our members. Non-vocational learning providers are being required to reduce costs; either by limiting student places or by limiting concessionary fees. This has resulted in a reduction in the number of people aged 60 and over participating in Adult Community Learning of 12% between 2005 and 2006 104.

103 Schuller et al, The Benefits of Learning, University of London, 2004.104 National Statistics Press Release, Learning and Skills Council.

3.2 Correspondence from our members suggests that the reduction in concessionary fees has impacted heavily upon their ability to participate. Furthermore, increases in fees can create a “vicious circle" whereby courses are axed due to a lack of interest and lecturers are therefore unable to provide courses. For example, a severely deaf member has recently reported that a charge of £165 was recently levied for her lip reading class, which was previously free. As almost all members of the class were pensioners, who felt unable to meet this cost, the course did not run.

3.3 Some colleges and local authorities who are removing concessions for older people are using the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006 to justify their actions. As there have been no test cases on this, it is not possible to say whether this is unlawful. It seems that removing concessions for retired people has been viewed as the easiest solution for providers.

3.4 We believe that the fee structure for non-vocational learning should be improved so that those on low and fixed incomes, such as most pensioners, are able to participate. At present, a strategy designed to increase inclusion (the Leitch Review) has excluded older people from opportunities that would improve civic participation, result in better health and contribute to greater individual well-being and fulfilment.

3.5 Learning in retirement has significant benefits including improved health and well-being. This has a clear impact on local government and health budgets. Therefore, Government should safeguard non-vocational learning, particularly for those on low, fixed incomes or with poor health.

3.6 We believe that increased support from the Government is vital to ensure the successful implementation of their lifelong learning policy. Informal adult learning should be afforded a higher priority across Government, both in terms of recognition of its impact and in terms of funding.

3.7 Furthermore, there should be more clarity around the funding streams available for informal adult learning in each department and an agreed understanding of the concept across Government so that civil servants and those trying to access the resources could be directed more efficiently.

4. CONCLUSIONS4.1 Informal adult learning for older people has a positive impact, both in terms of

physical and mental stimulation and a greater involvement in community activity. Leads to greater social inclusion.

4.2 Although we applaud the objectives of Leitch, we believe that an expansion of learning provision for retired people is needed, to improve civic participation, improve health and lead to greater well-being and fulfilment.

4.3 UNITE and the Civil Service Pensioners' Alliance would welcome the opportunity to present further information to the IUS Select Committee in writing or in person.

April 2008

@HR25@

Memorandum 39

Submission from GoSkills

RESUMEGood progress is being made in the integration of skills strategies through the adoption

through mutual agreement of the partners of a regional skills action plan. The LSC and SSCs work well together in the region. The recent changes to give greater importance to localities in relation to skills and employment pose particular challenges to individual SSCs. More collective SSC activity is required in response.

@UL@— the responses of RDAs to Leitch and how coherent and structured these are; @/UL@

In the West Midlands (WM), the RDA, Advantage West Midlands (AWM) has collaborated well with its other WM regional partners in agreeing an Action Plan geared to the Leitch demands. The Network of SSCs is shortly to meet the collective RDAs to discuss (inter alia) joint priorities in relation to Leitch. We are unable to comment further on the coherence of the RDA response to Leitch.

@UL@— what the existing regional structures of delivery are and what sub-regional strategies may be required; @/UL@

GoSkills, through its CEO, chairs the Network of SSCs in the West Midlands. The Network worked closely with the Regional Skills Partnership (RSP) in order to draw up the first Skills Action Plan of any Region. This apportions roles to each of the key partners. The targets in the Action Plan relate Leitch to the context of the West Midlands.

GoSkills would recommend that each RSP be tasked with drawing up a Skills Action Plan.

The RSP is working well in the region. The LSC and the Network of SSCs meet quarterly as part of the strategic partnership we have agreed.

The changes announced in relation to the funding of 14-19 education will mean that the Network as such will need to link with probably at least three clusters of local authorities in the WM but is well placed to do that in view of the existing level of partnership working in the region and the structure post-SSDA the Network is putting in place. The demand on individual SSCs is such that most will need to work in a collective way at on 14-19 matters at regional level, and in a strategic way at national level with the local authority representative bodies.

Individual Local Employment Partnerships pose problems of engagement for most SSCs. GoSkills believes a possible approach is for the Network regionally to be the first point of contact for LEPs and individual SSCs. It makes sense that where a major employer is an LEP focus that the relevant SSC is fully involved in the Partnership.

These considerations argue for a greater regional capacity than some SSCs currently possess.

@UL@— the role of the Learning and Skills Council and Sector Skills Councils in this context; @/UL@

The driver for the regional Skills Action Plan was the via the Regional Minister to LSC in partnership with Advantage West Midlands. LSC drafted the plan and discussed it with the Network of SSCs at an event the Network organised to involve SSCs, employers and other players such as the Engineering Employers` Federation. Since then LSC has agreed significant resources over two years for the Network collectively to deliver some of the key targets in relation to the Plan, including employer engagement around Train to Gain. This is likely to be matched by the Alliance of Sector Skills Councils. The Network enjoys an excellent working relationship with the LSC in the Region. An LSC officer currently works on secondment to the Network for part of her time.

@UL@— the respective roles of the further education and higher education sectors in delivering a region-based agenda for Leitch and their coordination with one other; and@/UL@

The Association of Colleges (AoC) and the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) are both represented on the RSP. AoC has invited member colleges to form networks around each of the original 14 Diploma lines of learning under the Chairmanship of a College Principal. The Principal of Stoke on Trent College chairs the Travel and Tourism cluster, in which GoSkills has an interest. It is proposed that regional hubs be set up comprising colleges in each region with the Chair championing that area of work regionally. We strongly support this way of working.

@UL@— the impact on students of these initiatives, particularly in the context of policies for lifelong learning. @/UL@

GoSkills has no comment to make in relation to full time students except to say that good working links are clearly necessary between individual Diploma consortia and relevant SSCs in relation to career progression and employer engagement. In relation to work-based learners, it is helpful that skills brokerage is to be fully integrated with business support under the RDAs as it is right that skills should be reviewed in the context of business priorities. GoSkills hopes that the reforms made recently to the Train to Gain service will be consolidated and built upon when RDAs assume responsibility for this service.

April 2008

@HR25@

Memorandum 40

Submission from the Centre for Enterprise (CFE)

INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE1. CFE is pleased to make this submission to the Innovation, Universities, Science and

Skills Committee Submission and welcomes the scrutiny it is giving to the implementation of the Leitch Review of Skills.

2. Since the publication of Skills in Context 1.0 in October 2005, CFE has aimed to stimulate a conversation around public policy in the area of skills, enterprise and economic development. At the request of Future Skills Scotland we further developed the argument in Skills in Context 2.0 (March 2007) to suggest that:

@UL@— Productivity performance is not determined by skills level alone@/UL@

@UL@— Skills are often a derived concern in company decision-making linked to product marketing and the organisational processes@/UL@

@UL@— A purely demand-led approach might not lead a highly skilled workforce, employers often choosing a more profitable, low-skill route @/UL@

3. In short, do employers share the same level of ambition that is reflected in Lord Leitch's report? Is the demand out there demanding enough?

4. Much of our work, as a research and development not for profit company, has been at a sub-national level looking at the implementation of policy at local, sub-regional and regional tiers of government and its agencies.

5. Part of this work has included market research in the field of higher education and employer engagement, and Employment and Skills Boards (ESBs). See sections 3 and 4 for an abstract of evidence from our reports on these areas of the post Leitch landscape.

6. These reports highlight issues with both supply-side and demand-side reforms initiated by the Leitch review. In particular, we draw attention to:

@UL@— The need for a more sophisticated understanding of the extent and nature of the demand for higher level skills at a regional level@/UL@

@UL@— The fact that businesses that do invest in higher level skills really do invest, but the majority do not invest at all and within that cohort over half regard themselves as what our research characterises as “hard" nos to training (ie, the principal reason not to train is a result of a conscious business case)@/UL@

@UL@— Employers do not recognise administrative boundaries and are exasperated by multiple approaches by local agencies and brokers without any seeming sense of coordination @/UL@

@UL@— Demand-led employment and skills partnerships offer real advantages to the successful integration of the employment and skills agenda, meeting local employers' recruitment and training needs and upskilling the local population@/UL@

@UL@— The lack of a single governmental voice on whether ESBs are supported or not, creating confusion across Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) and their regions and hesitation in moving forward with any changes to their current landscape in response to Leitch@/UL@

7. Looking at the implementation of the Leitch aspirations at a sub-national level points to the central question raised in number of government reports: what is the right geographical level of intervention for skills development and economic planning?

8. Our concern is that these two aspects to the UK's success in the global market place have become disconnected since Leitch—or at least less connected. No one can disagree with the ambitious skills targets in Leitch, so long as in the process we do not lose sight of the fact that the issue of skills is only a proportion of the current productivity gap.

9. An overly ambitious skills agenda runs the risk of devaluing our longer term skills goals if divorced from the wider economic context.

THE REGIONAL CONTEXT10. Since 1997, regional policy has been pursued through a three part regional structure

of regional assemblies, Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) and government offices. These organisations have had delegated, rather than devolved authority. The purpose of this approach was to:

@UL@— Reflect the differences in regions' economic performance and the need for different approaches to enable regions to fulfil their economic potential@/UL@

@UL@— Capture the strategic perspective that regional bodies bring to policy development and spatial decision making, bringing together a range of interests to better align plans and funding@/UL@

@UL@— Pragmatically address issues which cross local authority boundaries and ensure resources are invested effectively across wider areas @/UL@

11. This tripartite regional governance structure resulted in a complex environment in which to develop regional strategies, including those for skills. It also led to a confusing picture of formal and informal partnerships, forums and networks, some of which have been successful and influential, others less so.

12. The move in 2001 to “Single Pot" funding required RDAs to develop Frameworks for Regional Employment and Skills Action (FRESAs) to provide a strategic context for the investment of regional funds for skills and employment and to identify regional priorities with other partners.

13. After the skills strategies of 2003 and 2005105, there was increased emphasis at a regional level on pooling budgets and strengthening integrating mechanisms. Where budget pooling was piloted, it was restricted to pots of development funding (rather than recurrent budgets) combined with the so-called “dual-key" (LSC and RDA) commissioning process.

14. More recently Government Offices, which initially led innovative approaches to learning and skills like the Testbed Learning Communities work, have become increasingly focused on the children and young people's agenda. This has limited the opportunities Government Offices have to influence RDAs' agendas for adult skills, and the ability to support local authorities to include adult skills in the design of local area agreements and local community strategies which will, looking forward, become the basis for the new regional integrated strategies.

15. In August 2005, the LSC's Agenda for Change programme led to the creation of a regional infrastructure for the organisation but at the same time created a degree of organisational turbulence that meant the LSC increasingly focussed on meeting targets rather than on the planned strategic development with regional partners. The LSC has not been consistent as to whether its role is in the regional implementation of national policy, or as a part of a more sophisticated model of regional policy development within a national framework.

16. Since Leitch, there have been more explicit tensions between national and regional policies around skills. While national skills policy, implemented by the LSC, has been increasingly focused on the delivery and achievement of full qualifications at or below level 2, RDAs have been

105 21st Century Skills: Realising our Potential—Individuals, Employers, Nation, (July 2003) Getting on in business, getting on at work, (March 2005)

calling for investment in higher level skills, in “soft" skills, and for more flexible provision that is more responsive to the needs of employers. Examples exist of some regional mediation of the demand-led approach based on qualifications.

17. In addition to a tension around the right skills levels required, there has been a further one that is most simply expressed in terms of regions focusing on a wider range of drivers for productivity than the Leitch skills agenda. Analyses of these were well developed before Leitch, but the primacy of the skills has been to the detriment of more sophisticated thinking around the drivers of sustainable economic development. How to measure success was less well developed.

18. In terms of the role of Sector Skills Councils, there has been a focus on priority sectors within Regional Economic Strategies and Regional Skills Partnerships' plans which have in turn influenced LSC adult skills priorities. There are potential tensions between sectoral and regional approaches to skills policy which risk further confusion for both employers and learners. It is recognised that some sectors might require a more regional approach than others that are better planned for nationally (for example, creative and media).

19. Leitch advocated a “network of employer-led Employment and Skills Boards". He recommended that ESBs would inform how “training [can] be more relevant to the needs of the local labour market" and should “scrutinise the functioning of local careers and employment information to ensure that it better reflects employer needs"106. Such boards would bring together the skills and employment agendas within an area and “strengthen the employer voice" in influencing and informing this agenda.

20. Government felt that a structured network of boards responsible for reporting to the new Employment and Skills Commission was overly prescriptive in meeting local economic development needs. However, there was support indicated for the concept of ESBs to function at a sub-regional level—promoting economic prosperity, bringing together the employment and skills agendas and strengthening the employer voice in identifying priorities107.

21. The Sub-National Review (July 2007)108 supported ESBs and stated “it is at this [sub-national] level that local employer-led Employment and Skills boards should operate". There is recognition that these boards need to work flexibly to meet different needs in different areas. The Leitch Implementation Plan (July 2007109) states ESBs “will rationalise and build on successful city, employer coalitions and other regional models". It also calls for the development of ESBs to be based on the sharing of “good practice" rather than prescribing specific models and processes. The report also recognises that ESBs may not be an appropriate mechanism within some areas and leaves it to “local partners to decide" if they are appropriate within their area. The Lyons Inquiry (March 2007)110

also supported the concept of ESBs and called for “local authorities to play an appropriate role".

REGIONAL DELIVERY STRUCTURES: EMPLOYMENT AND SKILLS BOARDS22. Our evidence draws on CFE's recent national review of demand-led employment

and skills partnerships, conducted through desk based research and consultation and case study development, with representatives across all regions. From our research, evidence shows that many stakeholders welcomed the progress made nationally on the employment and skills agenda particularly in publications such as the Leitch Review of Skills and the following implementation plan and the Sub-National Review. However, it was clear that progress in terms of establishing ESBs has been tentative as regions await guidance from the national level signalling support (or otherwise) for ESBs and providing a steer on the role they should play. Many also called for the Commission to

106 Leitch Review of Skills (December 2006) p. 24107 Strong and Prosperous Communities: Local Government White Paper (October 2006) Department for Communities and Local Government, London also supports this and “encourage Employment and Skills Boards to be formed in core cities" to support economic development 108 Review of Sub-National Economic Development and Regeneration (July 2007) HM Treasury: London109 World Class Skills: Implementing the Leitch Review of Skills in England (July 2007), HM-Treasury: London110 Lyons Inquiry into Local Government—Place-Shaping: A shared ambition for the future of local government (March 2007) HM Treasury: London

take on the role of a national champion, supported by government departments providing a single voice and driving quality in partnership arrangements.

23. RDAs have responded to Leitch agenda in a range of ways with approaches varying widely both within and between regions. In terms of development of ESBs, or demand-led employment and skills partnerships, most arrangements can be categorised into one of five “types". These include: Employment and Skills Boards, Employer Coalitions and Fair Cities Boards, City Growth, Skills and Productivity Alliances, and Local Strategic Partnership employment and skills sub-groups established to feed directly into Local Area Agreements.

24. Those partnerships formally calling themselves ESBs exist to some extent within all regions. Some have been established for one or two years, however most are more recent developments, often established in response to the publication of the Leitch Review and are therefore still in the early stages of development. The map below shows where ESBs and similar demand-led employment and skills partnerships are in operation.

@LT@IMG SRC=@Q@48we15.gif@Q@@GT@

25. In establishing ESBs, RDAs have tended to follow one of three approaches:

@UL@— A “coordinating" role, proactively supporting the development of ESBs across their region@/UL@

@UL@— Liaising with local partnerships to gain a sense of developments within their region, taking a “monitoring" approach @/UL@

@UL@— “Waiting" for further guidance before taking any action. @/UL@

26. There is evidence that where established and operating effectively with support from the RDA and strong membership from both the public and private sector ESBs offer the following advantages:

@UL@— Creating local and sub-regional links to the regional agenda and planning@/UL@

@UL@— Linking up programmes on the ground like Train to Gain, the Skills Pledge, Local Employment Partnerships and Work Trials, Local Area Agreements (LAA), the development of Multi-Area Agreements (MAA) and City Strategies.@/UL@

@UL@— Streamlining the landscape by linking into existing arrangements such as Employer Coalitions, Local Strategic Partnerships and other existing economic partnerships. @/UL@

27. To some extent differential approaches have provided the opportunity for areas to develop arrangements appropriate for their area. However, evidence shows that these benefits are often outweighed by the drawbacks of having no guidance or national steer on development of demand-led employment and skills arrangements. The lack of guidance and national steer has had the following impact:

@UL@— Confusion and hesitation within regions in making progress on this agenda@/UL@

@UL@— Risk of duplication and overlap of employment and skills partnership arrangements @/UL@

@UL@— Risk of poor quality and lack of accountability @/UL@

@UL@— Lack of buy-in to achieve a demand-led approach @/UL@HIGHER EDUCATION DELIVERING A REGION-BASED AGENDA FOR LEITCH?

28. The Leitch recommendation that 40% of the population aged 19 to State Pension Age should be qualified to Level 4 or above by 2020 represents a significant challenge to the HE

sector—in 2005 the figure was around 28%. The Review gave a clear indication of where this growth should come from: “workforce development and increased employer engagement."111

29. The focus on employer engagement is understandable; we know that 70% of the 2020 workforce has already left compulsory education112. At both a national and regional level, public policy tends to focus on the need to reform the supply of higher level skills. We agree that this is a necessary process; HEIs will increasingly need to develop high quality provision that is relevant to the needs of business and can be delivered in a flexible way.

30. At the same time, this process must be informed by a more sophisticated understanding of the extent and nature of the demand for higher level skills. It was this central proposition that led us to undertake a programme of research activity in the East Midlands113.

31. The report identified that 39% of businesses surveyed had undertaken higher level skills training and 61% had not114. We characterise businesses that do not invest in higher level skills as “soft" nos or “hard" nos. The “soft" nos represent businesses that have not undertaken higher level skills in the preceding 12 months but indicated that they would “definitely" or “maybe" do so in the next 12 months. The “hard" nos represent businesses that have not undertaken higher level skills in the past 12 months and reported that they were “unlikely" or “definitely not" inclined to do so in the next 12 months.

@LT@IMG SRC=@Q@48we16.gif@Q@@GT@

32. Our research tells us that businesses that do invest in higher level skills really invest. On balance they pay for qualifications and they know the reasons for buying and the anticipated returns. These do not fit the caricature of businesses not interested in qualifications—in a mature market each agent knows the rules and by reason of their trade has chosen to accept them. There is little evidence of market failure here.

33. We must accept that for many of those that do not invest, this is the result of a similarly mature decision making process. The majority of these businesses reported that they had not undertaken higher level skills training because they saw no benefit to their business in doing so. We are not necessarily talking about owners of dark, satanic mills here; all these businesses had undertaken some training during the preceding 12 months. The training “habit" was therefore well developed, but this did not translate to investing in skills at higher levels.

34. The reality is that these businesses will only start to undertake higher level skills training if there is a change to the market context in which they think about their business strategies. In other words, the “hard" nos can only be tackled as part of a wider economic development strategy, in which HEIs play a role alongside a much wider cast of characters.

35. Regions have a potential role to play here, but only if they develop a more sophisticated understanding of the nature of demand. Historically, policy makers have assumed that all businesses would invest more in their workforce, if only higher level skills were easier to find (eg, through the extension of Train to Gain) or could be made more financially attractive. Our research does not support this view: financial costs and lack of awareness were only cited as reasons for not undertaking higher level skills training by a small minority of businesses.

36. Viewing all businesses through the same lens runs the risk of making deadweight interventions, offering inducements to those businesses that already invest, or ineffective ones to those businesses where it just doesn't make sense to do so.

111 Leitch Review of Skills (2006), op cit 112 Leitch Review of Skills (2006), op cit113 Known unknowns—the demand for higher level skills from businesses.114 The survey focused on businesses based in the East Midlands that employ more than 25 staff. This group accounts for 74% of the region's private sector workforce. All the businesses surveyed has undertaken some general training during the preceding 12 months.

37. As relatively autonomous institutions, it is also worth remembering that not all HEIs need or want to engage with employers to deliver workforce training. Furthermore, the sort of levers and incentives that can be deployed to effect change in the Further Education sector do not have the same impact in Higher Education.

38. HEIs are less likely than FE colleges to see their market in regional terms. Non-regional HEIs account for 14% of the higher level skills market in the East Midlands; regional HEIs are likely to have a similar market share in other regions. On this basis, a purely regional assessment of market share is always likely to underplay the success of HEIs with a predominantly national or international (rather than regional) customer base.

LOOKING FORWARD39. There are a number of areas that lack current evidence-bases and therefore remain

largely uncontested:

@UL@— Differences in the relationship between skills levels, productivity and skills utilisation@/UL@

@UL@— The nature of employer demand for skills and the different levels of demand in those enterprises that will have most impact on economic development in current global capital investment markets@/UL@

40. This committee has concerned itself with the structure and roles of public institutions delivering the Leitch agenda, which again is built on the presumption that demand from employers will automatically increase as the volume and quality of skills increases. Can we equally reassure ourselves that business is changing its strategies to fully utilise any expansion in skills created by the Leitch agenda?

April 2008

@HR25@

Memorandum 41

Submission from the National Institute of Adult Continuing Education (NIACE)

1. The National Institute of Adult Continuing Education (NIACE) is the leading non-governmental organisation for England and Wales representing the interests of adult learners, potential learners, and those who make provision for them. NIACE is a membership organisation and a registered charity, advocating increased opportunities for adult learning and for better quality provision. It is particularly concerned to advance the interests of those who have benefited least from initial education and training.

2. NIACE has offered consistent public support for the skills strategy since its inception while also working to make it more effective in meeting the needs of adult learners. This memorandum considers the issues posed in the committee's press notice of the 4th of March 2008, specifically the impact of Leitch on students and lifelong learning.

IMPACT OF LEITCH ON LEARNER NUMBERS3. Our primary concern is that falling numbers of adult participation in learning

suggest that the strategies chosen to implement Leitch and to create more individual and employer demand for learning are not working to their fullest capacity. Whilst revealing and successfully meeting new demand in the workplace, strategies to implement Leitch are also unintentionally reducing opportunities for other adult learners, many of whom were learning in colleges and community settings to strengthen skills for the workplace.

4. The 2007 NIACE Survey on Adult Participation in Learning115 shows a significant decline of employed people participating in learning and, in particular, a drop in participation by part-time workers. From 2006 to 2007, current or recent participation levels fell by 8 percentage points for part timers and by 2 percentage points for full time workers. It is especially worrying that this has occurred in the very groups Government is keen to encourage to learn through Train to Gain. The 2008 survey will be publicly available on the 13th of May. Initial analysis of the data shows a further and statistically significant drop in participation of current and recent learning of 3%. The decline since 2007 is notable among respondents in full-time employment (-4%), in social grade C2 (-6%) and among 25—34 year olds (-7%). NIACE will gladly provide the Committee with further information once it is published.

Table 1.

@LT@IMG SRC=@Q@48we17.gif@Q@@GT@

5. Table 1. illustrates the loss of 1.4 million adult learners in courses funded by the LSC over the last three years. The Government's 2007 Statistical First Release116 rationalises this loss by saying:

@UL@For key programmes, learner numbers have not only increased as set out by Government policy, but have done so at a much faster rate than originally expected. As a consequence, the number of funded adult learners on lower priority programmes has reduced more rapidly than envisaged (p.2).@/UL@

6. However, statistics published by DIUS, The Level of Highest Qualification Held by Adults: England 2007 show that current growth rates for level attainment would not be enough to achieve either Level 2 or Level 3 targets set for 2011. For example, if the current growth rate for achieving a Level 2 qualification is simply maintained the Government target will be missed by around 1.38 million adults.

115 Aldridge, Fiona and Alan Tuckett (2007) The road to nowhere? Leicester: NIACE.116 Further Education, Work Based Learning, Train to Gain and Adult and Community Learning—Learner Numbers in England: 2006/07

7. Furthermore the age groups with the largest numbers of adults without a level 2 qualification and hence vital to reach the target are generally older ones: 40-44 (815,564 adults), 35-39 (769,120 adults) and 55-64 (743,904 adults). NIACE is concerned that if the Government strategies based on Train to Gain and “full fat" qualifications are not made more flexible and attuned to the needs of adult learners, demand will not be sufficient for the targets to be reached.

8. Adults tend to benefit more and are more likely to opt for short updating programmes that build on knowledge acquired through experience rather than “full fat" courses. In practical terms these programmes are also more easily coordinated with the competing demands in an adult's life. Policies for higher education recognise that credits and bite-sized units of learning are essential to involve both individuals and businesses. However for lower level skills a policy focus where funding support is limited to adults willing to commit to full qualifications is a major deterrent. For almost a decade, Government has been committed to the development of a unit-based credit system in further education and training; without it many adults will continue to miss out. The Select Committee has already expressed concern over the problems of targeted funding117 and Government has dismissed its recommendations citing market failure and the high wage returns for full qualifications:

@UL@The Government has a clear rationale for focusing on first and full qualifications|We believe Government should focus its resources on addressing market failures|that means ensuring all adults possess a full level 2 qualification... someone with a level 2 qualification earns on average around £100,000 more over their lifetime118 @/UL@

9. However, given the scale of demographic changes, where two in three of the jobs in the next decade must be filled by adults, NIACE believes the Government's approach only addresses part of the challenge. Dropping learner numbers indicate that not all adults are sufficiently swayed by Government's clear rationale of an economic argument to commit to a “full fat" qualification. While in other policy areas the Government has recognised that individuals can be trusted to make rational choices (eg social networks, personal finance, family responsibilities, individual health, personal interests) with regards to adult skills they have taken a one-dimensional approach. Although Train to Gain seeks to be the mechanism for demand-led provision, (and works well for the people it does serve), it excludes many adults who learn for progression differently and through less predictable paths. By channelling most of the adult learning resources to just key mechanisms (Train to Gain and Skills Accounts), the breadth and complexity of routes that adults take to strengthen their employability skills are being lost.

10. In NIACE's view Government policy should support a more holistic set of incentives, which take into account individual learners' motivations, and the wider benefits of learning they value. These incentives are interdependent and should therefore sit alongside and not secondary to the economic case for learning skills to improve productivity. This would not represent a shift in Government priorities away from employment and progression; it is rather a necessary condition to make strategies fit-for the purpose of raising UK adult skills and therefore achieving participation targets.

IMPACT OF LEITCH ON LIFELONG LEARNING11. NIACE detects that Government policies are inadvertently hampering adults'

motivations to learn and disregarding needs that have an impact on learning demand. As departments and providers are pressured to achieve the qualification targets, they are using levers such as limiting funding entitlements only to learning that will count towards those targets. This has left learners not only with less publicly funded subjects and modes of study but also with less choice of learning being offered.

12. Another concern is that many adults, especially those with lower levels of skills, need time to develop motivation and confidence before they commit to a full course. NIACE is concerned that current policies drive providers towards “quick wins" which guarantee funding but

117 House of Commons Education and Skills Committee (2007) Post-16 Skills, Ninth Report of Session 2006-07 Volume I, London.118 House of Commons Education and Skills Committee (2007) Post-16 Skills: Government response to Committee's Ninth Report of Session 2006-07, London.

that disadvantage the most marginalised learners. We are now seeing evidence of the concerns expressed on the last memorandum NIACE sent to the committee119 that a target-driven approach will focus on those people with the shortest journey to achieve the target.

13. For example,

RNIB College Loughborough runs residential training programmes for adults, funded by the DWP. There are currently 10 colleges in England providing Residential Training for Disabled Adults. The programme is for those people requiring a greater degree of support than is provided by other programmes such as New Deal for Disabled People (NDDP). The Residential Training Unit administers the total budget of around £19m. Previously colleges were credited with a “positive outcome" if trainees entered employment or full time education or training within a year of leaving the programme. The DWP is under funding pressure and is focussing on achieving the government target of 80% of adults in employment. Major changes to the RTU contract have been implemented from April 2007:

@UL@— Only employment within 6 months of finishing the programme counts as a positive outcome@/UL@

@UL@— Full time education or training is no longer a positive outcome@/UL@

@UL@— There is financial pressure on colleges to get people through programmes as quickly as possible. @/UL@

Colleges have been told that they should register for the programme only those likely to get into sustained employment within 6 months of leaving. These changes disadvantage anyone with more complex needs. For example blind and partially-sighted people typically face the challenges of learning access software which mean they require more time. The changes also block off an important route into mainstream further or higher education for those capable of more than low-skilled employment.

14. Given that pre-entry level qualifications do not count toward the Leitch targets, many providers may feel pressured to respond by marginalising such provision. Yet the replication of evidence is that intergenerational poverty in Britain lies in families with pre-entry level literacy or numeracy skills.120

15. NIACE is worried that despite good intentions current policies are undermining a culture of lifelong learning for all. NIACE believes that a strategy is needed that will measure success of educational policies not through qualifications but through real population outcomes. There is still time to complement current policy initiatives with a committed investment to those generic skills which develop people confident in their capacity to learn and unafraid of change. Part of this change will need to include a funding regime with a more equitable balance between public money for employers and individual learners. Presently individuals' chosen routes are not adequately recognised and future cuts (76% of the adult learner responsive developmental learning budget over the next three years)121 indicate a worsening scenario. At this stage of the Leitch implementation there is still time to steer away from scarcely achieving targets and missing the point.

REGIONS RESPONSE TO THE LEITCH IMPLEMENTATION16. Overall NIACE's work with Regional Development Agencies has emphasised

tension between their remit to support business needs, and the Government's interpretation of Leitch, which focuses on a qualifications strategy rather than on the needs that businesses and their workers actually articulate. NIACE believes that at this stage of the implementation, with RDAs taking on their new responsibilities they are still considering the implications of attending to the Leitch targets. NIACE has identified that RDAs face the challenge of using Leitch in the regional context to help

119 House of Commons Education and Skills Committee (2007) Post-16 Skills, Ninth Report of Session 2006-07 Volume II Oral and written evidence, London.120 Bynner, J. and Parsons, S. (1997) It doesn't get any better: the impact of poor basic skills on the lives of 37 year olds, London: Basic Skills Agency.121 DCSF and DIUS (2007) LSC Grant Letter: 2008-09, London.

with skills utilisation, to develop initiatives that address the skills needed in a knowledge economy and to approach sharply different experiences of demographic change.

17. Nevertheless, most RDAs are showing strong and well-rounded commitment to the skills strategy. For example, NW RDA plans to invest £69 million over the next three years in skills, so it is finding other money from within the RDA “single pot" to complement the approximately 5-7million from DIUS. Their focus is on releasing potential and while they see skills as important they also recognise that leadership, management and cultural and behavioural change is necessary to release the creativity of individuals and businesses.

18. The London RDA has expressed concerned that inclusion seems to be increasingly off the agenda in London. It is therefore trying to prioritise outreach and engagement by using ESF projects to “plug gaps" and to ensure LDA provision in priority areas.

19. For example,

Libraries for Learning (L4L) project

Libraries for Learning is an 18-month project co-funded by the London Development Agency (LDA) and ESF to improve the skills base of Londoners. It leads on from the Londoners Need to Read project, which highlighted the role of libraries, museums & archives in supporting learning for adults with Skills for Life needs. The report, written by David Brockhurst and Ian Dodds, showed that libraries, museums and archives are recognised as welcoming places to get information, for pleasure, family learning and much more. As such, they are ideal “trusted intermediaries" to help people work out what their aspirations and goals are, and to help them take the steps towards learning, gaining confidence and getting work. The project aims to ensure a consistent approach to the delivery of Skills for Life activities in libraries, museums and archives across London, as part of MLA London's Skills for Life Compact, to which the library services of all 33 boroughs have “signed up". The objectives of the project are:

@UL@— Moving forward with the London libraries compact—this aims to find out which compact level the borough library services are currently achieving, asks them to set themselves a target for what levels they could reach in 14 months time, and identify what help they need to reach that target @/UL@

@UL@— Training 120 library staff across London in S4L awareness—staff will be offered Skills for Life Awareness training at level 2. This will involve 3 or 4 days of study and include the Skills for Life background, signposting and referrals @/UL@

@UL@— Creating (or developing where they already exist) referral packs of information so library staff know where to refer would-be students—these will be different for each borough and most branches, so would-be students can be referred locally and to provision which, hopefully, has free places, or will take names for waiting lists @/UL@

@UL@— Establishing recognised referral routes from libraries and museums to accredited S4L provision—using the information from above, and collecting the data to enable the project to follow-up the would-be students to check they are able to find provision, and report on their achievement @/UL@

@UL@— Assisting the libraries/museums/archives in referring would-be S4L students to suitable provision through the organisation of events and engagement activities @/UL@

@UL@— Community engagement and work with outreach groups@/UL@

20. RDA's are committed to Leitch but as they encounter the complexities of productivity, growth and learning in their particular regions they, like NIACE, have identified that a strategy solely focused on qualification gain is too rigid for purpose.

21. NIACE would welcome the opportunity to elaborate on any of the themes covered in this paper and looks forward to the opportunity of contribting further to discussions.

April 2008

@HR25@

Memorandum 42

Submission from Birkbeck College, University of London

1. In the Government's policy paper World Class Skills or the Leitch Report it is argued that 40% of adults need to be to be qualified to level 4 and above by 2020. This is equivalent to an extra 5.5 million attainments, or 450,000 a year. This expansion cannot be achieved by the expansion of full-time undergraduate provision because the number of 18-year-olds will decline by more than 100,000 up to 2020. and 70% of our 2020 workforce is in employment now. To improve the skills of the adult workforce it will be necessary to provide a significant increase of part-time provision and on working with mature students.

2. In the United Kingdom part-time higher education is a significant element in the continuing growth of the sector and plays a central role in not only meeting Government objectives such as the extension of higher-level skills it also meets key objectives such as widening participation, and lifelong learning. It will continue to do so, if properly supported. In particular, the specialist part-time higher education institutions, Birkbeck, University of London and the Open University, need to have sufficient support if they are to continue to meet the needs of part-time learners and especially the needs of employers and their employees by providing employer-based provision. Part-time students benefit from a wide range of flexible academic provision that has been developed by higher education institutions in response to their needs. Students can study at their own pace, which means that some study at very low intensity over a long period of time whilst others study at nearly full-time levels. Part-time higher education is part of lifelong learning: it is the first experience of higher education for many mature students, and it also forms part of a continuous updating in skills and knowledge for those who already have a degree.

3. In 2003-04 London higher education institutions enrolled 144,000 part-time students—17% of all part-time Higher Education (HE) students nationally. London Higher commissioned research into part-time study in London and into London employers' attitudes towards part-time study which was funded with London Development Agency support. The main findings from this research showed that, “firstly, few employers have approached HEIs and secondly, Government subsidies for part-time courses would make employers more willing to encourage part-time study amongst employees, however few employers are aware of subsidies already made available by the Government". We look forward to the London Higher supported research being done by Grant Thornton into the specific labour market need of employers in London.

4. Government must re-examine public support for part-time students if part-time higher education is to meet the demands of the Leitch Report. Part-time undergraduate study cannot be seen as an adjunct to full-time study or as an alternative. In too many universities part-time provision means that part-time students simply fit into the existing full-time provision taking place during working hours. For many part-time students the alternative would not be full-time study but not studying at all. There is potential fragility in the part-time market and some evidence of price sensitivity. A minority of part-time students currently benefit fully from the public support that is available, and many report that costs are higher than the support available. It is important that detailed work takes place to ascertain the costs incurred by part-time students. Also, students studying for less than 50% should not be excluded from government funding? Many employers working in partnership with higher education institutions begin partnerships by providing their employers “bite-size chunks of learning which usually adds up to 25% of a full-time programme of study. And would the higher-level skills agenda be better served if some students who already have a higher education qualification were no longer excluded from support? Finally, the review of the impact of variable tuition fees should consider the implications for all students, not just full-time undergraduates.

5. The recent decision to not fund higher education institutions for ELQ students undermines rather than supports the Leitch Report recommendations, as learners will be unable to take an equivalent or lower qualification aimed at vocational development. The policy fails to recognise that adults need to re-skill as well as upskill in order to maintain employability in changing labour markets. As a result, the knowledge economy will suffer rather than develop. There is a very high possibility that graduates who would otherwise engage with university and continuing education/lifelong learning led professional development will no longer be able to afford to do so,

diminishing the national pool of skills for the economy. Furthermore, it is unhelpful for the economic development of the country that those taking first degrees are expected to predict future labour market needs for the duration of their working lives, nor equitable that citizens are now being informed retrospectively that they can no longer re-skill. It is essential for the development of the knowledge economy that re-skilling is both supported and actively encouraged. The ELQ policy directly contradicts its own lifelong learning policies and the wider contribution of learning, including benefits to individuals and society as well as the economy as outlined in The Learning Age. The contribution of continuing education and lifelong learning departments in universities in helping adults to develop skills for the workplace will be greatly effected by the ELQ decision and some of these departments may be forced to close.

6. The expansion of part-time higher education will involve more engagement with the world of work, collaborating with employers; it means a greater focus on the vocational relevance of qualifications; a greater emphasis on continuous professional development; and more emphasis on employability skills, including skills learned through both work based learning and community based learning. In addition to funding to enable higher education institutions to engage more effectively with employers more support will be needed to enable academic to provide this type of learning. For many traditional students placements, internships, volunteering and community based learning provide an essential form of experiential learning for employability. In addition this type of experience based learning is essential for flexible learning for those in employment and learning that will more then conventional training enable them to more fully develop higher skills for effective performance.

7. Higher education has to involve employers much more in partnership working power in the university world. It means enabling employees as learners to gain “economically valuable skills". This will mean not just working with employers as consumers of higher skills training but also their involvement in curriculum development. Getting employees to embrace higher skills education in any great numbers, however, also depends on such culture change within the private sector as well as the public and voluntary and community sectors who are also major employers.

8. While the Leitch Agenda is aimed primarily at the private sector it should also be recognised that higher education institutions significantly work with employers in the public sector and the voluntary and community sector, These proposals undermine rather than support the recent government report from the Office of the Third Sector (2007) and also the 2008 report of the Commission on the future of Volunteering, which argue for an expanded role and significant workforce development for both paid and unpaid workers in the third sector. This important partnership working with employers in these sectors should be fully supported by the Government.

9. In London the five Lifelong Learning Networks are beginning to play a key role in enabling vocational progression from level 2 and level 3 based in Further Educatiion Institutions and some schools into higher education. They can also play an essential role in working with further education and other 16-19 providers to enable learners doing the new diplomas to progress to higher education. Many of those in employment will need extensive support if through employer based learning they are given the opportunity through part-time learning to progress to higher education and achieve level 4 higher skills.

10. Key conclusions:

@UL@A. The Government must review its support for higher education institutions that provide substantially or part-time higher education if they are to meet the demand for part-time study for employees to achieve higher skills.@/UL@

@UL@B. The Government must also review the support it provides part-time students, including providing support for students who do 25% of a full-time programme, to enable them to engage in bite-size learning which meets the needs of employers.@/UL@

@UL@C. The Government must more fully analyse the impact of its recent decision to not fund higher education institutions for ELQ students on the “Leitch" agenda. The recent decision to not fund higher education institutions for ELQ students undermines rather than supports the Leitch

Report recommendations, as learners will be unable to take an equivalent or lower qualification aimed at vocational development. The policy fails to recognise that adults need to re-skill as well as upskill in order to maintain employability in changing labour markets@/UL@

@UL@D. Higher Education institutions need to involve employers as partners in curriculum development and support needs to be provided to enable higher education institutions to more fully engage with employers and to provide work based learning and community based learning. This result in a difficult but important transformation of the culture of higher education.@/UL@

@UL@E. Employers will need to work more with higher education institutions in not only the private sector but also the public and voluntary and community sectors. More research will be needed to ensure that the new co-sponsored by employer-based curriculum provided by higher education institutions, in partnership with employers, best meets the needs not only of employers but also employees in terms of more long term employability and the more long term economic needs of the country.@/UL@

@UL@F. Higher Education Institutions will need to rethink the role of work-based learning and community based learning as part of the curriculum of higher education if they are to not only meet the needs of employers but to also enable more transformative development of higher skills by learners in employment. The importance of employer based provision in higher education in partnership with the public sector and the voluntary and community sector in addition to the private sector should be recognised.@/UL@

@UL@G. The contribution of Lifelong Learning Networks in enabling vocational progression to higher education and especially the new diplomas needs to be recognised and supported.@/UL@

April 2008

@HR25@

Memorandum 43

Submission from Lifelong Learning UK (LLUK)

1. LIFELONG LEARNING UK 1.1 Lifelong Learning UK (LLUK) is the independent employer led Sector Skills

Council for community learning and development122 ; further education; higher education; work based learning; and libraries, archives and information services.

1.2 LLUK provides the strategic perspective for workforce planning and development for the sector across the four countries of the UK.

1.3 We are responsible for defining and developing the Sector Qualifications Strategy and are licensed by the UK governments to set standards for occupational competence in the delivery and support of learning. These standards are used to inform the recruitment and professional development of our employer's staff.

1.4 LLUK leads stakeholders in the collection and collation of workforce data and provides analysis on workforce characteristics and trends to better inform future workforce planning. We also work with partners to improve the dialogue between our employers and those who look to the lifelong learning sector to meet their own skills needs.

1.5 As the Sector Skills Council for the employers in the skills system post-14 (outside schools) we have a key role, recognised by Lord Leitch and others, in ensuring appropriate and effective principals, vice chancellors, teachers, tutors, trainers and support staff can be recruited and have access to the right training and development. We are currently working with Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills and Department for Children, Schools and Families in particular on programmes to reform the workforce across the skills system and discussing how we can best support the Scottish Executive, the Welsh Assembly and Northern Ireland Department for Employment and Learning.

Further information can be found on our website: www.lluk.org

2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY2.1 LLUK, as the Sector Skills Council (SSC) for the lifelong learning sector, occupies

a key position in the skills landscape as the Leitch reforms are implemented.

LLUK has developed good working relationships across the Alliance of Sector Skills Councils and has started implementing programmes of work that bring the supply of education and training closer to the needs of employers, such as the Catalyst Programme projects, Pass on your skills and Business Interchange.

The lifelong learning sector is adapting itself to respond better to the needs of employers and students and LLUK is responding to the need for employer engagement skills through its Sector Skills Agreement (SSA), Further Education Workforce Strategy and Sector Qualifications Strategy (SQS).

LLUK has been involved in various regional groups, such as the Regional Quality Improvement Partnerships and Lifelong Learning Networks. In the light of recent proposals in the white paper Raising Expectations: enabling the system to deliver, existing good practice must be recognised and transferred into any new regional structures that are put in place to enable the regions to deliver on Leitch.

3. THE RESPONSE OF RDAS TO LEITCH AND HOW COHERENT THEY ARE

122 This includes Community Development, Working with Parents, Youth Work, Development Education, Community Based Adult Learning, Family Learning and Community Education. More detail on request.

3.1 Lifelong Learning UK has developed the Catalyst Programme to help Further Education providers become more responsive. Some Regional Skills Partnerships, such as the East of England Skills and Competitiveness Partnership, have responded with interest to this programme (funded by DIUS) and in particular Pass on your skills and Business Interchange. LLUK will be looking to develop relationships with Regional Development Agencies to boost investment in these Further Education retention and recruitment programmes in the regions.

4. WHAT THE EXISTING REGIONAL STRUCTURES OF DELIVERY ARE AND WHAT SUB-REGIONAL STRATEGIES MAY BE REQUIRED

4.1 LLUK is a founding member of the Regional Quality Improvement Partnerships (RQIPs) in each region, hosted by the LSC and run in conjunction with QIA.

The role of the RQIPs should be reviewed by the new Quality Improvement body following the merger of QIA and CEL but LLUK considers that the RQIPs in the same or revised form, should continue to meet as a consultation forum to help review and shape the offer for local training needs and to address regional quality improvements, particularly in the more rural regions. Going forward it could be useful for this group's role to extend to tracking quality of responsiveness to learner and employer demand. Connections could be made with the new Training Quality Standard (formerly “the New Standard") as it is awarded to institutions, all within the context of the new Framework for Excellence.

4.2 Following the creation of the Alliance of Sector Skills Councils, the relationships between the Learning and Skills Council and Regional Development Agencies and Sector Skills Councils could be formalised in a new way. Clear communication structures and networks should be established to enable clarity of commissioning and delivery of skills at local and regional levels.

4.3 With the establishment of the new Alliance of Sector Skills Councils, existing network groups can be strengthened and new network groups could be established in the regions to ensure that the skills supply and demand sides are brought together.

David Hunter (LLUK Chief Executive), during the last year, has chaired the Supply Side Reform Strategic Group (SSRSG). Successes thus far have included the development and parliamentary launch by the Secretary of State, John Denham, MP of a protocol with the Association of Colleges (AoC). This has been followed up by developing strong relations between SSCs and the Principals, designated skills champions of sectoral specialist areas. Higher Education relations at a strategic level have progressed more slowly than that in FE, though substantial improvements have been made in the last year.

Similar “supply side reform" strategic groups could be developed in the regions to enable regional bodies to be more effective in delivering on Lord Leitch's recommendations. For example the London Skills and Employment Board is currently in the process of agreeing part funding of a “London Network" of SSCs to enable regional bodies to have one point of contact for all 25 SSCs.

4.4 The recent White Paper Raising expectations: enabling the system to deliver (DIUS/DCSF, March 2008) outlines possible new operational models for commissioning along regional and sub-regional lines regarding funding for 14-19 year olds and also the replacement of the LSC with the Skills Funding Agency. This will have a knock-on effect on other regional structures and any new arrangements that are made will need to take this into consideration. It is particularly important that, with the new changes being made, the routes for employers to access the training they need are extremely clear. If any new sub-regional structures are created as a result of the Raising Expectations paper, these could also be mirrored for the adult skills agenda for coherence of approach (for both providers and employers).

5. THE ROLE OF THE LEARNING AND SKILLS COUNCIL AND SECTOR SKILLS COUNCILS IN THIS CONTEXT

5.1 LLUK has undertaken a “business transformation" process to ensure that the organisation can meet the requirements of the Leitch agenda. This commenced in September 2007 and will continue over the coming months to ultimately improve our structure, systems, processes and performance.

5.2 LLUK is currently building on established relationships with Learning and Skills Council (LSC) and other major stakeholders through the Further Education Workforce Strategy Implementation Plan and the Sector Skills Agreement for the Lifelong Learning sector.

5.3 The Skills Pledge is a voluntary, public commitment by the leadership of a company or organisation to support all its employees to develop their basic skills, including literacy and numeracy, and work towards relevant, valuable qualifications to at least Level 2 (equivalent to 5 good GCSEs). The Skills Pledge is specifically featured within the Workforce Strategy for the Further Education Sector in England, Implementation Plan, recently released, to encourage employers to sign up. The detail of how the Skills Pledge can be taken forward and maximized by the sector will be explored and determined over the next 12 months, as stipulated in the plan.

5.4 LLUK is unique amongst the Sector Skills Councils (SSCs) as our employers teach and train individuals to work in all sectors. As SSCs move to endorsing qualifications that meet employer needs, it must be noted the collaborative approach that is required as some parts of the sector will be endorsing qualifications for other parts of the lifelong learning sector. This issue is magnified with the structural changes proposed for the LSC. It is proposed liaison with three bodies, instead of one, at regional level adding to the stakeholders involved in the demand led agenda.

Ensuring that “no provider is left behind" as a result of the move from planning to demand-led skills and training was identified as a key issue for the lifelong learning workforce in LLUK's Sector Skills Agreement (SSA). Consequently, one of the 10 skills solutions proposed in the SSA is around introducing measures to ensure providers are supported to become more demand-led. LLUK is currently developing actions with stakeholders to address this need.

5.5 As part of the SSA research, LLUK undertook a parallel project called the Impact Review—a review of the impact of the other 24 SSAs on the lifelong learning workforce. This research provided a series of common themes that can be a basis for collaborative action between LLUK and the other SSCs. LLUK is currently formulating a plan for taking this work forwards and will be keen to involve the LSC in this work.

5.6 A clear example of the Leitch reforms being put into practice is through LLUK's Catalyst Programme projects (which responded to needs identified through the Impact Review of SSAs) “Pass on your skills" and “Business Interchange". These projects aim, respectively, to recruit skilled individuals to be tutors in the FE sector and provide placements in industry for current FE tutors to update their skills and knowledge for modern business needs. Both of these projects are improving links between the FE sector and employers and have involved collaboration between LLUK and SSCs.

6. THE RESPECTIVE ROLES OF THE FURTHER EDUCATION AND HIGHER EDUCATION SECTORS IN DELIVERING A REGION-BASED AGENDA FOR LEITCH AND THEIR COORDINATION WITH ONE ANOTHER

6.1 Lifelong Learning Networks could be utilised to boost the role of Further Education and Higher Education in delivering Leitch in the regions. The networks are at different stages of development but do provide a structure through which to coordinate activity. The funding for these networks needs to be continued to ensure sustainability.

6.2 It is important to note that some of the lifelong learning sector operates in a regional context with employers, for example Further Education and Community Learning, but others operate nationally and/or internationally—some Further Education Colleges deliver cross-region, for example Newcastle College, and Higher Education regionally, nationally and internationally. Priorities for providers may vary depending on their student make up—for example, some universities may regard recruitment of international students as a higher priority than regional engagement.

7. THE IMPACT ON STUDENTS OF THESE INITIATIVES, PARTICULARLY IN THE CONTEXT OF POLICIES FOR LIFELONG LEARNING

7.1 More demand-led provision should provide students with better career prospects as the courses they are undertaking are endorsed by industry (through SSCs). However, there still needs to be space for student choice as well. Students are becoming more demanding as increasingly they are required to pay for their courses, particularly in Higher Education. Measures need to be in place

to enable students to study what they want to study—which may not always be directly endorsed by an employer/SSC. This has implications for the trial of Skills Accounts from autumn 2008. It is important that as Leitch is implemented, the learner remains at the centre of policy and planning

April 2008

@HR25@

Memorandum 44

Submission from the Association for Science Education

The Association for Science Education welcomes the opportunity to respond to the House of Commons Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills Committee inquiry into Implementing Skills and Training Policies.

The response does not include any comments on the science teaching profession as such, but picks up the issues related principally to technicians who are supporting practical work in science in schools and colleges, working typically at levels 2 or 3, and attempts to highlight areas of concern that ASE wishes to raise to include in its response to the House of Commons Innovation, Universities and Skills Committee inquiry into how responses to the agenda set out in the Leitch Report will affect the broader structures of further education (FE), higher education (HE) and lifelong learning.

We have grouped our response as requested to providing evidence on:

@UL@— the responses of RDAs to Leitch and how coherent and structured these are; @/UL@

@UL@— what the existing regional structures of delivery are and what sub-regional strategies may be required; @/UL@

@UL@— the role of the Learning and Skills Council and Sector Skills Councils in this context; @/UL@

@UL@— the respective roles of the further education and higher education sectors in delivering a region-based agenda for Leitch and their coordination with one other; and @/UL@

@UL@— the impact on students of these initiatives, particularly in the context of policies for lifelong learning.@/UL@

There is also a short commentary on the emerging role of Teaching Assistants (TA) who operate at level 2 & 3 and support science teachers and Higher Level Teaching Assistants (HLTA). There is also a discussion of the involvement of other bodies such QCA, TDA and the SWDB.

KEY MESSAGES1. The importance and role of the technician in supporting a science department to

deliver an exciting, relevant practically based course cannot be underestimated. Technicians should have a clear job description linked to a national career structure, pay scale and continuing professional development.

2. The LATA NVQ underpins the career structure supported by over 20 organisations, including ASE, RSC, IoB and IoP. The key issue for technicians at levels 2 & 3 is typically not about access to training, but access to funding and access to assessment. While the GATSBY supported virtual national assessment centre Techcen and its associated e-portfolio, has addressed the latter issue, core funding beyond 2008 and access by individual technicians to funding through the LSC are still major sources of frustration. The changes in priorities identified by LSC both locally and nationally over the three year pilot period is also an issue.

3. The Sector Skills Council for Science, Engineering and Manufacturing Technologies (SEMTA) has had little impact in terms of promoting the LATA NVQ to schools and colleges.

4. For technicians working in schools, the role of the Teaching & Development Agency (TDA) in developing a Sector Qualification Strategy for School Support Staff (SQS for SSS) and the Support Work in Schools (SWiS) qualification only add to the confusion. The overlap between technicians and TA/HLTA supporting school science teachers is also an issue.

ASE would be happy to explore some of these issues in more detail if requested to do so.

More detail is given in the background paper attached to this short response.

Prepared by: John Lawrence, on behalf of The Association for Science Education

In any response it is understood that ASE has an interest in the virtual national technicians assessment centre known as techcen which was supported over a 3 year period by a Gatsby grant, and is linked to PAAVQSET as the awarding body, as techcen is an approved centre for the award of the LATA NVQ. In addition, the TDA has agreed to support ASE and techcen by means of a grant in 2007—2008 to encourage and enable more science technicians to undertake the LATA NVQ.

BRIEF COMMENTS FROM ASEQ1 the responses of RDAs to Leitch and how coherent and structured these are;

No particular commentary.

Q2. what the existing regional structures of delivery are and what sub-regional strategies may be required;

In relation to the delivery of training through regions, we understand that as far as technicians in schools and colleges are concerned there are probably a sufficient number of providers (CLEAPSS, Science Learning Centres, ASE INSET Services 123 and others) to support science technicians. In Scotland, training has been funded by the Scottish Office through SSERC on a different model to that in the rest of the UK.

@UL@”There appears to be no real career structure to the job. Although appreciated by the science staff, no recognition is given for length of service or commitment to the school, by senior management. At this school all technicians are on the same pay scale point regardless of length of service or relevant qualification"—Survey of science technicians in schools and colleges, 2001@/UL@

The issues about the need for clear job descriptions and career structure have already been made, for example in the ASE response 124 to the 2006 House of Lords Select Committee on Science Teaching in Schools inquiry.

The two key recommendations were:

@UL@— The recommendation is that technicians have a clear job description linked to a national career structure, pay scale and continuing professional development.@/UL@

@UL@— There should be a nationally agreed career structure for science technicians working in schools@/UL@

The key issues for science technicians is about access to centres for the assessment for the LATA NVQ. This is largely because of relatively low numbers making it non viable for most FE/HE institutions to offer the NVQ.

The establishment of a virtual national technician"s assessment centre known as techcen alongside the development of a sophisticated e-portfolio, was the solution developed by ASE in partnership with the D&T Association, and funded principally by GATSBY. This was recognised in the Science Teaching in Schools Report with Evidence which was published November 2006 by the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology. This noted:

@UL@A motivated and well-trained supply of technicians is an essential component of effective science teaching. We therefore wholeheartedly endorse the ASE"s proposed career structure for technicians, the new NVQ and the virtual assessment centre. We recommend these proposals to the Government, and in addition invite them to consider whether the career structure could be linked to

123 For example, see http://www.ase.org.uk/htm/inset_courses.pdf 124 See http://www.ase.org.uk/htm/homepage/notes_news/june-06/lords.pdf

advisory salary scales, in an attempt to increase the almost universally low level of pay for technicians.@/UL@

Q3 the role of the Learning and Skills Council and Sector Skills Councils in this context;

In relation to school technicians, the answer is that there has been little overt support from The Sector Skills Council for Science, Engineering & Manufacturing Technologies (SEMTA) as a SSC that translates into an impact in schools and colleges, in terms of promotion and funding.

@UL@”I am aware of the new S/NVQ laboratory technician working in education but have tried to get funding through the school with no success. This is a common problem within education—lack of funds for non—teaching staff training."—Survey of science technicians in schools and colleges, 2001@/UL@

Funding is the other major issue. The frustration with LSC has been access to funding at a local rather than national basis. The ASE offering and the e-portfolio as such is not a “course" in LSC terms. In addition, while an FE college can attract a grant, a national centre such as Techcen, cannot access such funding. The LSC priorities for each of the three years of the project have changed, making it much more difficult for technicians and their managers to access funding.

A number of other bodies have an impact on technicians is also an issue: TDA, SWDB and QCA. If anything, with the fact that the TDA looking at a Sector Qualification Strategy for School Support Staff (SQS for SSS) means that for school laboratory technicians, the situation is even more confusing. Added to this is the emerging School Workforce in Schools (SWiS) qualification and the review of Qualification and Curriculum Framework (QCF) by the QCA, the messages going into schools are not clear.

Q4. the respective roles of the further education and higher education sectors in delivering a region-based agenda for Leitch and their coordination with one other;

The key issue here is funding. Technicians in schools and those who manage them, find it difficult to access funding streams.

Even the recent funding by the TDA for 2007-08 of some £4,637,126 for the Support Work in Schools (SWiS) qualification is very little when each individual Local Authorities (LA) is considered and spread across the whole school support workforce in that LA.

Q5. The impact on students of these initiatives, particularly in the context of policies for lifelong learning.

@UL@”After being promised training at my interview, it"s taken over 2 years of continual reminders to my head of section before actually being given permission to attend one [course]. It seems that some LEAs do not consider technician training particularly important and it shows an ignorance and lack of respect that others in education have for school science technicians and the job they do within the science department/faculty."—Survey of science technicians in schools and colleges, 2001@/UL@

The key issue here is that LSC funding is often targeted at under25"s whereas most technicians are much older than this In terms of continuation training, the SWiS qualification may be an impediment to taking the full level 2 or 3 NVQ. Further, for those under 25, the apprenticeship is not seen as an attractive route nor indeed is the “career" valued.

Age is an issue here and typically schools are not recruiting younger technicians. The route to Senior Technician or perhaps HLTA is a possibility, yet in many schools this would mean two separate contracts and pay scales.

April 2008

Annex

ASE Working with Science Technicians 1990-2008

BACKGROUND ASE represents the professional interests of teachers of science and technicians. ASE has

some 2000 technician members out of a membership of some 15000, with a Technicians Committee working on behalf of technicians.

In 1990 the Association for Science Education (ASE) published Technical support for School Science and in 1994 ASE undertook a 5% sample of all schools leading to the publication School Technicians: an invaluable asset. In 1995 ASE was contracted by DFEE to develop occupational standards for laboratory technicians. This was the original Laboratory Technicians Working in Education NVQ.

ASE also contributed to an EU Leonardo da Vinci Programme to develop a training programme for a European Environmental and Work Safety Technician involving Italy, Portugal and Hungary.

In 2001, this was followed by the Survey of Science Technicians in schools and colleges (Royal Society/ASE). Completed questionnaires were received from 1917 schols and from 5026 individual technicians. In 2002 Supporting success: science technicians in schools and colleges (Royal Society/ASE). The recommendations called for substantial investment by the Government, both to recruit more technicians and to develop an appropriate career structure and training for existing staff.

Subsequently, ASE was involved with the sector skills council SEMTA, to contribute to and develop the Laboratory and Associated Technical Activities (LATA) NVQ, replacing the earlier NVQ Laboratory Technicians working in Education. This earlier qualification was only offered only at levels 2 & 3, whereas the LATA was for levels 1-4 and included an education and an industry route.

ASE presented a report to DfES in June 2003 Supporting success: developing a career structure for science technicians in schools an colleges. As a result of this, ASE was encouraged to explore the role of technicians working in Design & Technology, and discussions with the D&T Association took place.

In 2004 as a direct outcome of the report to DFES, a leaflet A Career Structure for Science Technicians in Schools and Colleges was produced and sent to all schools in England, Wales and N Ireland.

Following discussions between GATSBY, ASE and the D&T Association, the techcen project was developed to support technicians by establishing a national assessment centre for technicians.

This was seen as a necessary step to break the cycle of the very real problem that there were very few centres offering the qualification and hence making this easier by establishing a national assessment centre. There was also the aim to promote the career structure for technicians working in science and D&T, which was underpinned by the 4-level LATA NVQ.

The key issues for science technicians and teaching assistants were highlighted in the recent submission by ASE in June 2006 to the House of Lords Select Committee on Science Teaching in Schools.

The full text of the ASE submission can be accessed at the following URL and the relevant sections related to science technicians are included here as annex to this response125.

In November 2006 the Science Teaching in Schools Report with Evidence was published by the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology. This noted: A motivated and well-trained supply of technicians is an essential component of effective science teaching. We therefore

125 http://www.ase.org.uk/htm/homepage/notes_news/june-06/lords.pdf

wholeheartedly endorse the ASE"s proposed career structure for technicians, the new NVQ and the virtual assessment centre. We recommend these proposals to the Government, and in addition invite them to consider whether the career structure could be linked to advisory salary scales, in an attempt to increase the almost universally low level of pay for technicians.

The techcen project is noted in the School Workforce Development Board (SWDB) report “Developing People to Support Learning—a skills strategy for the wider school workforce 2006-9" as “a pilot to provide flexible training and assessment for science and design and technology technicians".

The project supports all three of the strategic objectives outlined in the report. These are to:

@UL@— Support schools to develop new ways of training and deploying their support staff@/UL@

@UL@— Create a framework of standards and qualifications to enable schools to develop the potential of all support staff@/UL@

@UL@— Extend training opportunities to meet the development needs of support staff@/UL@

Techcen has also contributed to the TDA commissioned report Assessing Current Provision and Use of Qualification.

Techcen has offered to work with the TDA and has continued to explore the contribution that technicians in science and D&T can make to teaching and learning in the laboratory or workshop. We have also made contact with John Ryalls, Project Leader of the Sector Skills Council for Science, Engineering and Manufacturing Technologies (SEMTA) Standards Team about the review of qualifications.

A BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF TECHCENTECHCEN—technicians national assessment centre an e-portfolio and assessment tool for

science and D&T technicians undertaking the LATA NVQ (Laboratory and Associated Technical Activities National Vocational Qualification).

A virtual centre “techcen"—a technicians national assessment centre, has been created to enable access to the Laboratory and Associated Technical Activities (LATA) NVQ qualification which underpins the 4 level career structure: Assistant Technician, Technician, Senior Technician and Team Leader Technician.

This career structure has been publicized in a leaflet A Career Structure for Science Technicians in Schools and Colleges which was distributed to all schools in England, Wales and N Ireland, addressed to the Head teacher, Head of Science, Chair of Governors and the Senior Technician. This was endorsed by the Royal Society and CLEAPSS School Science Service and nearly 20 other organizations (www.ase.org.uk/careerstructure.php).

techcen is currently supporting the LATA award at levels 2 and 3.The qualification is aimed at the needs of both D&T and Science technicians. It is assessed via a portfolio of evidence that technicians compile while completing their normal duties. One of techcen's aims is to develop online assessment methods, which simplify the qualification process and enable technicians to take responsibility for their own professional development.

The virtual centre enables them to engage with the qualification without having to regularly attend sessions away from the workplace.

Summary of candidate cohorts to date

One hundred and five of technicians were recruited into the cohort commencing September 2005. One hundred and thirty four technicians were recruited for the cohort commencing September 2006. This included 27 of the first cohort transferring from Level 2 to Level 3. Some 23 trained

assessors have now been recruited to support Techcen, including a further 20 trainee assessors across the country.

56 candidates from cohort 1 have achieved the Laboratory and Associated Technical Activities (LATA) NVQ at level 2. This represents a 53% success rate for cohort 1 to date, with illness, moving jobs, workload or changing roles within the school being cited as reasons for dropping out. Seven assessors have now gained their A1 award through Techcen.

Statistics from the US Corporate University Exchange, based on a study of some 4148 online learners, quote drop off rates as high as 70%. Typical completion rates for some Open University (OU) short courses are between 50-60% (but can be as low as 30%). The 2005 cohort completion rate (to date) currently stands at 53%, but techcen expects that by the end of April 2008, when the majority of the remaining candidates will complete, this will be nearer to 60%.

The initiative is not in the first instance designed to train technicians but helps them identify areas for personal development as they undertake the qualification. Training needs can then often be met within the technician"s workplace, provided by colleagues or by attending short courses run through ASE, the D&T Association and can include for science courses run by other organizations such as the CLEAPSS School Science Service or the Science Learning Centres (SLC).

Techcen Website

The basic functionality that Phase 1 delivered included:

@UL@— Login & Roles—The tool is for accepted users only and maintains private sections for candidates. In addition, different functionality is available for a variety of roles@/UL@

@UL@— Menu bar—Giving the users access to the various sections of the tool including login. This should be present at the top of each page@/UL@

@UL@— User Selection—Allows users with access to more than one candidate to select which candidate they currently wish to view@/UL@

@UL@— Evidence—A private collection of evidence files demonstrating the knowledge and skill of a candidate@/UL@

@UL@— Tracking—A spreadsheet available for download indicating the candidate's progress. This would be updated by the assessor and internal verifier. Additionally, assessors should be able to access a personal tracking sheet for recording their own progress@/UL@

@UL@— Communication—Participants, assessors, internal and external verifiers should be able to communicate via a messaging tool and view previous messages (and associated evidence if applicable)@/UL@

@UL@— User management—Allows administrators to edit users' details and assessors to view candidates' details@/UL@PHASE 2 OF THE WEBSITE

The advanced functionality that was introduced in phase 2 is highlighted below.

@UL@— Candidates will be able to manage their NVQ @/UL@

@UL@— Candidates will be able to plan their activity on the NVQ & choose methods of assessment@/UL@

@UL@— Candidates can check their progress by unit and by activity@/UL@

@UL@— Candidates can view a summary of their activity@/UL@

@UL@— Candidates can manage their evidence and post messages to assessors@/UL@

@UL@— Assessors can assess the evidence through the site@/UL@

@UL@— Both internal verifiers and assessors can get an overview of their progress@/UL@

@UL@— Administrators can set up new NVQ's using the system@/UL@

@UL@— Administrators can view the progress of all candidates on a per unit basis@/UL@

@UL@— Administrators can also view the progress of candidates at a statement level@/UL@

@UL@— Candidates will now have a new look homepage@/UL@

@LT@IMG SRC=@Q@48we18.gif@Q@@GT@

PHASE 3In phase 3 (2007-2008) we hope to further improve the functionality of the website in

supporting the work of Internal Verifiers (IV) and External Assessors.

Note the site also allows the development of individuals wanting to do the A1 or V1 awards.

The Phase2 website was entered for the BETT Awards 2008 and was shortlisted for the award in January 2008. The phase 2 site can be accessed at: www.techcen.org.uk.

Techcen continues to believe that the methodology pioneered by the project is unique. The fact it is written in open source code, means it should be transferable to other NVQs. The flexibility of the system doesn"t means it is just confined to NVQ programmes. Other programmes such as Modern Apprenticeship schemes can be added into the system without any structural changes.

In November 2008, a presentation on the effectiveness of the approach and advantages offered by online provision was be presented to the PAAVQSET National conference and an article written in PAAVQSET Working Together Issue 3 Summer 2007 called E-portfolios-Putting the e in NVQs. Science and D&T Technicians do it first!

@UL@The nature of the resource centre means that, after an initial face-to-face registration, technicians can engage from any online portal. Support can be provided remotely and technicians can work on their NVQ any time, anywhere (EiS June2007).@/UL@

Techcen was the first centre to allow candidates to build their portfolios on line which potentially caused a conflict with the existing code of practice (section 43) that requires assessors and candidates to provide a written declaration that the candidate evidence is authentic. The Qualification and Curriculum Authority (QCA) has given approval to the way the online system manages the security around what is described as the Declaration of Validation when a candidate uploads evidence to their portfolio. This is a significant step forward in the validation process.

Techcen has been showcased at both ASE and DATA conferences, including the national D&T show held at the NEC. Both Education in Science (ASE) and D&T News (DATA) publications feature regular articles on Techcen.

We note in the words of the candidates themselves the following (June 2007 EiS):

@UL@The Techcen NVQ acted as a wake-up call. You tend to become too comfortable with the way you do things. The NVQ through the ASE and DATA has allowed me to thoroughly examine my role and to network with colleagues in the local area. With the process being online, I have also improved my IT skills, and this fits well with the increased use of ICT in our science department.@/UL@

@UL@I have recently completed the level 2 NVQ Award through Techcen and I feel that my confidence has grown and I have now got a recognised qualification. The Techcen team and,

especially, the assessor supported me all the way through the process. I am now working toward my level 3 Award.@/UL@

@UL@We embarked upon this innovative NVQ project to allow educational assessment support to technicians who want to engage with further qualifications, but are limited by their location. Prior to Techcen, access was only possible if a sufficient number of colleagues in their area wanted to embark on the programme. With the Techcen virtual centre, location is not an issue. (EiS June 2007)@/UL@SOME RECENT ARTICLES PUBLISHED BY ASE AND THE D&T ASSOCIATION ARE HIGHLIGHTED BELOW:@UL@— Putting the e in NVQs ASE EiS, June 2007.@/UL@

@UL@— Higher level support in the science laboratory ASE EiS June 2007. @/UL@

@UL@— Technicians' National assessment Centre D&T News Issue 31@/UL@

@UL@— Techcen Development of Techcen for Technicians D&T News Issue 32@/UL@

@UL@— Techcen Suporting D&T Technicians D&T News Issue 33@/UL@

@UL@— Techcen the Assessment Centre for D&T and Science Technicians Phase 2 D&T News Issue 34@/UL@

@UL@— Techcen D&T and Science technician do it first! D&T News Issue 35@/UL@

@UL@— Techcen pilot nears completion D&T News Issue 36@/UL@MORE ON LSC FUNDING ISSUES

In 2005-6 The skills we need (LSC Our Annual Statement of Priorities, December 2004) we note: “We will prioritise skills development—especially literacy and numeracy, level 2 qualifications and apprenticeships—that target people employed [|] in local authorities and schools and colleges."

On this basis we attracted funding (£50k) from Coventry LSC to support level 2 and help develop the e-portfolio.

Since then, the priorities for 06-07 and 07-08 [LSC Our Annual Statement of Priorities: Transforming learning and skills (November 2005) and Raising our game (October 2006)] are much more focused on those who do not have any qualifications equivalent to a level 2. This precludes many technicians working in schools and colleges who often have existing qualifications. The sections on adult learning focus on level 3 entitlement for 19-25s, again not the target age group for school technicians. One last example, which might provide a real opportunity for technicians is the Apprenticeships route, but again because the age of the typical technicians means this route is again not available

In discussion with one LSC we note that it focuses funding on full L2 325 guided learning hour programmes. While any technician can register with Techcen for the LATA NVQ independent of location this is not considered by them to be an NVQ “programme" and as such the response from LSC was if this is the case, there will not be funded support available, and it will be difficult to engage the LSC regional teams in this work as this provision is not a priority for public funding support.

MORE ON TEACHER DEVELOPMENT AGENCY TDAThe Teacher Development Agency is looking at developing a Sector Qualification Strategy

for the School Support Staff (SQS for SSS). In addition it has developed School Workforce in Schools (SWiS) qualification.

ASE has responded to TDA on an early draft of the SQS for SSS, and the issues raised in relation to this are noted below:

The Support Work in Schools (SWiS) qualification is welcomed because of the funding given to Local Authorities (LA) by the TDA for 2007-08 of some £4,637,126.

However, the proportion or uptake by technical staff working in science of the SWiS qualification is unknown.

Funding for the LATA NVQ at level 2-3 through LSC can be difficult to access by technicians working in schools.

LSC local and national priorities also change over time making access to funding problematic for those working in schools trying to make sense of the funding arrangements for different qualifications which form part of the totality of the SQS for SSS.

Currently only CACHE, C&G, EdExcel and OCR are approved to provide SWiS training. It is not understood why PAAVQSET and other providers are not able to offer this.

The SWiS qualification on its own may not be sufficient for technicians working in science laboratories, eg in areas such as H&S but also other skills which are described in some detail in the CLEAPSS guide L238 Induction and Training of Science Technicians.

The LATA NVQ is still the more appropriate qualification. If the SWiS is seen as a starting point on the way to a full NVQ then that may be OK, but schools are unlikely to fund a further extension to training, believing that the SWiS is sufficient.

Further background can be found in the CLEAPSS Guide L228 Technicians and their jobs. See http://www.cleapss.org.uk/download/L228.pdf

Long term there is some concern over the Qualification and Credit Framework (QCF) proposals in that GCSE and A level are not part of the QCF, the fact that Scotland is excluded from this consultation and that the position of NVQ units and the LATA NVQ etc are not clearly understood beyond 2010 are issues.

We also commented about the role of TA & HLTA in relation to science and also issues to do with sufficient specific knowledge in H&S and overlap of roles in some cases with technicians:

Induction training for TAs, including those working in special needs, may not be sufficient for those working in a science context (see Health and Safety Training for Teaching Assistants Working in Science in Secondary Schools Education in Science June 2004).

For HLTA's the CLEAPSS Guide L238 Health and safety induction and training of science teachers may be a more appropriate benchmark against which to measure gaps in knowledge and skills. The guidance for the science specialist HLTA is obviously of interest here, but the more detailed guidance resides in ASE and CLEAPSS publications.

In TDA attempting to become a sector skills council for schools, there still remain issues about specialist training in, for example, H&S that the SWiS does not adequately address. There will remain a role for those specialist NVQs, for example the LATA, which sit with SEMTA.

HOUSE OF LORDS SELECT COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

SCIENCE TEACHING IN SCHOOLS

A SUBMISSION OF EVIDENCE FROM THE ASSOCIATION FOR SCIENCE EDUCATION

JUNE 2006

APPENDIX FIVE

105. Provision and use of laboratory technicians and teaching assistants

The importance and role of the technician in supporting a science department to deliver an exciting, relevant practically based course cannot be underestimated.

106. A survey1 by the ASE and the Royal Society has yielded a unique database of information concerning the roles, responsibilities, working conditions and opinions of laboratory technicians working in secondary schools and colleges.

107. There are a number of issues that arise out of the recommendations2 made in the follow up report which are described below.

108. The level of technician support for science in schools is not adequate by any of the commonly used measures to determine the number of technicians required. 2, 3 Without adequate numbers of science technicians the learning experiences of students will be impaired, raising levels of achievement will be much more difficult, and safety in school laboratories will be compromised. The recommendation is to recruit up to 4,000 additional science technicians.

109. A clear job description for all technicians has been described and is available to all schools.3 The recommendation is that technicians have a clear job description linked to a national career structure, pay scale and continuing professional development.

110. A career structure for technicians in schools based on four levels has been published4. This is supported by over 20 organisations. There should be a nationally agreed career structure for science technicians working in schools.

111. National Occupational Standards for laboratory technicians have been developed. The Laboratory and Associated Technical Activities (LATA) National Vocational Qualification (NVQ) provides a framework in which existing skills can formally recognised, it supports a career progression pathway and encourages technicians to develop their skills throughout their careers.

112. A national assessment centre (techcen5) for technicians has been established. This is a joint project with the D&T Association, to a “virtual centre" website. This is a major initiative, funded in the first instance by Gatsby, to develop online assessment methods. This will simplify the qualification process and enable technicians to take responsibility for their own professional development. The project should be supported.

113. Registered Technician (RTech) status is being explored with the Engineering Council. Technicians in schools have a vital role to play in the provision of high quality science education. National support for Registration would support the development of a suitable career for technicians. Registration would mean demonstrating competence to perform professional work to the necessary standards and a commitment to maintain that competence, work within professional codes and participate actively within the profession.

114. An induction programme for technicians has been described. There should be a nationally recognised induction programme for technicians.

115. An induction programme for Teaching Assistants (TA) in secondary science has been described7. While this may adequately cover the first stage of induction, a more detailed programme covering science-specific aspects including health and safety training for teaching assistants has been produced by ASE8 and should be used in schools.

116. The role of the Higher Level Teaching Assistant (HLTA) in science needs to be explored. There are plans9 to deploy some 7,000 specialist maths and science HLTAs, enabling each school to have one. There should be detailed hands-on science including health and safety training if that HLTA is to contribute to practical activities in the laboratory.

117. Technicians as HLTA (Specialist & technical) Science is a practical subject, and good quality “hands-on" activities, which involve students undertaking experimentation and investigative work, add hugely to the experience of learning science. If students are to experience such work, a well trained technician service is essential. Existing science technicians might, with suitable additional training, wish to act as a specialist HLTA in the laboratory. It must be understood that if this is the case, extra technician help will be needed in the science department to compensate for lost time.

118. The profession of science technician is not attracting young recruits. The apprenticeship route is being explored, but the issues are largely about pay and conditions. Being a technician should be seen as an attractive and viable career.

119. Funding for Continuing Professional Development. While a recommendation for ring fenced funding for the CPD of science technicians was made in the original report, we are now recommending that technicians can access funds set aside for training TA"s or HLTA"s, for example. While ASE INSET Services reports on the popularity of technician courses vs. teacher courses, there is little funding, through for example, Learning Skills Council (LSC) to support the NVQ process.

120. REFERENCES1. Survey of science technicians in schools and colleges (ASE & Royal Society, 2001)

2. Supporting success: science technicians in schools and colleges (ASE & Royal Society, 2002)

3. Technicians and their jobs (CLEAPSS guide L228, 2002)

4. A career structure for science technicians in schools and colleges leaflet (ASE, 2004)

5. www.techcen.org

6. Induction and training for science technicians (CLEAPSS guide L234, 2003)

7. Induction training for teaching assistants in secondary science: science module (DfES, 2004)

8. Health and safety training for teaching assistants working in science in secondary schools (EiS, June 2004)

9. Developing people to support learning: a skills strategy for the wider school workforce (School Workforce Development Board, 2006)

@HR25@

Memorandum 45

Submission from Skillset

1. Please find below a Memorandum from Skillset, the Sector Skills Council for Creative Media. Skillset has also fed into the Alliance of SSCs combined submission, but in this document we would like to give evidence from our sector's point of view.

2. We agree for this information to be available on the public domain and we are happy to contribute to an Oral Evidence if the Committee would like us to elaborate on our submission.

3. Skillset is the Sector Skills Council for the Creative Media industries. Jointly funded by industry and government, our job is to make sure that the UK creative media industries have the right people, with the right skills, in the right place, at the right time, so that our industries remain competitive.

4. We are responsible for the following sectors: Publishing, Television, Film, Radio, Animation, Interactive Media, Computer Games, Photo Imaging, Facilities.

5. Please note however, that the publishing sector has only recently come to our footprint. Therefore, the responses here are mainly reflecting our experience from working with the Audio Visual Industries.

6. If you need to contact us regarding any issues raised on this submission please do so via our Policy and Public Affairs Advisor.

MEMORANDUM

Executive Summary 7. We note that the Committee's inquiry preceded the publication of the three recent

policy papers: The Machinery of Government: Raising Expectations: enabling the system to deliver, Prosperous Places: Taking Forward the Review of Sub-National Economic Development and Regeneration, and the high-level skills strategy, Higher Education at Work—High Skills High Value. Our response is based on the current landscape but we will be considering the changes proposed and we will continue to respond to the consultations.

8. We broadly agree with the comments made through the Alliance's response on behalf of the all the SSCs collectivelly. The regional (sub-national) picture is not always consistent. SSCs' role in some places is recognised and it is working very well; in other places the SSC role needs to be enhanced.

9. We also recognise that each SSC has a different experience and level of engagement on a regional and local level. Which is why we felt it is useful to submit from our own sectoral perspective.

10. Skillset believes that a balanced combination of “spatial" and “sectorial" engagement is key to increase the level of skills, productivity and social justice. Different regional economies require different approaches but sectoral input is vital in terms of both analysing and delivering a consistent offer.

11. Skillset over the years has worked hard and systematically to build strong partnerships with industry, public agencies and regional training provision (including Further and Higher Education). We were the first SSC to publish a Sector Skills Agreement (SSA) for all four Nations and the first to develop and produce 9 Regional Collaborative Action plans that contextualised our SSA within each English region. Below we explain how this model approach has worked and how it manages to serve both our industry and the regional economy.

12. The publication of the Leitch Review of Skills amongst a general consensus on the principle of a demand-led approach, has strengthen our position on regional level. However, as it was

noted in Education and Skills Select Committee's nineth report last year (Post-16 Skills), SSCs sometimes do not have the capacity to continue with the required level of engagement; the committee recommended that SSCs should be properly resourced.

13. It is Skillset's view that Lord Leitch recommended the reform, relicencing and empowering of SSCs and that the current level of resources that we have available is not enough to support the empowerment that will effectively add value to the regional/sectorial interface. We believe that we bring focus and added value to learning provision which brings added value to the learner. We have worked hard to invest in our regional/sectorial interface and are seen at having developed good practice. However, we will, in six months time, have to cut back this investment, unless we see some greater financial commitment through DIUS to our work. This commitment will have to be over and above what we currently have, which has not increased in line with the new role that Lord Leitch has identified for us —driving demand at the heart of the skills agenda.

14. Leitch tasked the SSCs with a clear role in delivering a demand-led agenda and economically valuable skills. We welcome the establishment of the UK Commission for Employment and Skills (UKCES) and its remit to support the implementation of the Leitch review of skills. However, we have noted that World Class Skills, the government's response to the Leitch recommendations, was less clear on UKCES' engagement with regional (sub-national) settings like the local Employment and Skills Board (ESB). Unlike Leitch's recommendations, the Commission in England will support but not licence ESBs.

15. We feel that more consideration needs to be given to this and welcome the Committee's Inquiry.

16. We have also noted that the recently published DCMS/BERR Creative Britain/ Creative Economy strategy paper supports a coordinated framework of delivery for our industries that combine regional economic development plans with SSCs' regional action plans.

The Committtee asked:

Evidence on the responses of RDAs to Leitch and how coherent and structured these are.

What the existing regional structures of delivery are and what sub-regional strategies may be required.

17. Skillset has managed over the years to build relationships with the RDAs as well as the regional structure of the LSCs. Although some RDAs have demonstrated great interest and flexibility in responding to the Leitch targets, we are concerned about consistency. It is also worth mentioning that RDAs often find themselves in competition with each other, as they try to develop the regional economies contained only within the administrative borders of their regions. A possible exception to this is the development of the Northern Way.

18. As we mentioned above, Skillset developed the Regional Collaborative Action Plans for each English region, following the publication of our SSA. These plans outline specific priorities, as identified through research and a consultative process with the key public agencies and industry, and develops the required actions and, crucially, agrees responsibility for these actions.

19. The Regional Collaborative Action Plan approach has yielded a lot of positive outcomes in some regions; below are examples from London, South East and North West.

20. In the region of London with the co-ordinated approach of the London Skills and Employment Board and the creative industries as a priority sector for the regional economy, we have been able to—amongst other things:

@UL@— Provide support for our industries to engage with the 14-19 school consortia that will pilot the Creative and Media Diploma; @/UL@

@UL@— Trained careers advisors and Train to Gain brokers to access sector specific Labour Market Information for our sector; @/UL@

@UL@— Unlocked funding through ESF to support both employees and freelancers to upgrade their specialists skills;@/UL@

@UL@— Developed a programme that responds to the needs of the industries in preparation for the London 2012 Olympics and Paralympics Games; @/UL@

21. Similalry in the South East, our approach has helped to:

@UL@— Develop and pilot a new apprenticeship framework for QA Testing in Computer Games;@/UL@

@UL@— Supported Interactive Media and Computer Games SMEs with growth potential to access specialist business advice and mentoring;@/UL@

@UL@— Unlock investment from industry and public agencies to support an innovative training programme for new entrants in the radio industry.@/UL@

22. In the North West, the action plan has attracted £2.8 million worth of investement from public and private sector that will go towards supporting schemes like:

@UL@— Rolling out of the Media Apprenticeships scheme (currently in pilot stage)@/UL@

@UL@— A proposed National Centre for Excellence for Computer Games @/UL@

@UL@— Specialist Training courses for media professionals and new entrants delivered through the North West Vision and Media (Regional Screen Agency). @/UL@

The above schemes will support the development of mediacity:uk and the BBC relocation to Salford.

23. In most cases, the Regional Collaborative action plans have helped public agencies to maximise the impact of their investment by focusing funding to where is needed most.

24. But our experience is patchy. For instance, even though we have an office and a post in Yorkshire, we have found it difficult to achieve a clear strategic recognition by the RDA of our role or the added value that we can bring. We trust, however, that the establishment of Skillset North—an industry-led partnership over the regions of North West, North East and Yorkshire—will provide an industry-led strategic framework of sector development across the North of England and, we hope, will harness the commitment of all parties to work in a co-ordinated way across the North.

The role of the Learning and Skills Council and the Sector Skills Councils in this context.

25. We welcome the Machinery of Government: Raising Expectations: enabling the system to deliver proposals for a funding agency, rather than a planing and funding agency (current position with LSC).

26. However, we are not yet convinced that the proposed changes will trully simplify the system—we fear that they may result in further compartmentalisation of funding. Since the policy is still in consultative stage, we will input directly to DIUS.

27. The Train to Gain system, as noted in the in Education and Skills Select Committee's nineth report last year (Past-16 Skills), needs more fine tuning if it is to deliver consistent support to our industries. We have worked in some of the regions to increase the brokers' understanding of our sector. From our experience, the Train to Gain offer is not consistent across the regions—an issue that we have been continuously debating with National LSC.

28. As a result, Skillset is developing a sector compact with the National LSC which will increase co-ordination within the brokerage service (Train to Gain) and our sector, advise and monitor demand for skills and training (particularly on the management and leadership strand) and

signpost to appropriate quality provision. We hope that our industry's demand will drive the public funding provision to be more flexible, rather than pre-occupied with achieving their own targets.

29. In the Machinery of Government: Raising Expectations: enabling the system to deliver, it is proposed that the Train to Gain service will move from the LSC to the responsibilities of thr RDAs under their simplified business support service. We are not sure of how our work so far with Train to Gain will be transferred and whether we will need to renegotiate a revised sector compact. We hope that this issue will be resolved in a consistent way across the RDAs.

30. Particulalry for our sector, we have noted that Commitment 13 of the DCMS/BERR Creative Britain /Creative Economy strategy paper is about establishing a network of regional beacons for business support for the creative industries in the South West, South East, North West, North East and West Midlands; we will be looking forward to working with them.

The respective roles of the further and higher education sectors in delivering a region-based agenda for Leitch and their co-ordination with one other.

31. Our industries attract a highly qualified workforce. Across all sectors in Skillset's scope the entry level norm is level 4126 and 24% of the workforce hold a postgraduate qualification. Our industries need high level skills and they rely on FE and HE for their provision (both at entry level and for Continuous Professional Development).

32. In order to meet their needs, the supply side needs to be more responsive. Our experience so far has identified the following barriers in making this happen:

@UL@— Continuous emphasis of public funding for full qualifications—our industries are not interested in full qualifications; they favor instead bite-size learning. @/UL@

@UL@— Issues around the quality of training provision—combined sometimes with an inconsistent offer of support from region to region.@/UL@

@UL@— A dis-jointed system of funding that does not encourage FE and HE collaboration.@/UL@

33. Skillset's work with Further and Higher Education is pioneering in bringing together partnerships of FE, HE and industry in order to address industry's skills needs. Our work with the Skillset Media and Screen Academy Networks and the industry-approved accredited courses, enable education and industry to work together to to ensure the UK has the most talented workforce in the world for film, television, animation, interactive media and computer games both now and in the future.

@UL@— The Skillset Media Academies form a network of colleges and universities across the UK which are centres of excellence in television and interactive media, selected by an industry-led panel.@/UL@

@UL@— The Skillset Screen Academies are institutions which the UK film industry has identified as those offering the highest quality of skills training for film. @/UL@

@UL@— Working with industry, Skillset also accredits practice-based courses in FE and HE that most effectively provide learners with the skills and knowledge that employers need.@/UL@

34. All these institutions also receive funding through HEFCE and the LSC. However, the level of support available is also subject to regional sensibilities—this is why a consistent regional offer is of great importance for our industries.

35. The recently published Higher Education at Work—High Skills High Value recognises the importance of high level skills within the economic context and advises HEIs to work

126 Sixty-nine percent of people working in the media have a degree, compared to 16% of the UK workforce as a whole. Skillset Workforce Survey 2005.

with SSCs, RDAs and local employers “to develop the higher level skills that a particular business needs in a particular sector in a particular place." We agree and we would like to see the funding infrastructure also set up in order to serve such purpose.

36. The paper, currently in consultation, also makes proposals that will help move funding in a demand-led direction: brokering of higher level skills training into businesses through Train to Gain; flexibility in training delivery to suit business needs; a co-purchasing role for SSCs in expanding employer co-funded places. We are encouraged by the recognition that SSCs and their SSAs will have strategic input in the planning of provision.

37. The Higher Level Skills Pathfinders (HLSPs) is also a step towards HE meeting industry needs. Skillset has been involved in the HLSP in North West and South West; having an SSC involvement has added value to these grouping of HEIs in a local area to create sustainable partnerships and channel funding in a strategic way.

The impact on students of these initiatives, particularly in the context of policies for lifelong learning.

38. Most of our initiatives develop through time and it is probably too early a stage to validate impact. However, the examples below, may provide the Committee with a short insight on the quality of experience for the learners.

39. Examples from Screen Academy network:

@UL@— Trailblazers: this initiative, piloted for the first time in Edinburgh Film Festival 2007, showcases selected students' work and promotes their short films in international industry events. 17 filmmakers-students of the Skillset Screen Academy network are currently involved in Trailblazers and their work is set to be shown next at the Tribeca Film Festival in New York.@/UL@

@UL@— Skillset 100: a database resource of 100 top industry professionals committed to sharing their knowledge and expertise through master classes, workshops and guest lectures.@/UL@

@UL@— RawStock (http://www.rawstock.co.uk/): this is an online community providing a creative network exclusively for Teachers and Students at a college or university that is a member of the Skillset Screen Academy Network. The website allows them to find out about news, events and information relevant to their work, as well as post their work online for support or simply to showcase. @/UL@

@UL@— 35mm project: This was a practical scheme run in summer 2001 by the Skillset Screen Academy at London College of Communcations and Ealing Institute of Media. The students were asked to submit studio-based scripts with a challenging set-build. Overseen by industry mentors, the students had to build the sets entirely from scratch at Elstree Studios. Following the end of their training, most of the participants went straight into employment at Pinewood.@/UL@

Appendix

40. Skillset Screen Academy Network: In 2005 we launched the network of Skillset Screen Academies. The Skillset Screen Academy Network is a UK-wide group of “Centres of Excellence" in film education and training. These institutions were identified by the UK film industry as those already offering the highest quality of skills training but which need further support to continue to serve industry need. Their aim is to ensure the UK has the most talented and skilled workforce in the world, both now and in the future.

41. The Network is made up of six Skillset Screen Academies and the Skillset Film Business Academy at Cass Business School.

42. Within the Skillset Screen Academy Network all the necessary skills areas identified by the industry are covered. This includes craft and technical grades through to design and management, both at a further and higher education level. Screen Academies also offer short courses designed to support professionals already in the industry.

43. The Skillset Screen Academy is one of the strategic initiatives identified in A Bigger Future, the Film Skills Strategy developed in collaboration with SKillset and the UK Film Council through consultation with the film industry.

44. All the initiatives under A Bigger Future are funded by the Skillset Film Skills Fund, totalling around £10 million a year over 5 years, drawing from two main sources. The first is £6.5 million of National Lottery money, channelled via the UK Film Council and the second is the Skills Investment Fund (SIF), a film production levy. The levy is currently voluntary but following a widespread consultation with industry, the first steps were made towards progressing the levy to mandatory status, with the establishment of the Film Industry Training Board last month. From more information on the Screen Academies, please see: http://www.skillset.org/film/training_and_events/screen_academies/

45. Skillset Media Academy network: This network was launched in Decemeber 2007 based on the recommendations from the TV Skills and Interactive Skills Strategies. The Skillset Media Academy Network is a national footprint of colleges and universities that work with industry in developing the new wave of media talent. The network is made up of 17 Academies, drawing together creative education partnerships from 43 colleges and universities across the UK. For more information on the Skillset Media Academy Network, please see: www.skillset.org/training/san/sma/

46. Skillset is working with the universities and colleges to collaborate seamlessly with industry partners to develop new curricula, innovative teaching, world-class research and development, and enhanced business acumen. It is a model based on accessibility, flexibility, adaptability, integration and responsiveness to address the needs of a fast-paced, digitally-enhanced industry.

47. Skillset Course Accreditation Scheme: We also co-ordinate an indsutry aprroved kite-marking system for FE & HE course accreditation. At present accreditation of courses operates in animation, computer games and screen writing. Industry in those areas/sub-sectors identified this form of intervention as the most appropriate for industry input and support to Further and Higher Education courses, sign posting learners to quality provision. From more information on Skillset Industry Kitemarking, please see: http://www.skillset.org/training/approvals/

48. The following quotes are from staff and students involved in the Skillset Screen Academy network:

@UL@”Skillset Screen Academy Status has genuinely helped London Film School to change the shape of its student intake. As a result of our status, we are now funded to provide bursaries to support tuition and living costs for a number of UK students who wouldn't usually be able to afford Film School" Ben Gibson, Director, London Film School.@/UL@

@UL@”The skills learned as a result of the 35mm Project have put our students in excellent stead for jobs in the industry. Four carpenters and three painters have moved straight from the 35mm project to Pinewood." Rob Buckler, Director, Skillset Screen Academy at LCC & EIM. @/UL@

@UL@”It was an amazing experience. It completely opened my eyes to working in film. I've just finished working on the latest Batman film and am about to move onto the new Bond film." Derek Holland, Carpenter and one of the participants at the 35mm Project.@/UL@

April 2008

@HR25@

Memorandum 46

Submission from the Association of Colleges (AoC)

1. The Association of Colleges (AoC) welcomes the opportunity to contribute to the Committee's inquiry into how responses to the agenda set out in the Leitch Report will affect the broader structures of further education. The AoC is the representative body for the 400 further education colleges in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

2. The 369 English further education and sixth form colleges:

@UL@— educate and train 727,000 16-18 year olds each year (more than are in school sixth forms, private schools and private training providers put together);@/UL@

@UL@— enrol more than 2 million adults each year, the majority of whom achieve economically valuable qualifications.@/UL@

Where people gain vocational qualifications

@LT@IMG SRC=@Q@48we19.gif@Q@@GT@

Source: AoC analysis of DCSF statistics on vocational qualifications (2006-07).

3. In 2006-07 colleges received £6.7 billion a year in public funding, 79% of which came from the Learning and Skills Council (LSC).

THE LEITCH REVIEW 4. The Leitch Review assembled evidence that workforce skills play an important role

in raising productivity and ensuring economic growth. The review identified serious weaknesses in the English education and training system.

5. The Leitch Review's interim report published in December 2005 showed that the skills of the UK workforce would stay behind other advanced countries in 2020 even if existing education and training targets were achieved. The review showed that the UK skills profile compares well on higher level qualifications but poorly on intermediate and basic skills. Fewer UK adults have intermediate skills (level 2 and 3 qualifications) compared to the OECD averages. The UK has more adults with low qualifications than comparable countries and is ranked 18th across the OECD.

6. Lord Leitch published his final report in December 2006. This report made eight main recommendations which are summarised in Table 1

Table 1: Leitch Review Recommendations

@UL@— More ambitious Government targets to increase adult skills at all levels from basic skills to higher education;@/UL@

@UL@— Route all public funding for adult vocational skills in England, apart from community learning, through Train to Gain and Learner Accounts by 2010;@/UL@

@UL@— Strengthen the employer voice through the creation of a Commission for Employment and Skills;@/UL@

@UL@— Increase employer engagement in education and training through the reform of qualifications;@/UL@

@UL@— An employer pledge to train staff to level 2;@/UL@

@UL@— Action to increase employer investment in level 3 and level 4 qualifications;@/UL@

@UL@— Concerted action to increase individual aspirations and awareness of the value of skills to them and their families.@/UL@THE LEITCH REVIEW AND GOVERNMENT POLICY

7. The Prime Minister, Chancellor of the Exchequer and three Secretaries of State adopted the Leitch review proposals in an implementation plan published in July 2007. The recommendations were accepted with some modification but have contributed to Government policy in the following ways:

@UL@— the targets for further and higher education set out in the 2007 spending review draw on the Leitch review;@/UL@

@UL@— the Government has a new apprenticeship strategy, set out in World Class Apprenticeships which will reform the composition of apprenticeships and the way they are delivered with the aim of trebling the numbers involved by 2020;@/UL@

@UL@— the growth plan for Train to Gain published in November 2007 which sets out plans to attract a total 1.8 million new learners by 2010 at an annual cost of £1 billion a year. The growth plan extends the focus of Train to Gain to level 3 qualifications, to those working in big companies (as well as small) and to those who are out of work;@/UL@

@UL@— there are plans for the rapid introduction of skills accounts for adult learning undertaken outside work. The idea is to create greater choice over £1.6 billion in public spending for those taking skills for life and level 2 courses;@/UL@

@UL@— there is a new drive to improve the skills of those who are out of work set out in a joint DWP/DIUS strategy Opportunity, Employment and Progression;@/UL@

@UL@— the Higher Education Funding Council has allocated funds for employer-funded degree places as part of a wider higher level skills strategy;@/UL@

@UL@— action has been taken to liberalise the regulation of awarding bodies to allow employers and colleges to award publicly-accredited qualifications. The Qualifications and Curriculum Authority has licensed McDonalds, the Army and City College Norwich among others.@/UL@

8. It would, however, be wrong to overstate the impact of the Leitch Review on policy towards further and higher education. Many of the most important policies were in place before Lord Leitch completed his work, for example:

@UL@— the policy towards higher education set out in a 2003 White Paper (Cm 5735) and in the Higher Education Act 2004;@/UL@

@UL@— the policy towards public funding of skills set out in the 2003 Skills Strategy (Cm 5810) and “Priorities for Success" paper published by LSC in 2005;@/UL@

@UL@— the raft of policies set out in the 2006 further education white paper (“FE Reform: Raising Skills, Improving Life Chances" Cm 6768)@/UL@

9. In the sixteen months since the publication of the final Leitch report, the Government has published a number of other reviews and decisions which affect the organisation of education and skills. These include:

@UL@— the review commissioned from Sir Michael Lyons on local government which was published in March 2007 and which indirectly led to the proposal in July 2007 that funding for 16-19 education should be routed through local authorities. The Government has set out detailed proposals to make this happen and to reform the Learning and Skills Council in its “Raising Expectations" White Paper (Cm 7348)@/UL@

@UL@— the sub-national review of regional government and economic development published in July 2007 which recommended the reform of Regional Development Agencies and the abolition of Regional Assemblies. In March 2008, the Departments of Communities and Local Government and Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform jointly published “Prosperous Places: Taking Forward the Review of sub-National Economic Development and Regeneration". This paper confirms a key role for local authorities in assessing the local economy, maintains support for multi-area agreements and details the new RDA responsibilities around the single integrated regional strategy.@/UL@

@UL@— the plan to raise the participation age by requiring young people to stay in education or training until their 18th birthday. The Leitch review briefly supported this proposal but the case was fully set out in the Raising Expectations Green Paper published in March 2007 and now forms part of the Education and Skills Bill proceeding through Parliament. @/UL@

10. It is difficult to summarise all the implications of Government policy but we believe there are a number of key themes:

@UL@— a drive to increase total spending on education and training though increased Government budgets and measures to increase private spending, for example from university tuition fees;@/UL@

@UL@— a drive to improve the skills of all working age people by shifting public funding towards basic and intermediate skills;@/UL@

@UL@— an increasing centralisation of decision-making about the uses of public funding in further education to ensure that ambitious qualifications targets can be met;@/UL@

@UL@— the desire to give a strong role for local government in decisions in education and economic development, though, in some cases, as an agent implementing national policies and targets;@/UL@

@UL@— a variety of measures to give employers a stronger voice in decisions about how public funding should be used;@/UL@

@UL@— action to introduce greater competition for public funding between colleges and training providers;@/UL@

@UL@— different approaches to the higher and further education sectors in the approach to funding, organisation, curriculum etc.@/UL@THE RESPONSES OF REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCIES (RDAS) TO THE LEITCH AGENDA

11. The Select Committee's call for evidence focuses on the way in the ambitions set out in the Leitch report will be managed at a regional and local level.

12. RDAs have a key role in determining priorities but do so within an increasingly centralised system. Policy, funding and performance management of further education in England is now highly focused on national targets. Successive Treasury spending reviews have pushed the Learning and Skills Council to focus increasingly on national targets. This focus has forced organisations to work towards common goals and has contributed to quality improvement through the assurance of common standards. However the shift in funds towards the targets has come with costs. In some cases, the focus on targets means that the accreditation of existing skills is valued equally with the acquisition of new ones. 1.4 million adult learning places were lost in two years between 2004 and 2006. The emphasis on national goals has limited the ability of colleges and others to respond to local needs.

13. Although national targets and policies predominate, there is considerable scope for RDAs to make a difference. RDAs show leadership through:

@UL@— Setting regional priorities, for example in their regional economic strategies. These priorities have a strong influence on the regional commissioning plans drawn up by the Learning and Skills Council;@/UL@

@UL@— Personal influence on decision-making in other governmental organisations, for example through organisation of Regional Skills Partnerships or membership of regional committees;@/UL@

@UL@— Delivery of the brokerage and business support services which support employer decision-making about training;@/UL@

@UL@— Providing financial and logistical support for capital investment in education and training, seen for example in the redevelopment of Burnley College;@/UL@

@UL@— Supporting training programmes through the European Social Fund and other grant programmes;@/UL@

14. RDAs also enjoy considerable freedom in deciding how they meet their Public Service Agreements. To give two recent examples:

@UL@— Advantage West Midlands played a strong role in co-ordinating work to help Rover workers in 2005 and 2006. @/UL@

@UL@— The London Development Agency has identified and need and provided funding to support English for Speakers of Other Languages in 2007 when national funding changed. @/UL@

15. However, there are also cases where RDA work in drawing up strategies and plans results in bureaucratic competition and conflicting messages to those on the frontline. The Leitch review reinforced the existing trends to give more influence to employers via Sector Skills Councils while saying very little about the role of regional organisations in skills. In some places, the consequences are conflicts between national, regional and sectoral approaches to planning activities which are supposed to be mainly driven by learner and employer demand. There have been an effort to clarify roles and responsibilities in some regions but the problems of a congested situation remain.

16. RDAs are designed to focus on employment, business growth, economic opportunity and innovation. The Leitch report encourages the education and training system to focus on the same issues. In the past 16 months, we have seen good examples of positive responses from individual RDAs to the challenges set out by Lord Leitch. There are new opportunities for RDAs to work better with the education and training system but achieving a sustained and successful partnership requires the following action:

@UL@— RDAs will need to create new mechanisms to engage local partners to ensure that the abolition of Regional Assemblies does not mean they lose local intelligence.@/UL@

@UL@— RDAs need to work with central government and LSC to ensure that successful initiatives can be incorporated into the mainstream. RDAs have the flexibility to innovate, pilot, experiment, take risks and provide development funding but good practice is often lost when programmes end.@/UL@

@UL@— RDAs may need to develop their understanding and insight and level of engagement with the education and training system. There is a tendency to involve universities on an automatic basis but not colleges. Some RDA officers need better insight into the structural and bureaucratic drivers, enablers, barriers and inhibitors. AoC is always happy to broker meetings with college principals and governing bodies to help RDA officers understand core as well as developmental issues. @/UL@CASE STUDY: ENTERPRISE IN THE NORTH

Fewer new businesses are created in the North of England than in the South. Colleges in the north have been working with the three Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) in the Northern Way to address this issue. The RDAs have funded an enterprise programme in 30 colleges to encourage people to start and grow new businesses. The Association of Colleges (AoC) ran this project and called on Manchester Metropolitan University (MMU) to provide staff development. Each college in the programme has nominated three enterprise champions whose job it is to introduce training sessions for aspiring entrepreneurs and to embed enterprise education in existing provision.

Successes saw City of Sunderland College students creating a portable nail-bar, technology experts at Dearne Valley College launching an IT company after receiving advice from a panel of local business people; and Hull College hairdressing apprentices setting up their own salons. In all, 16,000 students were involved in the projects, learning business start-up skills and fostering innovation and social enterprise.

REGIONAL AND SUB-REGIONAL STRUCTURES IN THE LEARNING AND SKILLS COUNCIL17. The plans to break-up the Learning and Skills Council in 2010 will significantly

change the role of regional organisations in the overview and planning of further and higher education. The LSC created a regional structure in 2004 which takes the leading role in delivering the regional skills agenda. The local presence was reduced 2006. In 2010, the single LSC regional structure will have as many as four replacements:

@UL@— sub-regional partnerships of local authorities to co-ordinate and, in some areas, to fund 16-19 education (Raising Expectations White Paper, (Cm 7348) paragraphs 3.25 and 3.38);@/UL@

@UL@— a regional planning group for 16-19 education organised by the new Young People's Learning Agency which brings together all the local authorities and sub-regional partnerships in the area. The new Skills Funding Agency and RDA will also be represented (White Paper, paragraph 3.23);@/UL@

@UL@— regional arms of the new Skills Funding Agency which will handle competitions for funds, capital funding and liaison with regional organisations (White Paper, paragraph 8.19);@/UL@

@UL@— sub-regional arms of the National Apprenticeship Service (NAS) which will manage a field force and relationships with employers and other organisations (World Class Apprenticeships: Unlocking Talent, Building Skills for All, paragraph 4.11).@/UL@

18. The original decisions to organise the LSC around a regional structure were made on the grounds of efficiency, coherence and ability to liaise with RDAs. Nine LSC offices cost less than forty seven and the organisation has become more responsive to national directions. The disadvantages of a regional structure has been its occasional remoteness from local issues and a longer chain of command in which national decisions have to pass through regional offices and then local partnership teams. However, whatever these disadvantages, the new arrangements risk becoming more complex and even less coherent.

THE ROLE OF FURTHER EDUCATION19. Colleges have improved their operations in the last ten years in a way that has few

parallels within the public services. Colleges have:

@UL@— increased the numbers of 16-18 year olds in education and training and helping more of them progress into university and work;@/UL@

@UL@— massively increased the number of adults enrolling and achieving basic skills and level 2 qualifications to enable the Government to meet its targets;@/UL@

@UL@— managed their curriculum offer to meet employment growth and clear demand for higher skills, for example construction and health and social care;@/UL@

@UL@— significantly improved quality whether measured in success rates or inspection reports. At the same time, colleges have maintained satisfaction levels above 90%, compared to 75% in universities.@/UL@

College Success Rates

@LT@IMG SRC=@Q@48we20.gif@Q@@GT@

CASE STUDY: THE FUSION PROJECT

Over the last three years, North West Colleges have developed closer links with regional business via the Fusion project funded by the Northwest Regional Development Agency and Learning and Skills Council. The project has removed the straightjacket which often comes with funding for learning, allowed colleges to develop new ways to meet business needs and supported the sharing of good practice West Cheshire College has developed an academy to support tourism in Chester, working in partnership with Jobcentreplus, Business Link and other agencies. South Trafford College is working with major employers like the Trafford Centre and Harvey Nichols to help their employees deliver world-class customer service. Merseyside Colleges are helping Liverpool's John Lennon airport train staff in airport-related businesses.

20. Colleges have achieved these improvements with some assistance from the Learning and Skills Council and advisory bodies but not to an extent that justifies the status quo. Much government regulation of the further education system is complex and results in unnecessary micro-management, wasting hundreds of millions of pounds and sapping the morale of governors and staff in colleges. The performance of colleges on any measure—success rates, inspection results, satisfaction levels—shows that regulation could be reduced.

21. AoC's initial thoughts on the Raising Expectations White Paper are that it is a missed opportunity to significantly simplify and reduce external regulation and planning of further education. The Secretary of State, John Denham, told the Higher Education Funding Council for England in April 2008 that “with only 295 staff, you distribute £7.5 billion annually| you free ministers from both the need and, may I say, the temptation to become involved in numerous detailed decisions". The planning and management of the further education system requires at least ten times as many people to manage a budget which is smaller.

April 2008

@HR25@

Memorandum 47

Submission from Universities UK

INTRODUCTION1. Universities UK welcomes the opportunity to make a submission to this inquiry. In

producing this response we consulted with the Higher Education Regional Associations (HERAs) and their replies are reflected here. Our submission highlights areas where enhanced public support, greater clarity and improved communication between universities and employers might better support the implementation of the skills agenda at regional level. Some comments on the need for improved public support for part-time student provision, which has a key part to play in meeting the Government's higher level skills objectives, are also feature in this response.

2. Universities UK will be contributing to the Government's consultation on a Higher Level Skills Strategy published last week, which looks to build on the Leitch Report by creating stronger and more flexible links between business and universities

“RESPONSES OF RDAS TO LEITCH AND HOW COHERENT AND STRUCTURED THESE ARE"3. Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) play a distinctive role in working with

business, especially SMEs, with the aim of encouraging and increasing their access to universities. Through their understanding of the company base and through their existing engagements with the various groups and structures that drive priorities regionally, RDAs bring added value to the development of high level skills in the regions.

4. RDAs play an important role in facilitating, co-coordinating, and supporting relationships between universities and business, as well as facilitating the exchange of information. In responding to the Leitch report the RDAs have generally sought to match the report's priorities to those outlined in their Regional Economic Strategies (RES) and address them either through the regional skills partnership/alliance (RSP) or through the pathfinder. The advantage of this approach is that it should ensure coherence, co-ordination of partners through the RSP, and the dissemination of key issues to subgroups that lead on skills issues (eg SEEDA has a higher level skills sub group which brings together HEFCE, HESE, FDF, LSC, and AOC). However, the RSPs and related committees may be more efficient in some regions than in others, and their effectiveness in delivering this agenda may need to be monitored.

5. It is worth noting that links between some RDAs and the universities in their region may need to be strengthened further and also that support varies from region to region. The impact of universities on the development of higher level skills for business is not of course confined to their regional boundaries but extends well beyond it. For this reason it is crucial that the regional structure does not act as a barrier to this wider role in skills development or indeed to innovation and R&D more generally. It would be helpful if the capability of RDAs to cooperate and collaborate across regions were strengthened in order to recognise the fact that the impact of university activity should not be constrained by regional boundaries.

NEED FOR TWO-WAY COMMUNICATION6. Universities UK recognises that the needs of employers are an important influence

on university programmes although it is essential that provision reflects student demand. The interests of students and employers overlap but they may not always exactly coincide. As the Leitch report points out, “the best form of welfare is to ensure that people can adapt to change"127. The principles underlying academic disciplines change much less rapidly than the uses made of them, and so a sound grasp of the fundamentals is essential. The long-term interests of the student, for whom higher education should provide a sound foundation for an entire working lifetime—(during which they may have several careers and associated learning) may diverge from the short-term needs of an individual employer.

7. As one university commented “our curricula are influenced by employers, but not normally determined by them." A two-way interchange of ideas is necessary. A primary aim of

127 Prosperity for all in the global economy: World class skills, executive summary, p. 3

university courses should be to encourage the development of skills such as critical thinking and analysis rather than simply reflecting current employment needs which are almost certain to change.

8. The Leitch Report's emphasis on employer demand, and its call for a “demand-led system", does not adequately recognise that university decisions about course provision are determined by trends in student demand. As one university put it, “we cannot afford to develop programmes that employers want if students do not want them". If employers want to exert a greater influence on course provision, there needs to be a mechanism whereby they can test student demand, and share the costs and risk involved in developing provision where student demand is untested. Universities are businesses in their own right, and are required by government and the Funding Councils to ensure their solvency and success in highly competitive national and international markets.

WHAT THE EXISTING REGIONAL STRUCTURES OF DELIVERY ARE AND WHAT SUB-REGIONAL STRATEGIES MAY BE REQUIRED

9. We welcome the evident diversity of approach by RDAs across regions which supports local business and communities with different needs. However, the Government Sub-National review and related government decisions on regional skills structures remains an issue since there is currently a feeling of uncertainty over decisions on this. This review is likely to further devolve responsibility, and possibly funding powers beyond the RDAs to sub—national level but it is unclear how and when this may happen. Clarity on the likely outcomes and time-lines for decisions would therefore be extremely helpful in enabling the RDAs and other stakeholders to better plan their future activities around this agenda.

“THE ROLE OF THE LEARNING AND SKILLS COUNCIL AND SECTOR SKILLS COUNCILS IN THIS CONTEXT"10. The dissolution of the Sector Skills Development Agency and the launch of the new

Commission for Employment and Skills, which became operational in April 2008, has led to some uncertainty with regard to the representation of the Sector Skills Councils (SSCs) in 2008-9. Likewise, the Learning and Skills Council (LSC) is somewhat constrained by new structures planned to succeed it, preventing it from working as effectively as possible.

11. There is a need to have clear arrangements for the periods of transition brought about by the introduction of the Commission for Employment and Skills, and a need for clarity of purpose for the SSCs. These must be properly communicated to higher education institutions (HEIs). Those regions with higher level skills pathfinders appear to have offered a better opportunity for higher education to engage with the LSC-led Regional Statement of Skills Priorities and correspondingly, to ensure that skills priorities are dealt with at all levels and clearly linked with the regional economic strategy.

12. There is also a need to consider the extent of SSCs' abilities to work at regional and sub-regional levels given that they are national organisations, not all of which have regional structures. Equally, national Sector Skills Agreements (SSAs) do not necessarily fit with those sectors' more regional and local requirements.

THE RESPECTIVE ROLES OF THE FURTHER EDUCATION AND HIGHER EDUCATION SECTORS IN DELIVERING A REGION-BASED AGENDA FOR LEITCH AND THEIR COORDINATION WITH ONE OTHER

13. The higher education sector believes that higher level skills did not have a sufficiently high profile in the Leitch Report, which is why Universities UK has long pushed for the national skills strategy to give appropriate focus to this. The current consultation paper on the higher level skills strategy aims to reflect the importance of higher education and higher skills to this agenda.

14. Both higher education (HE) and further education (FE) have an important role to play in delivering the skills agenda, and their contributions can be strengthened by working effectively in partnership with one another. There is a need for both sectors to be supported and connected into the developing agenda—particularly through the outcomes of the Higher Level Skills Strategy Consultation—in a co-ordinated way at regional level, perhaps through the Higher Education Regional Association (HERAs).

THE IMPACT ON STUDENTS OF THESE INITIATIVES, PARTICULARLY IN THE CONTEXT OF POLICIES FOR LIFELONG LEARNING

15. Universities UK endorsed Lord Leitch's recommendation that the Government should set target that 40% of the workforce should attain a qualification at level 4 and above by 2020. We welcomed the Government's acceptance of that target, and the interim target that 36% of all adults should have a higher education qualification by 2014. Whilst we recognise that both of these targets are ambitious, it is essential to go beyond the current focus on 18-30 year olds, since this recognises that lifelong learning and older learners will play an important part in achieving the highly skilled workforce which is needed if we are to maintain our position in a competitive global economy.

16. The shift in emphasis is particularly important because 70% of those who will be in work in 2020 have already completed their compulsory education128. Moreover, current demographic projections129 point towards a moderate fall in the numbers of 18-20 year olds between now and 2019 across all four countries of the UK (with the overall decline equating to 70,000 full-time undergraduate places over the next 10 years).

17. Increasing participation in higher education by young and mature students will depend not only on universities working with employers to access larger numbers of potential students in the workplace, but also on higher education continuing to be highly responsive to student needs.

PART-TIME STUDENTS18. Over 40% of students in UK higher education already study part-time. We would

expect that proportion to increase over time as universities work to attract older students and those who are already in the workplace. The continuing growth of part-time higher education plays a central role in meeting Government objectives, such as the extension of higher level skills, widening participation and lifelong learning, and will continue to do so if properly supported.

19. As Universities UK's report Part-time students in higher education: supporting higher level skills and lifelong learning demonstrated, part-time students already benefit from a wide range of flexible academic provision that has been developed by higher education institutions in response to their needs.

20. However, a high proportion of part-time students do not gain any benefit from the limited public support that is available; such support as is available only makes contribution to the total cost of being a part-time student. The reasons why a student is ineligible for public support often have little to do with their economic circumstances, but relate to one, or both, of two factors: either the student is studying less than 50% of a full time course, or the student already has some form of higher education qualification. We have therefore asked Government to re-examine the scope of public support for part-time higher education and the forthcoming review of variable fees in 2009 provides an opportunity to do this.

April 2008

@HR25@

128 Prosperity for all in the global economy: World class skills, executive summary, p. 3129 The future size and shape of the higher education sector in the UK, Universities UK, March 2008 http://bookshop.universitiesuk.ac.uk/downloads/size_and_shape.pdf

Memorandum 48

Submission from Barry Johnson, Learning Partners Ltd

I found much in the Leitch Report that is admirable. I will therefore not deal with those items. The thing I will refer to is the underlieing beliefs of the writer—Lord Leitch.

First then let me quote with what I fully concur: “our natural resource is our people—and their potential is both untapped and vast. Skills will unlock that potential. The prize for our country will be enormous—higher productivity, the creation of wealth and social justice."

THE BASIC ASSUMPTIONThere are assumptions throughout the Leitch report that the required skills rest with the

Education Sector, to some extent that must be the case. My contention is that important factor is that educational qualifications at any level are just a start point towards acquiring skills.

We need to recognize that if you have an appropriate degree it is the start point of your training. Some professions recognize this. It is also self evident that the “qualification" required for entry into a skill area is often pitched much higher than the requirement for the training so eliminating many from the training. We have observed a large number of young people selected for an apprenticeship going on to university so wasting the investment made in their training.

Apprenticeship associated education has much to do with educational excellence and little to do with the requirements of the job or with advancement in the skill area. Ask simple questions such as, “What education does somebody really need to be a first class plasterer?" Now ask the question, “what educational level is a person required to achieve to get a certificate in plastering?" Are the answers these two questions congruent?

THE FUNDAMENTAL NEEDThe real skills are those acquired in the work environment and most people entering and

many people currently working lack the fundamental skill required for continuous and rapid professional development. The key skills that the university and college and school processes are failing to develop are those referred to as soft skills and personal development skills and until they do we will continue to fail to get a “continuing development culture". When educational institutions do attempt to development soft skills and personal development skills they are tackled at the “knowledge level" and not at the “behavioural level". Perhaps this is because “education people" themselves lack these skills.

@UL@Quote—we have tried to identify how to deliver better on what we have rather than to invent many more new structures.@/UL@

This approach must be correct. It is not the structures that are failing. It is the belief within the education sector and the governmental and political structures that education is delivering skills. It is not. It is delivering information, factual knowledge and operational processes when what industry requires are skills. Even when writing about skills they are couched in terms of qualifications. Herein lies a real problem. It is so difficult to accurately describe what a person can do.

@UL@Quote—The Review has concluded that, where skills were once a key driver of prosperity and fairness, they are now the key driver. Achieving world-class skills is the key to achieving economic success and social justice in the new global economy.@/UL@

I totally agree. Nobody ever flew and aircraft or serviced one because they had a university education. They can do it because they have been trained to do it. This can be observed throughout industry. Often the degrees and certificates people have bear no relationship to the professional or skilled job a person is doing. The failure is the belief that we have an education system that is delivering anything other than “tickets".

@UL@Quote—only 19% of adults in the UK report contributing any of their own funding towards education and training.@/UL@

When “education" starts to deliver skills students will select appropriate courses and the money spent on “education" will give the country a return.

Associated with the idea of self-funding was the mistaken idea that the best suppliers gain the most customers. Many companies and in particular government bodies are cost driven when it comes to training. The cheapest not the one that supplies the best value is unfortunately how the suppliers are chosen.

This reinforces my contention that if individuals or those in companies responsible for investing in the training of staff see little return on their expenditure they won't spend.

RAISING SCHOOL LEAVING AGEThere is a grave danger of making assumptions that there is only one education process.

Forcing people into a straight jacket is bound to fail. The paper raised the issue of the extension of compulsory education. At the same time the paper raises the issue of the large numbers of young people “failing" in the education system. I will express the view that the education system's rigidity is the basis of the failure. For many to attain high level skills it will be necessary that they start a seven year apprenticeship at fourteen with part time education tailored to the need of the skill area so that education is a reality and supports the skill growth. Many young people have rejected the constraints and lack of reality of the secondary school education system.

Let me use three brief examples from one family. One who was nothing but trouble at school and fought the “system" is now a Nursing Sister in a large hospital and another who is dyslectic and loathed school is a skilled Plasterer. It was only when exposed to the reality they sought did they apply themselves. Equally there is a member of the same family who gained a history degree because he could and is now very happy working as an electrician. Straight jackets don't work and to extend them is not a solution.

CONCLUSIONI read the paper with growing frustration. I agree we must up-skill. To do that we must dump

the attitude I observe in this paper. The “demand" led approach must be a sensible way to go. The concern is the narrowness of the concept of “demand led skill development" expressed in the paper.

April 2008

@HR25@

Memorandum 49

Submission from the Design Council

1. INTRODUCTIONThe Design Council welcomes this opportunity to respond to the House of Commons

Committee on University, Innovation, Science and Skills inquiry: After Leitch: Implementing skills and training policy. This submission will focus on issues relating to the roles of the Sector Skills Councils, the higher education sector and industry bodies in developing design and innovation skills that meet the growing needs of the wider economy.

Our views are drawn from the design industry's response to issues highlighted the Leitch report, which are outlined in a report on design sector skills development: High-level skills for higher value130, and the Design Blueprint131, which forms the design industry section of the sector skills agreement for the creative industries.

This work has shown that design employers perceive that the fast changing needs of the industry are not adequately catered for through design education in schools, colleges, universities and the workplace.

The Leitch Review puts employer engagement and a demand-led approach at the heart of skills development. The UK design industry is relatively fragmented and heterogeneous, consisting predominantly of small businesses132, where formal higher-level training and development is the exception rather than the rule. By improving connections between industry and design skills development, the UK will be better placed to differentiate and add value to goods and services and stay ahead in increasingly competitive global markets.

Design is a broad sector with many disciplines practising across different industries. If the UK is to harness the benefits of design as a driver of innovation and competitiveness there needs to be greater knowledge sharing and co-ordination between Sector Skills Councils, universities and industry networks.

2. DEMAND-LED SKILLS DEVELOPMENTDesign is a potent force for innovation in manufacturing and in our services sectors133. The

UK design industry is the biggest in Europe with a total turnover of £11.6 billion and an international reputation for quality and value. However, the rest of the world is already catching up fast. Developing economies like China and India are rapidly developing their design and innovation capabilities to move up the value chain- underlining the need for the UK to invest in developing high-end creative design skills over the long term134.

In the modern workplace designers are increasingly expected to work alongside other specialists such as scientists, engineers, social scientists, marketers and management consultants. R&D activities in many businesses are increasingly structured along multi-disciplinary lines, requiring designers to work in teams with a stronger understanding of business and technical issues in the development of innovative new products and services.

Multidisciplinary learning that puts design students alongside business, science and technology students will help develop vital creative skills and approaches to problem-solving valued by employers and vital to our future prosperity and competitiveness.

Some universities are responding to increased industry demands for multidisciplinary skills through the introduction of a growing number of new centres and courses across England that bring

130 http://www.designcouncil.org.uk/en/Design-Council/Files/System-Files/Download/131 http://www.ukdesignskills.org.uk/132 Design in Britain 2005 http://www.designcouncil.org.uk/en/About-Design/Research/Value-of-Design-Factfinder/133 DCMS (2008) Creative Britain: New talents for the New Economy134 HM Treasury (2005) Cox Review of Creativity in Business

together design, science, technology and business studies, such as Design London135—a collaboration between Royal College of Art, Imperial College and Tanaka Business School.

In the spirit of demand-led skills development endorsed in the Leitch review the Design Council in partnership with Creative & Cultural Skills conducted a two-year consultation with industry to identify future skills needs and ensure that the UK retains and builds on its world-class design capabilities. The UK Design Industry Skills Development Plan, as detailed in Design Blueprint was produced as a result of this consultation and sets out practical and realistic steps to tackle the gaps in design skills education and professional development from school through to colleges, universities and the workplace.

The primary mechanism for the implementation of the Design Blueprint is a new UK Design Skills Alliance which will work to ensure that the UK is the future global centre for excellence in design and professional development. Urgent priority initiatives will include a Professional Practice Framework and a programme of Continuous Professional Development. To achieve its primary objective of increasing the value and profile of the design industry by developing its professional skills, the Alliance requires continued support from Government and real investment from industry.

3. RECOMMENDATIONS3.1 Improve flexibility of funding support for demand-led employer engagement

To allow faster responses by universities to the industry, greater flexibility in funding schemes is needed—including consideration of direct funding to industry bodies engaged in collaboration with further and higher education institutions on professional skills development.

3.2 Improve connections between universities and the design industry's regional networks

Design bodies such as the DBA and D&AD have strong regional networks which should be more effectively utilised by universities to ensure greater dialogue and industry and employer engagement regionally.

3.3 Improve collaboration between sector skills councils and knowledge transfer

Design cuts across many different industry sectors including engineering, construction, retail and manufacturing. There needs to be greater collaboration and knowledge sharing between different Sectors' Skills Councils to enhance their reach and impact on the economy.

April 2008

@HR25@

135 http://www.designlondon.net/

Memorandum 50

Submission from ConstructionSkills

1. SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE AND KEY RECOMMENDATIONS1.1. ConstructionSkills has engaged with consultations around the Leitch Review since

its inception, and we welcome the opportunity for ongoing input. This document sets out our response to key parts of the IUSS Committee's inquiry into the post-Leitch landscape. In particular we have focused on our expertise in delivering skills training in the regions using existing and developing structures, the essential role of Sector Skills Councils, and the tangible results of a sector-based approach for the construction workforce and employers.

1.2. ConstructionSkills has three key recommendations:

1.2.1 The demand-led, sector-based approach should remain the over-arching strategy for the delivery of skills and training initiatives. Sector Skills Councils are able to provide a coordinated industry voice about sector needs and a single channel for a joined-up approach to FE, HE and lifelong learning. In response, SSCs are well placed to oversee sector-specific delivery frameworks.

1.2.2. Employers value being able to access qualifications, provision and services that meet their needs; that are of recognised quality; and that are consistent across the English regions—particularly given the industry's highly mobile workforce. SSCs are well placed to give employers a voice when it comes to shaping “fit for purpose" solutions to improve the skills and training provision for their industries.

1.2.3. Regionally funded skills and training provision must be monitored and assessed, and critically, must add up to delivering the total required nationally. This is also true in the context of Government being able to show progression towards the over-arching targets set out in Leitch.

To ensure cohesion between national strategy and regional delivery there is a need to improve training supply data (we see this as an area where the LSC could add value through the provision of good quality training supply numbers). In addition, there is a need to streamline funding on skills. The current system is too complicated (particularly in England) and this is only likely to increase as more levels of delivery are added.

2. ABOUT CONSTRUCTIONSKILLS2.1 ConstructionSkills is the sector skills council for the construction industry. We are

UK-wide and represent the whole industry from professional consultancies to major contractors and SMEs.

2.2 We are a partnership between CITB-ConstructionSkills, CIC and CITB Northern Ireland. All three partners are committed to working together to deliver employer-led skills and training programmes through the Sector Skills Agreement for Construction.

3. EXISTING REGIONAL DELIVERY STRUCTURES3.1 ConstructionSkills has a strong, and some might say unique, presence as a Sector

Skills Council at the regional level. As a long-standing industry training board with a regional structure, and now as a sector skills council, we have the capability and the capacity to respond to regional variations when planning and implementing skills and training policies.

3.2 In particular we have developed the Construction Skills Network report, which is now in its third year. This report provides a sophisticated analysis of our regional data observations which provides clear signals to the construction industry about where in the UK key skills are required. In addition we have built up our regional employment engagement programme and our delivery mechanisms through our creation of the National Skills Academies for Construction, Regional Strategy Teams, Regional Business Support (Apprenticeships Officers, Company Development Advisers and Education Teams) and the National Construction College hubs. We expand on these below.

4. The Construction Skills Network

4.1 One of Lord Leitch's main findings was that there was a need for the development of up-to-date labour market information. Because of our close working relationship with the construction industry we have been aware that, in this sector more than any other, Leitch's findings hold true. The movement of labour around the UK, following major construction programmes, is well documented. What was less well known was the variation in skills needs across the UK. At a time when construction projects are in such abundance, this data is the number one need in the construction industry.

4.2 To support the industry and provide essential data for prioritisation of public funding and training provision, we developed a forecasting model that could be used to examine our operating environment and business trends, as well as identify skills priorities and highlight key labour market issues.

4.3 The creation of the Construction Skills Network in 2005 draws on the knowledge of government, sector skills councils, construction companies, education and training providers, regional development agencies and customers across the UK. The result (attached as Annex 2) is, we believe, the most detailed analysis of skills and training demand across the construction industry, designed to help plan future skills needs and target investments.

4.4 The data is broken down by region, providing a clear insight into growth areas affecting the pattern of skills needs across the country, and setting out a call to action for the industry in those areas. By examining the required number of recruits needed in each trade over the next five years the report provides industry with the information it needs to resource and deliver its programme of works.

4.5 To give the Committee a flavour of 2008's findings the CSN reported that:

@UL@Infrastructure is the sector that will experience the most significant growth (an average of 5.8% each year) over the period of 2008 to 2012. A number of large projects are now underway or in the pipeline, including the Olympic Park infrastructure work, Thameslink expansion, a £3 billion Scottish Transport Investment Programme and nearly £600m of motorway and trunk road improvements in Northern Ireland.@/UL@

@UL@There will be a continuing shift in construction growth from the North to South of England over the next five years, due to major projects such as Crossrail. Although this does mean that the largest number of new construction recruits will be required in London, the South East and East of England, total percentage growth in employment will be highest in Wales and Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland's employment growth is expected to rise by 13.3%, driven by a substantial and wide reaching public investment programme. The 13.5% growth expected in Wales is due to the strength of the labour-intensive repair and maintenance (R&M) sector, particularly housing R&M, being driven by the Welsh Housing Quality Standards programme.@/UL@

4.6 The conclusions in the annual CSN report stem from data analysis as well consultation with a range of experts and practitioners who provide an invaluable reality check on the assumptions and subsequent results. This group includes a set of Regional Observatory Groups (who feed into an over-arching National Observatory Group) with members drawn from Government, education and the construction industry. The Observatory Group members feed back their observations, knowledge and insight of what was really happening on the ground in every UK region and nation, and this is used to fine tune the assumptions and data that go into the forecasting programme.

4.7 The CSN model is fed by a large number of data sources, from macroeconomic trends to federation “state of the nation" surveys, which means it is the most representative picture of skills demand available to the industry today. In order to make it more accurate, the supply-side data about the numbers of people in training must be improved, as this is currently a significant barrier to improving its value. ConstructionSkills is working with funding partners to try and improve access to this information.

5. National Skills Academy for Construction

5.1 We believe that the key to skills delivery at a regional level is through demand-side engagement. The demand-led, sector-based approach should remain the over-arching strategy for the delivery of skills and training initiatives. Sector Skills Councils are able to provide a coordinated industry voice about sector needs and a single channel for a joined-up approach to FE, HE and lifelong learning.

5.2 The project based nature of construction—and the highly-fragmented workforce—means that there is often only an opportunity to determine skills needs and deliver training on-site when large volumes of people come together on long term, large scale projects.

To address this issue we created the National Skills Academy for Construction. Centred on a network of project based training centres on major construction sites, the academy concept takes advantage of both on-site training delivery and the existing training provision available regionally. We are aiming to have more than 30 sites established throughout the UK by 2010. Currently we have seven sites fully operational and we will be looking to expand this to at least 15 by the end of 2008. It was also announced that the Olympic construction sites will become Academy projects and work is underway to finalise delivery plans in accordance with the Academy process.

5.3 Working together with RDAs and other regional agencies we are able to ensure that employers can meet their training and skills obligations without disrupting or complicating construction projects further. The workforce and the employer both benefit.

6. Regional Strategy Development

6.1 A network of ConstructionSkills Regional Strategy Advisors (RSAs) ensure that we engage with skills and training bodies in the nations and regions, with the aim of coordinating delivery at a strategic level.

6.2 The RSAs manage strategic initiatives in the regions and nations, including ensuring that the Construction Skills Network Regional Observatories have representation from a range of stakeholders, and bringing together the full range of partners needed to deliver National Skills Academy for Construction projects. They are also responsible for managing funding through regional provision such as Learning and Skills Council contracts and Train to Gain.

7. Regional Business Support

7.1 ConstructionSkills has a network of 100 mobile Company Development Advisors who visit thousands of employers every year, providing face-to-face advice on skills and training, from short courses and the development of Training and Development Plans. They also provide assistance with accessing funding for training, including CITB-ConstructionSkills Grant.

7.2 We have around 150 Apprenticeship Officers based in the regions who work on the ground to bring together apprentices, employers and colleges to create training partnerships. They also work with colleges and employers to place Programme-Led Apprentices who are on full-time college courses and require on-site training to complete their qualifications.

7.3 Our Education Teams work on the ground with schools, teachers, careers advisors and young people to improve information about construction careers. They have also been instrumental in bringing together schools, colleges and employers to form Consortia to deliver the Construction and the Built Environment Diploma from September 2008, and they will continue to support its delivery.

7.4 ConstructionSkills provides the industry-recognised Health and Safety Test. One of the key ways of enabling workers to take the test is through over 150 test centres around the country, plus a fleet of mobile testing vans which can deliver the test at major construction sites to meet employer needs.

8. The National Construction College

8.1 The National Construction College is the training division of ConstructionSkills, training over 30,000 adults and apprentices every year. It specialises in providing highly specialist training to the construction industry—training which often cannot be provided by any other college because it is too costly due to expensive equipment and a high staff-student ratio, and low volumes of students.

8.2 Specialist training includes Plant Operations, Tower Crane Operations and Steeplejacking. Working with employers, industry and funding bodies, we offer apprenticeships to young people aged 16 plus who are looking to start a career in construction. We currently have a 100% employment rate for our apprentices. Adult provision includes Health and Safety, Management and Leadership, and Assessment and Verification. We also offer Graduate Appreciation courses to help bridge the gap between industry and academia.

8.3 The National Construction College has five campuses around the country, in Ashbourne (Derbyshire), Kings Lynn (Norfolk), Birmingham, Erith (Kent) and Glasgow. A sixth site, the Plant Training Centre at Eton Manor, is now in operation as part of the National Skills Academy for Construction on the Olympic Park. These hubs enable outreach into the regions with many courses delivered on company premises or other locations convenient to its customer base.

9. THE ROLE OF THE LEARNING AND SKILLS COUNCIL AND SECTOR SKILLS COUNCILS IN THIS CONTEXT

9.1 Sector Skills Councils play a valuable role in providing a coordinated industry voice about sector needs and a single channel for a joined up approach to FE, HE and lifelong learning. In response, SSCs are well placed to oversee sector-specific delivery frameworks.

9.2 Standards and qualifications setting is one example of a key area that requires coordination and delivery at a national level. Employers must be able to access the same qualifications and training provision wherever they are based in the country, and should be reassured that the quality of provision will meet the same standards. Employers also value their role, through Sector Skills Councils, in being able to influence fit-for-purpose training provision.

9.3 As discussed earlier, providing an understanding of sector skills needs at a national level is another essential function for Sector Skills Councils. Skills and training provision at a regional level still needs to add up to deliver the total national requirement, particularly in an industry such as construction which has a highly mobile workforce: leaving one region deficient in certain skills will result in a drain on other regions.

9.4 With Sector Skills Councils' role in both skills needs and standard setting, they are well placed to determine which qualifications and training should be publicly funded. This was a key ambition set out in Leitch which has yet to be realised, with a significant number of courses still being funded which do not result in trainees moving into employment. One example of this is the thousands of young people on publicly funded full-time construction college courses. Without ensuring they have employers to fulfil the on-site practice, these people will not be able to achieve the industry recognised NVQ standard required to work in the industry.

9.5 The Learning and Skills Council's role and structure has changed significantly in recent years and continues to do so. One key area where they could add much more value is through the provision of good quality training supply numbers. This would help inform skills needs analyses, and sectoral understanding of how many people undergoing training enter the industry and through what routes.

10. THE ROLES OF FURTHER EDUCATION AND HIGHER EDUCATION IN DELIVERING A REGION-BASED AGENDA FOR LEITCH AND THEIR CO-ORDINATION WITH ONE ANOTHER.

10.1 ConstructionSkills is working with FE colleges and employers to make courses more relevant and to improve completion rates. Through our Apprenticeship Officers on the ground, close working relationships are developed with the colleges, the employers and the students, which help address problems and remove barriers to framework completion. Over the past few years, we have increased completion rates from below 30% to an average of 70%, higher than any other managing agency in our industry.

10.2 We are also working with colleges and employers to pick-up students on full-time college courses to enable them to become fully qualified. Our “Programme-Led Apprenticeships" provides a shorter, concentrated period of on-site practice for students. In 9-12 months, they gain the experience they need to complete their NVQs, allowing them to enter the industry as fully qualified workers. PLAs also offer a model to enable major contractors to set up agreements with subcontractors to provide on-site practice to apprentices on major building projects.

10.3 FE Colleges need to continue to work closely with employers to deliver practical skills and experience, which is relevant to the local/regional workforce and market, as part of their courses. A continual barrier to skills progression has been the lack of a joined-up approach to course-based and practical training. Only through mutual understanding and effective funding solutions can we address this.

10.4 As discussed earlier, one key element which would help improve the efficiency of matching demand and supply would be the provision of good quality training supply numbers from the Learning and Skills Council.

10.5 More recently, ConstructionSkills has been the lead partner in developing the Construction and the Built Environment Diploma. Central to the delivery of this qualification is the development of local consortia—partnerships between schools, colleges and employers—which will work together to deliver the curriculum. We have been very impressed with how well this model has developed, and feel with the roll-out of the C&BE and other subject Diplomas, there will be a significant opportunity to build on this model, and certainly to involve High Education more closely.

Annex 1

The Sector Skills Council for Construction

THIS EVIDENCE IS PRESENTED BY CONSTRUCTIONSKILLS.ConstructionSkills is the Sector Skills Council for the construction industry. It is a

partnership between, CITB-ConstructionSkills, the Construction Industry Council (CIC) and CITB Northern Ireland and as such covers the whole industry from craft to the professions, the whole of the UK, and all of the skills and training issues that the industry faces.

CITB-ConstructionSkills is the construction industry's Industry Training Board and has levy raising powers. CITB-ConstructionSkills helps the industry in England, Scotland and Wales in all aspects of recruiting, training and qualifying the construction workforce. It also works with partners in government and beyond to improve the competitiveness of the industry as a whole.

CIC is the umbrella body for all professional services (such as architects, engineers and surveyors), research organisations and specialist trade associations. It represents more than 450,000 professionals and over 23,500 firms.

CITB Northern Ireland is the equivalent to CITB-ConstructionSkills in Great Britain, with powers to raise a Levy on employers in the Province.

ConstructionSkills has a leading role in:

@UL@— Providing sector skills intelligence@/UL@

@UL@— Defining the skills strategy for the sector—including a sector qualifications strategy@/UL@

@UL@— Increasing employer engagement in skills and training@/UL@

@UL@— Skills and training brokerage@/UL@

@UL@— Facilitating and leading skills and training delivery@/UL@

For more information on ConstructionSkills recent activity and forthcoming plans, please see our Progress and Plans report (attached as Annex 3) which was published in April 2008.

@HR25@

Memorandum 51

Submission from the Equality and Human Rights Commission

1. The Equality and Human Rights Commission (the Commission) was established on 1st October 2007 under the Equality Act 2006. It champions equality and human rights for all, works to eliminate discrimination, reduce inequality, protect human rights and build good relations, and to ensure that everyone has a fair chance to participate in society.

2. The new Commission brings together the work of the three previous equality commissions, the Commission for Racial Equality (CRE), the Disability Rights Commission (DRC) and the Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC). The Commission's remit now covers race, disability, gender, gender reassignment, age, sexual orientation, religion or belief and the application of human rights. Working across Britain, the Commission has offices in Manchester, London, Cardiff, Glasgow and Edinburgh.

INTRODUCTION: THE POTENTIAL OF SKILLS TO IMPROVE LIFE CHANCES3. The potential of skills acquisition to improve employment opportunities, tackle

disadvantage and poverty and to change lives for the better is well evidenced. If skills can be secured even for those currently most distanced from them, then these ambitions could become a reality. Leitch proposals for increasing skills levels and subsequent implementation plans, have set out an exciting agenda for delivery of change by 2020.

4. It is encouraging that the implementation plan recognises the equality and diversity agenda that needs to be set and addressed through implementation policies and practices:

@UL@”The skills deficits in England are heavily differentiated by age, disability, ethnicity, and gender, but also by geography and socio-economic group. We will ensure that our policies, collectively and individually, act to narrow gaps in attainment and participation where these gaps are detrimental to social justice and economic success." Equality and Diversity section in implementation plan.@/UL@

5. In our evidence, we set out some of the key equality challenges, the extent to which current implementation arrangements for skills and progression opportunities will be delivered for individuals and groups identified, and suggest where additional actions are needed to catch those falling through the implementation “gaps".

ASSESSING THE EQUALITY IMPACT6. The Skills Strategy Equality Impact Assessment (EIA) identified a risk that existing

inequalities will not be reduced by a one size fits all approach, particularly for people who experience multiple disadvantage. It recognised that other vulnerable groups, while not covered by equality legislation, may also experience disadvantage in terms of skills and employment and ought to be able to benefit from the Skills Strategy.

7. The EIA identified groups affected by multiple or other disadvantage as including:

@UL@— part-time and temporary workers @/UL@

@UL@— people with caring responsibilities,@/UL@

@UL@— women in certain communities, particularly of Bangladeshi or Pakistani heritage@/UL@

@UL@— people on welfare benefits, especially incapacity benefits as a result of mental health problems @/UL@

@UL@— people over the age of 50@/UL@

@UL@— people employed in businesses lukewarm to training@/UL@

@UL@— migrants especially from EU accession countries and/or with English language needs@/UL@

@UL@— offenders and ex-offenders@/UL@

@UL@— young people not in education, employment or training (NEET)@/UL@

@UL@— adult with literacy levels at or below entry level 2@/UL@

8. The EIA explained that some of the most serious inequalities are long standing and are affected by a wide range of factors which can not be fully addressed by the Skills Strategy on its own. “Nor can they be removed overnight. These include deep-seated patterns of gender segregation throughout the labour market, and high levels of unemployment amongst disabled people and certain ethnic minority communities."

9. It also identified that data that is collected often gives a broad picture but does not capture the finer-grained distinctions that can affect equality and diversity.

10. It is therefore disappointing that despite recognising the data limitations, and the persistent and wider challenges of skills inequality, the Leitch implementation plans include no equality strategy or action plan to focus skills initiatives on those most in need.

11. We recommend that as a matter of urgency an equality impact assessment should be made available for the Leitch implementation arrangements and new delivery initiatives for skills. We also recommend that the evidence in the Skills Strategy EIA and our own evidence to this Select Committee raises sufficient concerns about the impact of initiatives on disadvantaged groups to warrant the development of a separate equality strategy and action plan. (For more information on the skills issues and challenges for particular groups, please see annex 1).

THE IMPACT OF LEITCH IMPLEMENTATION INITIATIVES 12. Raising Expectations: enabling the system to deliver (the Department for

Innovation, Universities and Skills and Department for Children, Schools and Families consultation document), regards the advent of Skills Accounts and the growth of Train to Gain as heralding a radically different model of organising the skills system, where the role of government is to make sure customers are well-informed and supported so that their demand for learning leads supply.

13. The Commission is concerned about how this demand-led system will serve to support those currently deficient in skills, the hard-to-reach, and those at the margins who have failed to make—or be heard in—demands for skills acquisition and progression opportunities to date.

Employers

14. For example, employers will be responsible for the skills of those in work (approximately 29 million people ). However, evidence to date suggests that the delivery of skills by employers has not been a major driving force in tackling disadvantage and inequality.

@UL@— Evidence shows that employers have very negative attitudes to training the over 40s. @/UL@

@UL@— Small employers (employing more than 58% of the private sector workforce and 12 million people) are less likely to train, as is the service sector—both of which are most likely to employ low-paid workers, dominated by women and ethnic minority workers. @/UL@

15. Articulating the training and progression needs of workers and those returning to the labour market —including those trapped in low-skilled jobs and under-using their skills -and the pay-back to employers, needs to be a key focus of discussions between skills brokers and employers and should inform the delivery plans of all the partners to work-based training. Currently there is little evidence to show that this is happening.

16. We would also like to see more emphasis on sectoral initiatives, with Sector Skills Councils (SSCs) and employers, particularly where there are skills shortages, targeting low-skilled and under-represented groups for training. Also, different regions face different demographic challenges so geographically-based initiatives should be created through Local Employment partnerships and Forums.

17. Train to Gain, because of its focus on low-skilled people, and employer support, has the important potential to engage employers and reduce inequalities. A key area of concern at the end of the precursor Employer Training Pilots (ETPs) was disability, given the low take-up of only 5% against a background population of 12%.

18. This data raises questions about results for other groups, even for those where take up was a closer match to the background population. For example, we know that the ETPs were regarded as beneficial to women, but in fact, training had no impact on job segregation. It is therefore important to carry out further analysis against the proportion of low-skilled people in the background population. We are pleased to note that the LSC (or the new Skills Funding Agency) with responsibility for planning and implementing the Train to Gain service will be working with its partners, including Sector Skills Councils and Regional Development Agencies, to ensure that all information on the programme is carefully monitored, to check that all learners and potential learners are benefiting, particularly those affected by multiple disadvantage. We look forward to seeing this data.

19. In addition, the Train to Gain brief should be extended to give funding and brokerage support to employers for skills training for different groups at different levels to secure progression and best use of employees, not just skilling at levels for current roles. Where union learning reps are working with employers to draw up action plans for delivering the pledge, we would like to see an explicit focus on skills proposals for all workers at all levels, with targets for groups under-represented.

Those not in work or on welfare

20. Public policy focuses on those in work (approx 29 million) or those on welfare (approx 5 million). In addition, there are approximately 4 million people neither working or on benefits—but this group, silent rather than vocal in their skills demands— is the hardest to reach and potentially the most in need. The make-up of this group, their skills and work potential, barriers and needs, should be identified and directly addressed in delivery arrangements. This group will include, for example, women taking time out for caring, Bangladeshi women, and older people.

21. We do have concerns about the extent to which the new adult careers service and advancement agency, and Skills Accounts, will capture the voice and potential of this silent group and create appropriate arrangements for securing skills and progression throughout the lifecycle. We know that within the resources available for the universal adult careers service, more intensive support face to face will be targeted on particular groups such as benefit recipients, the low-skilled, those cycling between welfare and work, and others at key transition points in their careers. The service has to recognise that many people face multiple barriers to re-entering work, gaining new skills and better jobs and the extent to which the arrangements will permit outreach and tailor-made solutions is unclear, particularly for those not falling clearly into the target groups.

Skills across the lifecycle

22. The link between skills and employment is vital and should be developed further, with a lifecycle approach delivered through skills accounts and the adult careers/advancement agency to support acquisition and use of skills. Focusing funding at front-loading young people with skills is important, but life-cycle-sensitive skills initiatives need to be developed, recognising the importance of re-skilling so that people are able to move in and out of work without losing ground, to stay longer in work, improving individual prosperity and contributing higher levels of productivity to the fast-changing global economy.

23. We welcome the proposal for further work between DIUS and the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) to define a clear prospectus for Jobcentre Plus (JCP) and the careers

service which acknowledges the range and nature of the problems people face and which recognises the different customer journeys which will be undertaken according to need. We look forward to seeing more detail of this.

Advancement agencies

24. We also look forward to more information about the role of the advancement agencies. As well as tackling persistent movement in and out of low level work, advancement agencies provide an exciting new opportunity to identify ways of securing progression for all groups.

TARGETING AND ENTITLEMENTS25. The specific and urgent priority for skills delivery is identified as tackling the skills

and employment needs of those out of work or who have low skills, with entitlement to a first full level 2 qualification. While we recognise the need for this entitlement, we are concerned that the importance of enabling people who have been out of the labour market to re-fresh outdated skills to improve their employability is not recognised through current proposals. We suggest that consideration should be given to extending the entitlement to support lifelong learning and re-training in skills that have currency in the labour market for people to support effective re-entry and progression into sustainable work.

26. Similarly, we have concerns about the impact on many adult workers of entitlement to level 3 training only for first level 3 and for those up to age 25. We note that women currently are under-represented in those holding level 3 qualifications but over-represented in those at level 2. The importance of creating progression routeways suggests that more consideration should be given to targeting the level 3 entitlement more broadly.

27. We welcome the Women in London, level 3 Train to Gain pilots as an example of this. These are aimed at supporting women to qualify at level 3 in occupational areas where they are currently under-represented, and place an emphasis on engaging women in ethnic minority communities. Early data indicates that 15.5% of learners were from such communities, with the highest single proportion of these (5.6%) being of South Asian heritage. We are also aware of the successful Ambition-energy scheme for women and recommend that consideration is given to how these successful skills programmes can be rolled out more widely.

28. National Skills Academies (NSA) are expected to apply high standards on equality and diversity in all their provision. NSAs will be evaluated after an initial period of operation, in early 2008. The evaluation will determine whether the NSA programme or a specific NSA has promoted equality and diversity, and attraction of under-represented groups in the sector into provision."This will include attention to issues relating to age, disability, ethnicity and gender. NSAs will be expected to record data relating to equality as part of their on-going management information. We look forward to this equality evaluation and we would like to see NSAs having equality targets for participation and progression.

29. The Commission welcomes the entitlement to apprenticeships, recognising the benefits that quality apprenticeship programmes can bring. However women are more likely to participate in Apprenticeships at level 2, and men are more likely to participate in Advanced Apprenticeships at level 3. This is partly because the sectors dominated by women are less likely to offer apprenticeships at level 3. Latest figures show that of the 100,000 young people on Advanced Apprenticeships in England, just 30 per cent are female. The EHRC has recently responded to the Review of Apprenticeships. In particular, we have highlighted the need to address overt gender segregation and differential pay rates across sectors, creating a significant gender pay gap. We have also provided data on wider diversity issues.

30. We also welcome the new Commission for Employment and Skills and recommend that delivery of equality and diversity should be a key strand of its remit. In addition to reporting on progress towards skills ambitions across all groups, the new Commission should monitor equality impact, best use of human capital, return to education and skills, and matching of skills to jobs.

UNDER-USE OF SKILLS

31. The National Adults Learning Survey points to the need to extend flexibility of training provision and to extend support to help people to overcome wider barriers currently limiting advancement in their careers, such as lack of childcare. Trends in average earnings over a lifetime show that women often fail to progress, and lack of skills is not necessarily the barrier. However, Leitch implementation plans and funding arrangements do little to address redundant skills and under-use of skills.

32. Recent EOC research found significant evidence that education and skills investment was leaking out of the system with women particularly trading down and under-using skills. Irrespective of qualification levels and career aspirations, there is a mismatch between the quality of jobs people hold and their qualifications. This is a key feature of the labour market, particularly for women:

@UL@— 4 out of 5 part-time workers are working below their potential. @/UL@

@UL@— 12% of women with level 4 qualifications or above are working in the bottom 25% jobs @/UL@

@UL@— The proportion of graduates in good quality jobs has decreased significantly from 72% in 1995 to 54% in 2005. @/UL@

@UL@— 6.5 million people are working in jobs below their skills levels or outside the labour market because they are unable to find sufficient flexibility in work. @/UL@

@UL@— people with level 3 and above qualifications have no source of guidance or support to place them in jobs commensurate with their skills. HEIs don't provide careers advice and support beyond the present cohort—former graduates have no where to go for careers advice.@/UL@

33. An important part of the progression agenda is recognition that acquiring skills and moving up the skills ladder needs to be supported by opportunity to re-skill for opportunities in the changing labour market and to use skills at the right level, to deliver the pay return and therefore the increase in social mobility. The role of new flexible ways of working in translating skills acquisition into use and reward need to be much higher on the agenda for employers, the new advancement agency, skills brokers and JCP. Other barriers to progression need to be identified and addressed in delivery initiatives. These include prejudice, discrimination, stereotyping, lack of flexibility, and childcare.

April 2008

Annex 1

Skills issues and challenges for particular groups Ethnic minority workers

People from different backgrounds and communities do not all enter the labour market with similar levels of qualifications. Attainment is lowest amongst young men of African-Caribbean heritage—in summer 2005 only 21% obtained five A*-C passes, compared with a national averages for young men of over 38%, and for all young people of 43%.

People from South Asian, black and other ethnic minority backgrounds are almost twice as likely to be unemployed as the national average. The employment rate amongst white people is 77%. For people of Indian and African-Caribbean heritage it is 70% and 69% respectively. For those of Pakistani heritage it is 44% and for those of Bangladeshi heritage 39%.

The greater percentage of people from ethnic minority backgrounds in post-16 education is not reflected in the numbers that enter employment or government-sponsored training: only 4% are enrolled in work-based training or apprenticeships as compared with 10% for white young people.

Skills challenges

@UL@— reducing and removing inequalities in success rates between different communities @/UL@

@UL@— increasing the participation of people from ethnic minority communities in work-based learning @/UL@

@UL@— ensuring that issues of religious identity, faith, values and affiliation are taken into account in race equality policies and projects@/UL@

@UL@— enhancing the quality and coverage of statistical information, for example by providing breakdowns by region and gender as well as ethnicity.@/UL@

Older workers

The over 40s make up 50% of the working age population and 65% of those without level 2 qualifications.

Skills challenges

@UL@— reversing the decline in the numbers of adults in their 40s, 50s and 60s taking part in training and re-skilling, particularly to support change and transition in mid- and later career @/UL@

@UL@— challenging and removing prejudice against providing training for older workers @/UL@

@UL@— enabling older people to update their skills in order to remain in, or return to, the labour market @/UL@

@UL@— establishing ICT skills as a major priority for development and investment by employers and funding agencies, to support retention and recruitment of older people @/UL@

@UL@— developing forms of skills training particularly appropriate in the late-working and early-retirement ages @/UL@

@UL@— increasing the number of older people in the workforce as the pool of younger workers declines @/UL@

Disabled people

Disabled people account for a third of all those without formal qualifications. 21% of disabled people aged 16-24 have no qualifications, compared with 9% of non-disabled people of the same age. Only 8% of disabled people have a degree-level qualification, compared with 17% of non-disabled people.

Participation in learning in the last three years is lower amongst those who are disabled (73%) than among those who are not (84%), although the proportion of disabled people participating in learning has increased.

Only 44% of disabled people are economically active compared with 79% of non-disabled people.

Skills challenges

@UL@— increasing the meaningful participation of disabled people in higher and further education @/UL@

@UL@— ensuring that disabled people are more actively involved in the design, development, review and delivery of policies that affect them @/UL@

@UL@— ensuring that capital funding covers reasonable adjustments and specialist support services to enable access to learning for disabled learners @/UL@

@UL@— developing information, advice and guidance (IAG) for disabled people, including those with learning difficulties, so that they are fully aware of learning, career and work opportunities, and of funding and assistance available to them @/UL@

@UL@— addressing low levels of awareness and understanding of disability issues amongst the general public and amongst employers, employees and providers of skills training, @/UL@

Women and men

Men are under-represented in nearly all adult learning programmes. Although men may need more encouragement to learn at Level 2 and Level 3, overall they still have higher qualification levels than women. Amongst people of working age, women are slightly more likely than men to be qualified to Level 4 and above (27% of women, 26% of men) and women are also more likely to be qualified to Level 2 (23% of women, 21% of men). Men are much more likely than women to be qualified to Level 3 (23% of men, 16% of women) and women are more likely than men to have no qualification, or qualifications below Level 2 (33% women, 29% men).

Fewer than half of female graduates are now in high-level jobs and the trend is getting worse (45% qualified to Level 4 compared with 65% 10 years ago).

Women generally work in a narrow range of lower-paying occupations, mainly those available part-time, that do not make the best use of their skills.

Skills Challenges

@UL@— closing the gender gap in pay @/UL@

@UL@— removing barriers to women working in occupations traditionally done by men @/UL@

@UL@— addressing the educational underperformance of young men, particularly those in low socio-economic status categories @/UL@

@UL@— addressing the under-representation of women in science (including computer science), engineering, construction and technology (SECT), as learners, teachers, researchers and practitioners, and on SECT-related public bodies @/UL@

@UL@— improving the participation of young women in government training schemes such as apprenticeships, particularly in construction and engineering @/UL@

@UL@— improving the information base, for example by collecting and analysing data which cross-tabulates gender with age, disability and ethnicity. @/UL@@HR25@

Memorandum 52

Submission from the Alliance of Sector Skills Councils

1.1 The Alliance thoroughly supports Lord Leitch's recommendation that government funding prioritise “economically valuable skills", achieved through a delivery system which is driven by demand, as opposed to what providers choose to offer. Lord Leitch also made clear that the skills system must have a sectoral approach in order to deliver economically valuable skills. He endorsed Sector Skills Councils (SSCs) as the key organisations to deliver this sectoral approach.

1.2 Since the publication of the Leitch report there has been significant movement towards a demand-led system. However there are areas where more needs to be done, or where change needs to proceed faster. A better connection between the sectoral approach and the geographical approaches will help the UK meet the Leitch targets.

1.3 SSCs need to be given a consistent role which is understood and recognised by all partners.

1.4 SSCs have produced evidence-based strategies to meet sectoral skills needs (Sector Skills Agreements—SSAs), and qualifications needs (Sector Qualifications Strategies—SQS). These strategies have the support of employers and must be central to implementing a demand-led approach.

1.5 There is a need for a strategic interface between SSCs and Regional Development Agencies (RDAs): leaving 25 SSCs to negotiate independently with 9 RDAS is a recipe for confusion. This strategic interface needs to include an agreed approach to the use of Labour Market Intelligence (LMI) so that SSC research properly informs the work of RDAs and vice versa. We accept that the regional approach to economic development will lead to competition between regions, but it is important that this does not prevent a joined up approach to skills at the national level.

1.6 There are currently too many consultative and planning bodies at the regional level and below, and the development of Employment and Skills Boards (ESBs) threatens to make the confusion worse. This proliferation is inefficient and is likely to lead to employer “consultation fatigue". The UK Commission for Employment and Skills (UKCES) needs to take an overview of the system and licence ESBs to ensure accountability for delivery at the local level.

1.7 Train to Gain brokers typically need to develop their understanding of sectoral learning needs and opportunities. Learning and Skills Council's (LSC) Plan for Growth committed it to a new compact with each SSC to tailor Train to Gain to meet individual employer needs. The sector compact approach is valuable and must be pursued vigorously if Train to Gain is to meet its potential.

1.8 Although there are advantages to making local authorities responsible for 14-19 education and training, it is crucial that sectoral standards should continue to be set at a national rather than local level.

1.9 SSC LMI should influence decision-making on skills at the regional level and in some instances at sub-regional level. However, stakeholders need to be mindful of the practical and resource constraints that affect SSCs' ability to provide reliable quantitative data at sub-national level. Nonetheless SSCs have valuable insights to offer, based on engagement with employers, even when fully robust quantitative data is not available for a given geographic area.

1.10 Local Authorities should provide SSCs with good quality data about the courses chosen by young people, and their employment outcomes. There needs to be a central repository for this intelligence and SSCs need to be consulted over the specification for collecting it.

1.11 The Alliance is concerned that many Diploma Delivery Consortia have not yet secured sufficient employer involvement to make Diploma delivery a success.

1.12 All 14—19 qualifications should be brought under the umbrella of Diplomas to achieve an all-encompassing high school diploma, as recommended by Tomlinson. The sooner this is announced the more likely Diplomas are to succeed.

1.13 Leitch recommended that Further Education (FE) funding be fully demand-led by 2010. The Government is moving in a demand-led direction, but is moving slowly in order not to destabilise FE colleges and it is not clear when a fully demand-led system will be in place. More rapid change is necessary.

1.14 Currently, government funding is tied to whole qualifications, which often do not match specific skills needs, and the vast majority of SSCs consider this puts learners and employers off further training. The Qualifications and Credit Framework (QCF) will allow learners to take modules which are specifically relevant and, in time, build these towards a whole qualification. The QCF needs to be supported by a funding policy which allows support for part qualifications and the introduction of this funding policy should not wait for its full roll out.

1.15 We are concerned that the ambitious expansion target risks diluting the quality of apprenticeship delivery. The volume of apprenticeships should be driven by employer demand.

1.16 The move towards an increasingly demand-led system requires a step-change improvement in the quality of Information, Advice and Guidance (IAG) offered to potential students, whether at 14, 18, or as a lifelong learner. Currently many people are studying in areas where they stand little chance of employment, whilst there are skills shortages in other areas. SSCs' LMI is key to meeting this requirement.

1.17 SSCs capacity is stretched in performing their current roles. Many of the recently announced changes will require more from SSCs, and SSC funding needs to be reconsidered for the new context.

2. INTRODUCTION2.1 Sector Skills Councils (SSCs) are employer-led organisations which speak for

employers in their sector on skills and training issues. They are licensed by the Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills, in consultation with Ministers in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

2.2 This response is submitted on behalf of the Alliance of Sector Skills Councils (the Alliance). The Alliance is a UK-wide organisation and a legally-constituted collective, which will drive forward the employer-led skills agenda. Together, the 25 SSCs form the members of the Alliance. On the 1st April 2008 SSCs formally took over the responsibility for their own collective action from the Sector Skills Development Agency, which closed on 31st March.

2.3 All 25 SSCs were consulted in the preparation of this response and the views they expressed were taken into account. However Government Skills chose not to comment on this inquiry as it does not make comments on Government policy.

2.4 All comments in this response should be taken to refer to England only unless it is explicitly stated otherwise.

2.5 This paper takes into account Raising Expectations, published since the launch of the inquiry, as well as addressing the current situation and other proposed developments and the current situation.

3. REGIONAL SKILLS DELIVERY 3.1 The connection between regional structures and the sectoral approach is crucial to

the success of skills delivery. We expect that the UK Commission for Employment and Skills (UKCES) will make recommendations on how these can be improved.

3.2 Recently, the Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) have shown a greater willingness to engage with sectoral skills issues; but in the past the picture has been patchy.

3.3 Many SSCs represent employers with establishments across the UK and in some cases across the world. Many of these larger employers cannot understand why government support for skills should vary region to region.

3.4 Currently each RDA chooses a limited range of economic sectors to prioritise. SSCs who are on the priority list often build good working relationships with the RDA. But in each region the majority of sectors will not be a priority and will effectively be “shut out". This approach risks the disillusionment of employers who are not part of a favoured sector and makes it harder for SSCs to engage employers.

3.5 An example of an unintentional consequence of the regional strategy adopted in England for the distribution of European Union (EU) funds is as follows:

@UL@— The EU allocates various funding streams with various objectives, and these funds have a list of potential industries the funding should support. @/UL@

@UL@— The English share is devolved to RDAs who set their criteria according to their objectives within the EU framework.@/UL@

@UL@— Anyone who meets the criteria can bid for these funds in a competitive process, but with employers in some eligible sectors spread evenly across England they do not have the critical mass to become an RDA priority. As a result these employers do not get any support from an EU programme which was aimed at them.@/UL@

3.6 The process of selecting priorities adds to the concern. Priorities are selected based on an RDA's vision of a successful future for the region. They are plan-led, not demand-led. Regional skills funding must be demand-led in order to meet Lord Leitch's ambitions.

3.7 Therefore there is a need for a strategic interface between SSCs and RDAs; leaving 25 SSCs to negotiate independently with nine RDAs is a recipe for confusion. This strategic interface must include an agreed approach to the use of Labour Market Intelligence (LMI) and Sector Skills Agreements (SSAs) so that SSC intelligence properly informs the work of RDAs. We accept that the regional approach will lead to competition between RDAs, but this cannot be allowed to prevent a joined up national approach to skills.

3.8 It would be helpful if the regions had a developed and consistent approach to cross sector skills like employability and literacy, language and numeracy. SSCs are well placed to advise on these issues.

3.9 There are currently too many consultative and planning bodies at the regional level and below, and the development of Employment and Skills Boards (ESBs) threatens to make the confusion worse. This proliferation is inefficient and is likely to lead to employer “consultation fatigue". UKCES needs to take an overview of the system and licence consultative bodies in the same way that SSCs are licensed.

3.10 The Raising Expectations paper envisages that the commissioning of 14-19 education will be influenced by the combined regional plan, prepared by the RDA. It is important that this commissioning is influenced by evidence of sectoral skills needs rather than RDAs vision for the future.

4. BROKERAGE4.1 The Train to Gain brokerage service is the Government's primary method of

developing a demand-led Further Education (FE) system and directing employers to appropriate skills. The Alliance is fully supportive of the principle behind Train to Gain, but there are areas of its operation that require improvement as the Learning and Skills Councils (LSC) recognised in Plan for Growth (December 2007).

4.2 The Plan committed government to “a new compact with each SSC which will tailor Train to Gain to and meet individual employer needs". This will be necessary in order to ensure that brokers visiting companies have a firm understanding of the skills needs of individual sectors and

the training courses and qualifications that are available. The sector compact approach is valuable and must be pursued vigorously if Train to Gain is to meet its potential.

4.3 By April 2009, Train to Gain is due to fully merge with Business Link, the RDA-run business support service. The Alliance supports the principle of bringing business and skills support together because business support often generates training needs. However it is crucial that these changes do not adversely affect progress on the sector compacts. It is important that the merged organisation operates a demand-led model and that an unreformed RDA plan-led agenda does not impinge on the brokerage offer.

5. NEW ARRANGEMENTS FOR 14—19 EDUCATION5.1 SSCs welcome the new role for local authorities because international experience

demonstrates that the local level is best for matching skills training and employer needs.

5.2 However, it is crucial that sectoral standards should continue to be set at national level. A proliferation of sectoral standards at regional and local levels would create confusion.

5.3 Local Authorities will need expert input from employers to assess the quality of vocational provision, in terms of the qualification delivery and content.

5.4 The unification of funding for 14-19 year olds fits neatly with the intention to raise the education and training leaving age to 18.

5.5 The Raising Expectations paper proposes that FE funding for under 19-year-olds will go through local authorities. It is important that this does not lead to FE colleges losing the freedoms they have gained in recent years. The proposed funding regime also creates new challenges for FE colleges because funding for young people will come from a different agency to core funding for the college.

5.6 Planning at sub-regional level has the potential to provide greater coherence. However, the Young People's Learning Agency will need to ensure a strategic approach is taken and local interests are effectively mediated.

5.7 SSC LMI should influence key decisions at regional level and in some instances at sub-regional level. However, stakeholders need to be mindful of the practical and resource constraints that affect SSCs' ability to provide reliable quantitative data at sub-national level. Nonetheless, SSCs have valuable insights to offer, based on engagement with employers, even when fully robust quantitative data is not available for a given geographic area.

5.8 The Raising Expectations paper envisages a central role for the regional plan in influencing the commissioning of courses for 14-19 year olds. It is important the commissioning is based on evidence of sectoral skills needs rather than RDA prioritisation.

5.9 In order for SSCs to further develop LMI and skills solutions they require access to good quality data about the courses chosen by young people, and their employment outcomes. Past experience shows that it has been difficult to get this data from the LSC. There needs to be a central repository for this intelligence and SSCs need to be consulted over the specification for collecting it.

5.10 Employer engagement should primarily be through SSCs; careful consideration should be given when creating employer boards at regional and sub-regional level. Uncontrolled proliferation of these bodies creates unnecessary duplication and risks employer “consultation fatigue".

5.11 The Raising Expectations paper suggests that Local Authorities will commission education and training provision on the basis of the profile of demand from 14-19 year-olds. This approach depends on 14 year-olds being offered greater amounts of, and higher quality, Information Advice and Guidance (IAG) than at present. A clear message from SSCs is that young people often do not make informed and realistic choices about career options and appropriate courses. This leads to a huge over-supply in some occupational areas that are superficially attractive to young people.

Nonetheless, employers encounter skills shortages for these occupations because many courses lack the necessary technical content.

5.12 SSCs can support high-quality IAG by providing up-to-date and accurate information on careers within their sector. SSCs disseminate this information through training courses for careers advisers and careers websites.

5.13 It is important that young people are offered IAG which is free from bias towards academic subjects. Therefore the role of schools in delivering IAG must be carefully considered.

6. FURTHER EDUCATION (FE)6.1 Leitch recommended that FE funding be fully demand-led by 2010. Government is

moving in a demand-led direction, but is moving slowly in order not to destabilise FE colleges, and it is not clear when a fully demand-led system will be in place. More rapid change is necessary to meet Leitch's ambitions and to retain the engagement of employers.

6.2 SSAs outline employers skills needs by sector. There are significant gaps in the ability of FE colleges to meet these needs both nationally and in specific areas. A faster move towards a demand-led system will incentivise colleges to meet these needs.

6.3 National Skills Academies, where in place, will provide funding to support capacity development and help FE meet employers skills needs. Funding in this area will also be necessary for sectors without Academies.

7. HIGHER EDUCATION (HE) 7.1 HE in England offers world-class teaching, and research, but there is room for

improvement in businesses skills needs and engaging employers.

7.2 HE must also more effectively meet the needs of non-traditional learners, who may be in employment. This may require work-based learning and accreditation, short courses, e-learning, accreditation of prior learning and credit-based learning.

7.3 Government is currently developing HE's businesses-responsiveness by increasing the amount of funding which is demand-led. The Alliance supports this shift and calls for it to be accelerated.

7.4 Increasing the amount of funding going through Train to Gain would increase the amount which was demand-led. However Train to Gain is in need of further development. (see section 4)

7.5 The Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) scheme to co-fund HE places with employers is a positive step in a demand-led direction. The proposal in Higher Education at Work to expand this scheme, and for SSCs to be co-purchasers of provision in HE is welcomed by the Alliance.

7.6 The Alliance welcomes the Higher Level Skills Pathfinders as a step towards HE meeting employer needs.

7.7 The Higher Education Innovation Fund will support increased flexibility in the delivery of support to employers.

7.8 HE courses vary widely in the degree to which they develop skills valued by employers, but potential students are often not aware of this. Potential HE students need better IAG with a clear understanding of the economically valuable skills that employers demand. IAG must also raise awareness of the different jobs available in sectors that HE entrants may be unaware of.

7.9 Some SSCs also plan to organise industry endorsement of courses to help potential students choose wisely. In the longer term the employer perspective needs to be strengthened in terms of HE quality assurance arrangements.

7.10 HE is much better at engaging larger business than smaller businesses, which are crucial to the health of the UK economy, and this is an area that needs developing.

7.11 In order for businesses to have an incentive to collaborate with HE, institutions need to allow businesses to part-own the resulting Intellectual Property.

8. COLLABORATION BETWEEN FE AND HE 8.1 FE and HE are increasingly working together, and this is to be encouraged because

it contributes to flexible options for learners and allows progression to the next level of qualification.

8.2 Bringing the funding regimes for FE and HE closer together would assist joint working.

8.3 The funding changes proposed in Raising Expectations could make joint working more difficult, because FE under 18 will be funded separately from FE over 18.

8.4 Some institutions in HE and FE are forming regional groupings. This is a positive step and will make it easier for regional partners and SSCs to engage with HE/FE. A good example of collaboration is the Creative and Digital Industries Consortia in the North West. Regional University Associations can perform a useful role in mediating between SSCs and universities.

8.5 HE/FE co-operation on Foundation Degrees also contributes to meeting employer needs. The lifelong learning offer of FE and HE should as far as possible be accredited through Foundation Degrees and, where possible, professional bodies should be engaged with the process as a validation route to career progression.

9. QUALIFICATIONS9.1 Through the UK Vocational Qualifications Reform Programme, SSCs are currently

reforming and updating vocational qualifications, on behalf of, and in conjunction with employers in their sector. This is a central recommendation of the Leitch report. As part of this reform programme SSCs are developing Sector Qualification Strategies for each country of the UK. This reform is essential if employer up-take of vocational qualifications is to be increased.

9.2 SSCs are also playing a central role in the development of Diplomas, working with employers to ensure that they provide the skills required to work successfully in the relevant sectors and offer an exciting introduction to it.

9.3 If SSCs are to meet employers' need for economically valuable skills they need to be able to influence the full range of qualifications.

9.4 Flexibility in assessment frameworks is required to allow employers to make use of work-based expertise. This will require a culture change from some awarding bodies, but is essential to secure significant take up of qualifications.

9.5 The Alliance supports the development of the Qualifications and Credit Framework (QCF), which will allow employers to select only the relevant modules and build these towards a relevant qualification. However, qualifications must be designed so that they still form a viable whole, and ensure that key skills are not missed out.

9.6 The developing European credit framework will allow the transfer of qualifications across member nations. The Alliance supports this as it will aid mobility of labour within Europe.

10. DIPLOMAS10.1 England has suffered for decades from an unhelpful division between academic and

vocational education and lower esteem for vocational education. Diplomas have the potential to change this. It is therefore very important that they are successful.

10.2 To date, SSCs' role has been to inform the development of the content of Diplomas. The Alliance is concerned that many diploma delivery consortia do not yet have secured sufficient employer involvement to make Diploma delivery a success.

10.3 Diploma Development Partnerships should in the future be resourced to ensure that consortia are ready to deliver the more technical elements of the Diploma.

10.4 Greater recognition and support from HE Institutions for Diplomas as entry routes to HE is also required.

10.5 Account needs to be taken of the fact that security, safety and legal issues will limit the ability to provide work placements for young people in a number of sectors, such as the care sector.

10.6 Diplomas will allow young people to specialise at a young age. This will make good quality IAG imperative. IAG will need to cover relevant job roles and progression routes from the Diploma. SSC LMI will be crucial to delivering good quality IAG.

10.7 All 14-19 qualifications should be brought under the umbrella of Diplomas to achieve an all encompassing high school diploma, as recommended by Tomlinson. The sooner this is announced the more likely Diplomas are to succeed.

11. APPRENTICESHIPS11.1 The Alliance welcomes the Government's focus on apprenticeships, with its aim of

economically-relevant skills leading to productive employment.

11.2 However, the Alliance would prefer apprenticeships to be expanded to meet employer demand, not to achieve government targets. We are concerned that the ambitious expansion target risks diluting the quality of apprenticeship delivery.

11.3 The Government is committed to an apprenticeship entitlement. This means that if demand for a particular apprenticeship outstrips supply, Programme Led Apprenticeships may be used to fill the gap (Programme Led Apprenticeships are apprenticeships without an employer).

11.4 The Alliance believes that Programme Led Apprenticeships should be subject to strict conditions so that they do not undermine the apprenticeships brand. Employers in each sector, through their SSC, should be able to choose whether Programme Led Apprenticeships are relevant to their needs. Programme Led Apprenticeships should be approved by SSCs and have clear links to apprenticeships with employed status.

11.5 Funding levels for adult apprenticeships are currently lower than those for young people. This is a problem for many employers who wish to upskill older staff. Making the funding levels equal would support Leitch's aim of upskilling the current adult workforce. Simplifying the apprenticeship offer would encourage employers to engage with it.

11.6 Apprenticeships are difficult for Small and Medium-size Enterprises to take on, and flexibility is required to support them in this. Allowing Group Training Associations to host apprenticeships is a potential solution.

11.7 There is great demand from employers for higher level apprenticeships, particularly at Level 3. The Alliance therefore calls for greater funding in this area.

11.8 Apprenticeships at Level 4 should be explored where the normal entry level for the sector is Level 4. This could raise the status and esteem of apprenticeships whilst meeting specific needs in the labour market.

11.9 The quality of the IAG received is important to Apprenticeships.

11.10 The relationship between SSCs and the new National Apprenticeship Service will be central to the success of the apprenticeship programme, particularly with regard to employer engagement. It is crucial that SSCs are given high-quality data returns from the new National Apprenticeship Service. This should be broken down by sector according to specifications that meet

SSC needs. It should also report activity within each sector, even where the apprenticeship framework lies outside the sector.

11.11 Security and legal issues will limit the ability to provide apprenticeships in some sectors, such as the care sector.

11.12 National Skills Academies, in the sector that have them, should contribute to the take up of apprenticeships.

12. SKILLS ACCOUNTS12.1 The Alliance welcomes the principle of encouraging employee self-motivated skills

development. It is important to ensure that users are fully informed over their career choices and their implications. Unionlearn has an important role to play here due to its presence in the workplace.

April 2008

@HR25@

Memorandum 53

Submission from the Federation of Small Businesses (FSB)

The Federation of Small Businesses (FSB) welcomes the opportunity to submit its views to this inquiry

The FSB is the UK's leading non-party political lobbying group of UK small businesses, existing to promote and protect the interests of all who own and manage their own businesses. With over 211,000 members, the FSB is the largest organisation representing the self-employed and small businesses in the UK.

Lord Leitch's review on skills was a constructive first step towards providing businesses with the capable workforce that it needs. However, it is still too early to declare it an overall success.

The requirements of small business must continue to be a priority because they employ 58% of the private sector workforce. Our average member employs four people. Small businesses require bite-sized courses, located in (or close too) the workplace, to avoid losing a significant proportion of their workforce when only one member of staff is being trained. This will enable small business to train their staff and will also avoid the need for heavy-handed Government compulsion.

The FSB's biennial survey of its membership in 2006136 found that many employers are keen to train their staff and that:

@UL@— 45% of businesses responding stated they had encountered literacy or numeracy shortages amongst new staff. @/UL@

@UL@— 52% of small businesses say that with financial incentives they would be able to pursue more training for employees. @/UL@

@UL@— 18% of small businesses are seeking to grow through investment in staff training. @/UL@

The ambition of Leitch to raise the skills levels of the UK has led the Government to introduce the Education and Skills Bill. The FSB supports the increase to 18 of “staying in education or training". Businesses have a duty to train their staff in the skills needed to function in their day job—preferably to stay in the business that has invested time and resources in their development. The Government are advocating a move towards 280 hours of training for every 16-18 year old in full employment; however the training must be accredited for the needs of small businesses, implying targeted and bite-sized delivery of training and not a system which is geared towards providing young people with formal qualifications to meet Government targets.

On Apprenticeships, the review recommended that Government should consider creating a new entitlement to allow every young person the opportunity to take up an Apprenticeship place. The Government is introducing a new delivery system and the FSB places significant value on an apprenticeship. We have supported the Trades Union Congress's (TUC) ambition for Apprenticeships to be paid the minimum wage for a young person in employment, so long as the Government extends the offer of wage contribution towards apprenticeships through Train to Gain137.

The FSB hopes that the new curriculum will go some way towards achieving Leitch's ambitious targets at levels two and three. Diplomas and Apprenticeships offer young people alternatives to traditional academic routes. We are keen to see vast improvements in literacy, numeracy and softer skills to ensure that individuals receive a better grounding in employability and life skills to ensure i) a more fulfilled adult life, and ii) a greater contribution to the economy.

Lord Leitch advocated a Commission for Employment & Skills to oversee the reform and re-licensing of Sector Skills Councils (SSCs). The FSB supports this measure as we have concerns

136 FSB Biennial survey: Lifting the Barriers to Growth 2006137 Train to Gain (TtG) website http://www.traintogain.gov.uk/What+Is+Train+To+Gain/

over many SSCs who lack small business representation. Leitch recommended that Leadership and Management funding for SME's be extended to firms between 10 and 20 employees. However, we believe that the new Commission should be lobbying the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills and SSC's to extend Leadership and Management to micro businesses.

We are pleased that Leitch advocated a demand-led system which we hope will ensure a stronger business voice. The funding changes soon to come into effect will give greater credence to regional skills priorities. Whilst the regional agenda is critical for skills, national priorities must remain the key focus if we are to meet Leitch's skills ambitions.

We trust that you will find our comments helpful and that they may be taken into consideration. The FSB is willing for this submission to be placed in the public domain. We would appreciate a copy of the synopsis of responses and of being kept apprised of further developments and consultations on this issue.

April 2008

@HR25@

It says that small businesses are entitled to wage contribution towards a first level 2 qualification.

Memorandum 54

Submission from Yorkshire Forward

The core strategy and policy for Yorkshire and Humber is set out by the Regional Skills Partnership (RSP) in its planning document—Delivering a Skilled and Employed Region. This plan aims to create a demand led approach to skills and employment in the region, in line with the Regional Economic Strategy (RES) and the Government's response to the Leitch Review. Yorkshire Forward is a key partner in delivery against each of the plan's priorities but also supports the Partnership with high quality economic and labour market intelligence and strategy development support.

Delivering a Skilled and Employed Region sets out the roles and responsibilities of the RSP as a whole and its partner organisations. These include:

@UL@— Leading on the development of quality and meaningful labour market intelligence for the region based on sectors and geographies, and making this information available to those that require it; @/UL@

@UL@— Sharing excellence and assisting the region to implement innovative approaches to improving skills;@/UL@

@UL@— Influencing the use of resources and lobbying for additional resources where this may be required;@/UL@

@UL@— Making Government aware of any barriers that prevent improvement of the region's performance with regard to skills and qualifications; and @/UL@

@UL@— Supporting and encouraging sub regional and local employment and skills bodies to work to deliver the regional infrastructure. @/UL@

The RSP, strongly supported by Yorkshire Forward, sees a clear role in delivering the Leitch ambitions and targets in the Yorkshire and Humber region. However, the scale of the challenge is significant, and on many measures, exceeds many of our RES targets. Our challenge in terms of achieving Leitch targets is significant, this includes a need to:

@UL@— Secure literacy and numeracy qualifications for some 750,000 additional people;@/UL@

@UL@— Get an additional 986,000 individuals qualified to level 2 or higher of which there will need to be an additional 583,000 qualified to level 4. This rises even higher as people retire from the labour market; and @/UL@

@UL@— At level 3, we are likely to need an additional 190,000 people qualified to this level to meet Leitch and we need to find some additional 50,000 apprenticeships. @/UL@

To achieve these targets the policy and plan for the RSP is to move towards a demand led system for skills and employment. The RSP has identified the following steps,crucial to achieving this:

@UL@— Creation of an environment in which a demand led model can flourish; @/UL@

@UL@— Demand for skills from the current employer base, ensuring suppliers can respond to this demand;@/UL@

@UL@— Consideration of the future demand for skills and ensure partners work together to develop strategies to meet their demand; and@/UL@

@UL@— Ensuring the region has the infrastructure to develop high quality opportunities that will meet the demand for skills in the regional economy. @/UL@

The sectoral priorities for the RSP mirror those that are detailed in the current Yorkshire and Humber RES138 and include those sectors where we expect to see highest economic return and highest levels of productivity improvement. However, in terms of employment, the RSP has identified further sectoral groupings which we know will generate and absorb additional labour in high volumes over the next 10 years, these include: Health, ICT and telecommunications, retail, construction and the built environment, public services and leisure and hospitality.

To deliver the challenging Leitch agenda, three priorities have been identified which form the heart of regional skills and employment policies and the shared priorities of the RSP partners: These are:

@UL@— Employability—to enhance the employability of individuals by giving them the skills to take up employment opportunities including improving skills for life and job readiness. @/UL@

@UL@— Deliver RES and PSA target associated with employability @/UL@

@UL@— Work with sector based labour market information and prioritise support for identified sectoral areas.@/UL@

@UL@— Developing enterprising people@/UL@

@UL@— Develop an integrated approach to employment and skills @/UL@

@UL@— Higher level skills—to promote, develop and deliver the up-skilling of those in employment through higher level skills training and development in line with labour market needs and future economic opportunities. @/UL@

@UL@— Work with Work and Skills boards locally to stimulate the demand for skills @/UL@

@UL@— Engage with the supply side to deliver high quality provision in response to demand@/UL@

@UL@— Utilise the national skills campaign to improve the marketing of skills in the region. @/UL@

@UL@— Business support—to refine and develop the offer to employers, providing integrated business support in response to customer needs designed to deliver the skills which will enhance productivity and growth. @/UL@

@UL@— Scope and articulate the regional workforce and skills offer to business, enhancing this to reflect business demand more fully. @/UL@

@UL@— Lead the development of a single regional gateway for business support by bringing together information, diagnosis and brokerage services delivered through Business Link with the Train Brokerage service. @/UL@CASE STUDIES: YORKSHIRE FORWARD EXAMPLES OF IMPLEMENTING THE PLAN

Promoting the Skills Pledge in Leeds

As an example of implementing the RSP plan and stimulating the demand from employers for skills, Yorkshire Forward has support Leeds Chamber of Commerce and the Leeds Skills Board to promote to employers the benefits of signing the skills pledge. A marketing campaign has been

138 Advanced manufacturing and metals, food and drink, digital and new media, healthcare technologies, financial and business services and environmental technologies.

commenced, which is starting to promote not only the pledge, but also apprenticeships and engagement of employers in new diplomas.

Learning at Work Days

Yorkshire Forward has supported the TUC and the Campaign for Learning in Yorkshire through funding trade unions and their learning representatives to put on “learning at work" days. In May 2007, for no more than £300 per workplace, 75 workplaces across the region put on events. These attracted 7068 people to participate in learning with 1,185 going on to enrole on courses. In 2008-09 just under over 150 workplaces will stage similar learning events.

April 2008

@HR25@

Memorandum 55

Submission from Rolls-Royce

BACKGROUND1. Rolls-Royce is a global business providing power systems for use on land, sea and

air with leading positions in civil and defence aerospace, marine and energy markets. The Company employs around 38,000 people worldwide in 50 countries with an annual turnover in 2007 of £7.4 billion.

2. Rolls-Royce invests significantly in its people in order to maintain its reputation as a world class engineering company. Each year, the Company invests around £30m on training and vocational education.

3. The Company currently has 323 graduates on our Graduate Programme worldwide, of which 296 are based in the UK. Around 145 graduates were recruited in the UK last year and we plan to recruit a further 171 in 2008.

4. Rolls-Royce has 550 Advanced Apprentices on its programme worldwide (446 in the UK). In 2007, we recruited 183 apprentices in the UK and in 2008 we plan to recruit a further 205. For our Apprenticeship Scheme we received 2,203 applications for 185 vacancies in 2007 and in the current 2008 cycle, we have received 2,119 applications. Our success might be judged by our 98% retention rate or perhaps that ex-Apprentices occupy that 30% of our senior management roles.

5. Rolls-Royce invests around £750k pa in supporting further/higher education for our apprentices. The result is that over 50% of UK apprentices enter higher education courses before the age of 30, including Foundation Degrees. In Derby, Rolls-Royce apprentice training is delivered by the Centre of Vocational Excellence (CoVE) in Lean Manufacturing which is a partnership between Rolls-Royce, Derby College and Unite (the Union). Similar arrangements are in place with other colleges across the UK.

SKILLS AND TRAINING AGENDA6. The company welcomes the Leitch Report and the attention to the skills and

training agenda it has brought. We believe the principles to underpin delivery are key to meeting its ambition, with the final point being critical;

@UL@— build on existing structures. Don't always chop and change. Instead, improve performance of current structures through simplification and rationalisation, stronger performance management and clearer remits. Continuity is important.@/UL@

7. The FE sector works well with Rolls-Royce and its training partners in the locations we operate. In the last two years we have moved to standardise our apprenticeship programme across the UK, the FE Colleges have been very willing to work together with us to deliver this objective. We now need a simple supporting framework to work with in England and Scotland that enables this activity.

8. Rolls-Royce also has the industry wide problem of an aging population with 36% of our works populations over 50 years of age. This is expected to increase steadily to nearer 50% in the next five years with attrition rates, which have always been low for this population, tripling to circa 6% per annum. As a result, the Company would need to recruit 500 a year to maintain current headcount levels. There is a clear need to focus development of those currently employed in the sector by up-skilling.

9. One solution is an adult apprenticeship scheme. Rolls-Royce has a few adult apprentices and has trained nearly 100 adult apprentices in recent years. However, these are very much more expensive to train than young apprentices because of the differing levels of government support and employment costs. It costs around £60,000 plus pay and benefits to deliver apprenticeships in engineering over three to four years, and although government funds around £14,000 for 16-18 year olds, this sum decreases for those over 18 years of age.

10. The LSC has moved to fund this older age group and the sector now needs to embed the training of apprentice at any age as the norm, confidence in a predictable higher level of funding would help to achieve this.

11. We have some concerns about the wider pool for apprenticeships and to help address this, we began in 2003 to train apprentices from supplier companies in Derby. In 2008, 24 apprentices were recruited on this community apprenticeship scheme. We now work with 22 companies in the area and believe others wish to join with us on this activity.

12. The company applauds the drive by Government to increase the number of apprenticeships but this policy needs to be aligned to industry. Around 1 million manufacturing jobs have been lost in the last ten years eroding the regional presence which provides the demand for such schemes—typically Rolls-Royce apprentices are recruited from within 10 to 25 miles of the Rolls-Royce operations.

13. We agree with the approach of looking to large employers with training facilities and apprentice programmes in place to “over training" for the sector and look forward to seeing how this will be funded to ensure no extra cost to the hosting company.

14. The company has been involved with training approximately 100 Young Apprentices over the last three years and has found the programme to be outstanding both for the young people involved and raising the profile of engineering within schools. We are concerned that the proposed changes in the programme will undermine the “brand" and broader educational results now being achieved.

15. We believe the Engineering Diploma, along side the Young Apprenticeship, has an important role to play in offering students a wide choice in programmes into employment or HE. For many young people these programmes leading into Advanced Apprenticeships are truly the start of lifelong learning.

16. Rolls-Royce plc works closely with our SSC (SEMTA) on a wide range of skills and training issues such as the Sector Qualifications Strategy. We have some concerns that the SSC does not yet seem to have the authority to manage, own and implement the strategy.

17. We are concerned by the proposed changes to the qualification system with the possible loss of well-known items such as NVQ's and BTEC both of which are now understood and used by our management. This change is not part of the Sector Qualifications Strategy.

18. The loss of known qualifications and the resulting reworking of training frameworks at a time when wishing to significantly increase the numbers of apprentices can only put more pressure on the limited training infrastructure for our sector.

19. While apprenticeships are generally local, the make up of our Graduate recruitment in the UK is increasingly international in flavour. Around 27% of our Graduate programme intake was from overseas students (up from 23% in 2006). On a positive note, by employing an international mix of people we can better reflect the global nature of our business and our customer base. However, foreign nationals are difficult to deploy on major UK projects in the sensitive defence sector.

May 2008

@HR25@

Memorandum 56

Supplementary evidence from Dr Roger Bennett, Principal, North Lindsey College following oral evidence session on 14 May 2008

Good to meet with you on Wednesday and further to our discussions I enclose further points I would like to share with you and members of the Committee.

SMEs need incentives if they are to successfully take up the challenge of skills training, ie some financial incentive would help. Colleges throughout the UK strive to be responsive to employer needs, our sector delivers flexible programmes, many employer based, but take up amongst SMEs is modest. Notwithstanding what Leitch says, SMEs will need to play a full role if an impression on targets are remotely to be met.

The FE Sector is constantly challenged with change, General FE colleges are complex organisations and whilst we manage change well we never seem to have stability. The LSC ceases to be in 2010, yet huge changes to the Funding Methodology are being rolled out with 2 years to go, it's madness and is causing great difficulties across providers.

Train 2 Gain; because it is target driven and qualification driven its market place in practice is primarily large employers. Taking a delivery team into a large factory and enrolling learners is a good model, ie high numbers of employees accessing “on the job" training, particularly Level 2. However, the same employers are not as responsive when you talk to them about Level 3, Level 4 skills. The brokerage system for Train 2 Gain has been a complete shambles and another waste of public money.

Higher Level Skills; colleges in Yorkshire & Humberside deliver 12% of HE, across the FE sector college, (many of mixed economy) are playing a pivotal role in the delivery of Foundation Degrees and actually take the lead role in this regard. The university sector is not as responsive as colleges in the delivery of Level 4 skills.

Skills Position; it may interest you to know that the American Community Colleges are currently considering a report from the National Commission on Community Colleges, entitled Winning—The Skills Race and Strengthening America's Middle Class—an action agenda for community colleges. I attended the conference of American Community Colleges in April (Philadelphia), the report was considered at the conference. It is my opinion we are well ahead of the USA in championing skills, they have vey similar problems to the UK, but I believe our “action plan" is better. I have recently partnered with 2 USA colleges, one in California, one in Nebraska, and in terms of best practice North Lindsey has much to offer both of them. I have also set up a transatlantic project with the college in California, part of the project works with the Bill Gates Foundation, the project is aimed at 14-16 yr olds. In February this year I and the college delivered 4 papers at the World Congress of Polytechnics and Colleges, New York, North Lindsey was peer referenced (36 countries) as being “World Class" in 14-16 provision / school partnerships; and in Employer Engagement. Across the FE sector in the UK we have some excellent practice, our problem is we don't shout about it, it's about time Ministers woke up to this fact.

The way forward is through Apprenticeships; for young people and for adults. Apprenticeships are more than a set of targets and statistics, they are the real route to delivering the skills needs for tomorrows businesses. Apprenticeships allow a real opportunity for employers (through Sector Skills Councils) to take up the challenge of our own Skills Race. Colleges, like North Lindsey want to work with employers on this challenging agenda. Ministers need to understand that there is a real difference between qualifications and skills. An NVQ is a measure of competence, that is, a competence based qualification. Whilst NVQs should help towards developing skills it is Apprenticeships that have the real capacity to develop young people and adult skills. Simply measuring a college's NVQ outturn performance will not in itself boost the countries performance in the skills race. Partnerships, collaboration and/or alliance is key, successful ventures will only materialise through trust, commitment and a cocktail of government incentives. We can win our own Skills Race but first we need to step back and assess what we have, Ministers will be pleasantly surprised I believe in hearing of the best practice models in our sector, FE and HE.

LSC demise 2010; in my view this poses a real risk to our sector in terms of transitional arrangements and continuity, if it is not handled appropriately it may adversely affect providers capacity to deliver against the skills agenda and of course all our other programme based targets.

I believe RDAs could and should play a more prominent role in overseeing the skills agenda particularly in the light of my previous point. They need to do more in championing enterprise and entrepreneurship and to work with colleges in addressing local and/or sub-regional initiatives. For example, in North Lincolnshire I want to develop an Enterprise / Entrepreneurship Academy, the county does not have one and I have support from my Local Authority and lead partner University and I hope to be working with the RDA on the project. This idea will build on the Colleges excellent 14-16 Skills Centre (badged by Ofsted as Exemplary) it brings together, schools, employers, learners and importantly parents. If each local area had its own Skills Centre it has the potential to make a real difference. My college has also recently launched a Talent Academy.

@HR25@

Memorandum 57

Submission from TUC

INTRODUCTION1.1 The TUC welcomes the opportunity to contribute to the Select Committee's inquiry

into how responses to the agenda set out in the Leitch Report will affect the broader structures of learning and skills. The inquiry will provide an opportunity for a range of stakeholders to provide a critique of the implementation of the Leitch Review of Skills and also to consider what should be prioritised as implementation continues. Please note that all TUC learning and skills policy documents referred to in this submission are available on the TUC's website at: www.tuc.org.uk/skills.

TUC RESPONSES TO THE LEITCH REVIEW OF SKILLS2.1 The TUC submitted a detailed response to the initial consultation undertaken by the

Leitch Review in 2005 and followed up on this by publishing another report—2020 Vision for Skills—in autumn 2006. In the 2020 Vision report the TUC agreed with Lord Leitch that there needed to be a major step change in skill levels in the workplace to meet both social and economic objectives and argued that reforms in the following five areas would help greatly:

@UL@— Increasing investment in skills by employers and government and specific policy reforms to achieve this, including new regulatory mechanisms;@/UL@

@UL@— Developing a strengthened social partnership approach on skills—especially at the sectoral level—giving equal weight to the skills needs of employers and employees;@/UL@

@UL@— Introducing a right to paid time off to train in particular for employees without a Level 2 qualification;@/UL@

@UL@— Tackling the significant skills discrimination faced by certain groups in the labour market; and@/UL@

@UL@— Giving unions greater rights to bargain on skills and also strengthening the capacity of union learning reps to support learning and skills in the workplace. @/UL@

2.2 Following the publication of the Leitch Review report in December 2006 the TUC published a briefing setting out its initial reaction. In summary, the TUC welcomed the scale of ambition on skills set out in the report. It was also welcome that this ambition was backed up with clear targets for increased acquisition of accredited qualifications rather than promoting a more nebulous concept of an improved skills base. In particular, the TUC welcomed the aim to virtually eradicate low skills by 2020 and also for the UK to become a world leader on intermediate and higher level skills by then. The TUC also supported the degree of specificity in the report about the necessary levels of investment required to move the UK up the international skills league by 2020.

2.3 Whilst the Leitch Review certainly did not fully endorse the TUC's recommendations that the Government should introduce new individual employee rights and collective union rights on workplace training, it did make one significant proposal on this front. The TUC welcomed the recommendation by Lord Leitch that the Government should “introduce a statutory entitlement to workplace training at Level 2 in consultation with employers and unions" if employers failed to utilise the Skills Pledge to voluntarily upskill employees at a sufficient rate by 2010.

2.4 In relation to young people, the TUC welcomed the commitment to move to compulsory education and training up to the age of 18 and to expand Apprenticeships on the grounds that these measures would do much to tackle the UK's dismal failure when it comes to post-16 staying on rates and the low status attributed to the vocational route for young people. Also welcome were the proposals to establish a new careers service for adults and to improve the financial support system for adults who are independently pursuing vocational qualifications.

2.5 However, the TUC also noted a number of key concerns about the thrust of the Leitch Review report. One related to the emphasis placed on moving to a largely employer-led skills system and the danger this posed to marginalizing the needs and aspirations of the workforce. At the time the TUC said that it would continue to argue for building a more inclusive approach underpinned by social partnership arrangements, which would address the importance of strengthening both employer and employee demand for skills. In relation to this, the TUC also highlighted concerns about the presumption in the review that employers would increase their investment in employee skills once the skills infrastructure had been made more employer-friendly.

THE UNION ROLE ON LEARNING AND SKILLS3.1 As regards the union role on learning and skills, Lord Leitch did not endorse the

TUC's proposals for strengthening the collective union role by making training a collective bargaining issue in the statutory union recognition procedure. But this was not too surprising considering that the Government had already rejected this policy reform when the DTI reported earlier in 2006 on its review of collective bargaining. And whilst the Leitch report did concur that initiatives such as Learning Agreements and Workplace Learning Committees were helpful in supporting the union role, especially by giving greater strategic direction to the role of Union Learning Representatives (ULRs), it refrained from supporting the TUC's call for some form of statutory underpinning for these workplace arrangements.

3.2 The Leitch Report also gave support to the Collective Learning Funds initiative that the TUC and unionlearn, in collaboration with DIUS, is currently trialling. The CLF initiative aims to optimise contributions to broad workforce development that fall outside the direct responsibility of employers (eg job-specific training) or Government-subsidised provision (eg Skills for Life, Skills Pledge, Train to Gain). During 2007 and 2008, unionlearn in the North West, supported by DIUS, have been trialling the establishment and development of CLF models in a number of workplaces in the region. At this stage it has been agreed to continue with the trials in the north west and also to extend the trials to a second region on the basis that there is scope not only to develop the project more broadly within the north west region, but also in other regions that have different sectoral compositions. It is anticipated that a progress report will be published in summer 2008 to inform lessons learned to date and as the project develops, a key aim will be to look at how the CLF model can be integrated with key government programmes, such as Train to Gain, the Skills Pledge and the new Skills Accounts.

3.3 The union role on skills has of course been transformed in recent years as a result of the establishment and growth of ULRs—there are now in excess of 18,000 and they are continuing to prove to be highly effective intermediaries in engaging and supporting employees to take up learning and training opportunities in the workplace. The establishment of unionlearn in 2006 has helped to build the union role further by supporting the development of a more coherent framework for union-led activity on learning and skills, in particular via the role of ULRs. The TUC is continuing to press the Government that it would make sense to provide ULRs in the workplace with a strategic presence which would fully exploit their capacity to support learning and skills development that enhances organisational performance and the wider development of individual employees.

3.4 Building the collective role of union learning reps would also go some way to addressing the need to tie skills initiatives in the workplace with other aspects of working life, in particular productive employment relations. Research by a number of influential academics, including Ewart Keep, has highlighted the inter-relationship between skills deficiencies and organisational deficiencies and that strategies to tackle the former cannot be undertaken in isolation from the latter. In addition, the TUC believes that the Government's skills strategy needs to be linked to an active national industrial strategy that supports and directs the work undertaken by Regional Development Agencies. The importance of these relationships for ensuring that any improvement in skills has a significant impact on productivity in the coming years has been persuasively set out by Ewart Keep and colleagues, who argue that “this gap in public policy is liable to prove costly, and to minimize the productive impact that publicly funded upskilling initiatives can have."139

IMPLEMENTING THE “LEITCH VISION"

139 Keep, E., Mayhew, K., and Payne, J. (2006) “From Skills Revolution to Productivity Miracle: not as easy as it sounds?", Oxford Review of Economic Policy, vol.22, no.4

4.1 The Government's implementation plan for taking forward the recommendations of the Leitch Review was clearly set out in World Class Skills published last summer. The TUC welcomed a nuanced change in tone in this document, with the skill needs of individuals and employees being more centre stage than in many previous skills policy statements. In particular, the TUC welcomed the vision of a new demand-led skills system set out in the implementation plan—”What all our reforms have in common is that they are trying to put the customer—in this case, adult learners and employers—first. We call this our `demand-led' approach" (World Class Skills, paragraph 10). This is a much more balanced view of a demand led skills system compared to previous policy statements and it quite rightly gives due recognition to individual demand as well as employer demand.

4.2 The TUC also welcomed the decision to “bring forward new legislation to strengthen the current funding entitlement for adults to free training in basic literacy and numeracy skills, and to achieve their first full level 2 qualifications" (paragraph 15). While this entitlement will not immediately create any new obligations on employers, it does go beyond the proposal by Lord Leitch to review the need for a new statutory right in 2010. In principle it prepares the ground for the introduction of a full legal right to training in 2010 if employers fail to support enough employees to access training up to level 2 by supporting the Skills Pledge.

4.3 The TUC is currently giving its full support to the Skills Pledge and unionlearn is taking forward a strategy to support the capacity of unions and ULRs to work in partnership with employers to maximise take-up and implementation of the pledge in as many workplaces as possible. However, this support remains on the basis that the Government remains clearly committed to introducing a statutory right to training if the pledge does not lead to a sufficient rate of improvement in investment in training by employers by 2010. The trade union representatives on the Commission for Employment and Skills will be ensuring that this remains a clear priority of the Commission's work programme over the next two years.

4.4 Two major policy proposals in the Leitch Review report were to develop a more demand-led system for employers and individuals via the continued expansion of Train to Gain and the introduction of Skills Accounts and also to bring about a greater integration of skills and welfare to work provision. In order for this new employment and skills system to operate effectively, it is crucial that employees and trade unions are empowered to ensure that individual demand is being raised and also that such demand is being fulfilled effectively by the supply side. In addition, it is important to remember that trade unions can have a significant impact on employer demand and employer behaviour as regards supporting learning and skills in the workplace.

4.5 At the enterprise and workplace levels, it will be important that unions influence the new demand-led system. The TUC therefore welcomed the proposals in World Class Skills that ULRs would be encouraged to work with employers to draw up action plans for delivering the Skills Pledge and for helping more employers and employees access Train to Gain provision. The TUC is also currently engaged in a strategy to strengthen the role of trade unions and ULRs in supporting the welcome expansion of the Apprenticeship programme over the coming years.

5.1 FUNDING PRIORITIES AND THE ROLE OF FE COLLEGES5.1 The TUC has welcomed the increased investment in learning and skills by the

current Government and especially the increased spending on workplace skills training. For example, the TUC gave a positive welcome to the skills settlement in the latest Comprehensive Spending Review and in particular the focus on increasing government investment in work-based training programmes. However, a number of stakeholders have expressed concerns that the Government's focus on “economically valuable" skills risks undermining other educational provision delivered by FE colleges.

5.2 The TUC has therefore welcomed the Government's decision to undertake a wide-ranging consultation on informal adult learning in order to address such concerns and also to develop a new strategy on supporting a culture of lifelong learning that embraces all forms of learning and personal development. The TUC will shortly be submitting a response to the consultation and this will particularly focus on what measures the Government could utilise to maximise the contribution to informal adult learning at the workplace level, whilst also recognising that trade unions have a crucial role to play in promoting and delivering adult learning across the wider community. For

example, are there ways of levering up greater investment by employers in lifelong learning provision delivered by FE colleges? There is a strong case for considering this on the grounds that many more employers will be receiving state-subsidised vocational training via the expansion of Train to Gain over the coming years

5.3 The TUC had been concerned that Lord Leitch's recommendation to move to a fully demand-led skills system by 2010 would destabilise the FE sector. It was therefore welcome that the Government clarified in World Class Skills that this “would create unacceptable risks to the performance and stability of colleges and providers, which in turn would damage the quality of education and training offered to learners." However, it is important that the Government continues to closely monitor the impact of the expansion of the demand-led skills system on the ability of colleges to deliver a broad range of learning and training that supports both economic and social priorities nationally and also in all our local communities.

6.1 THE INSTITUTIONAL SKILLS FRAMEWORK6.1 While the TUC welcomed the revised demand-led skills framework highlighted in

World Class Skills, it is crucial that this is translated into reality by ensuring that employees and trade unions have a significant voice in the new institutional skills framework. It is welcome that three trade union Commissioners have been appointed to the Commission for Employment and Skills although this needs to be viewed in the light that employers still make up the majority of the Commission. This is very different to the social partnership arrangements which underpin the institutional skills infrastructure in other leading European economies, such as France and Germany, which continue to perform better than the UK on workforce skills.

6.2 The implementation of the Leitch Review of Skills has endorsed the view that Sector Skills Councils (SSCs) should play a major role in driving forward the new demand-led skills system. The TUC has supported the development of the SSCs in recent years and unionlearn is playing a central role in coordinating the union input, in particular around the development of Sector Skills Agreements. The sectoral approach in particular has the potential to deliver some of the key elements of a post-voluntary skills framework, but this would need to be accompanied by a much more robust form of social partnership than simply obliging Sector Skills Councils to have at least one union Board member.

6.3 For example, a report by the Sector Skills Development Agency (Lessons from Abroad, SSDA, 2006) highlighted the benefits of sectoral approaches in other countries entailing more regulatory levers/fiscal incentives than in the UK but also stronger employee voice to ensure “that both the wider public functions of qualifications and the sector-specific needs of employees are met". The Commission for Employment and Skills needs to consider the huge potential for developing a sectoral approach along these lines under its remit to reform and re-license the SSC network. Clear consideration needs to be given to the potential for sectoral levies and Licence to Practice arrangements to drive up demand. It is also particularly important that the workforce, through trade union representation, is able to have a significant influence on the new powers that Sector Skills Councils are to be given around the design and approval of vocational qualifications.

6.4 Most recently, the Government has set out its plans for further reform of the skills infrastructure in England (Raising Expectations: enabling the system to deliver) involving abolishing the LSC and transferring its remit for young people to local authorities and its remit for adults to a new Skills Funding Agency. The TUC will be submitting a response to this consultation and will be supporting the move to give local authorities a greater strategic role for young people. However, with two in five workers still not getting any regular training at work, it is crucial that this further organisational reform does not divert attention from the wider skills challenge—getting more employers to offer quality apprenticeships and training opportunities. It will also be important to ensure that as well as meeting the skills needs of employers, more individual employees are helped to get new skills under these new arrangements, and this will require a clear role for unions in articulating employee demand for skills and supporting its fulfilment. The TUC will also be stressing that the Government ensures that the expertise built up by LSC staff is utilised in any future arrangements, without recourse to redundancies.

7.1 THE REGIONAL DIMENSION

7.1 The regional dimension to the implementation of the Leitch Review of Skills and related reforms (eg the Sub-National Review and forthcoming abolition of the LSC) is crucial. As highlighted earlier in this submission (paragraph 3.4) the TUC believes that the Government's skills strategy needs to be closely inter-linked to the regional economic strategies undertaken by the Regional Development Agencies (RDAs). To date there have been concerns that delivering the Government's skill strategy at the regional and sub-regional levels has been a very challenging exercise due to necessity of coordinating national, sectoral and regional skills priorities and integrating these within the regional economic strategy. The Regional Skills Partnerships (RSPs) have been the main conduit for coordinating regional skills strategies and the RDAs have quite rightly played a central role in this area.

7.2 However, the future role of the Regional Skills Partnerships is very much dependent on how the Government takes forward the proposal to develop the new Employment and Skills Boards (ESBs) proposed by Lord Leitch. When the Regional Skills Partnerships were originally announced in the 2003 Skills White Paper, the TUC did question whether their structure and membership really did lend itself to delivering on the needs of demand-side partners in the regions. This has remained a concern, in particular as the role of Sector Skills Councils has grown in importance and it has sometimes proved difficult to align sectoral and regional skills priorities.

7.3 In World Class Skills the Government said that it did not believe that it would be right to give the Commission for Employment and Skills a role in licensing ESBs. It was also clarified that the Government did “not intend to prescribe one standard model for an ESB" and that “in all cases any new ESBs should build on what already exists" with a key aim being to simplify the range of existing local bodies. While it will be important that ESBs build on existing arrangements and simplify coordination and strategic decision-making (eg as in the case of the London Skills and Employment Boards) it will also be important to ensure some key principles are applied to the ESB model, in particular by ensuring that equal weight is given to employer and employee demand.

7.4 The ongoing Raising Expectations consultation highlights that, as regards young people, the proposed new arrangements will require a highly collaborative approach by local authorities, RDAs and other stakeholders in order to deliver a coherent education and skills offer for all young people, especially the most disadvantaged. There is a potential danger that this degree of collaboration will not evolve as quickly as required in some areas and there is a clear role for the RDAs to drive forward collaborative working in all regions to make sure all young people can access suitable education or training opportunities that will enable them to fulfil their potential.

7.5 However, it is also important that RDAs begin to assess their role alongside SSCs in supporting the new skills system that will come into place in 2010 when the new Skills Funding Agency is established. RDAs and SSCs will need to work even more collaboratively if the new demand-led system is to operate effectively, especially as the planning role of the LSC will no longer exist. RDAs, SSCs and the new regional LSC Councils only have two years to prepare for this scenario and they need to focus on building a stronger demand-led system for adult skills at the regional level. This means giving employer and employee demand a greater role and working even more closely with employers, trade unions and other stakeholders to achieve this change.

7.6 However, there is a danger that the focus on further institutional reform at the regional level will divert attention from the range of skills challenge that need to be met now, especially the need to expand high quality Apprenticeships and also to enable all eligible adult employees to benefit from the Skills Pledge and Train to Gain provision. RDAs, SSCs and the LSC Regional Councils should be focused on working in partnership now in order to raise demand from employers and employees to meet the Government's aim of achieving a rapid expansion in take-up of these training opportunities.

June 2008

@HR25@

Memorandum 58

Submission from Unite the Union

Unite is the UK's largest trade union with 2 million members across the private and public sectors. The union's members work in a range of industries including manufacturing, financial services, print, media, construction, transport and local government, education, health and not for profit sectors.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY@UL@—Skills and training must be enshrined within collective agreements;@/UL@

@UL@—Introduction of a training levy;@/UL@

@UL@—Expansion of ULRs and increase in funding to ULF;@/UL@

@UL@—Trade union seats on delivery and funding bodies;@/UL@

@UL@—Paid time off for training;@/UL@

@UL@—Increase in apprenticeship minimum wage and encouragement of atypical recruits;@/UL@

@UL@—Apprenticeship targets on all public procurement projects.@/UL@COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

1. Unite has witnessed a lack of investment in training by employers across a number of industrial sectors and a lack of commitment to training, as identified by the limited number of employers who have signed up to the Governments skills “Pledge", first proposed by Lord Leitch. If we wait until 2010 as Leitch recommends, or later as has been proposed recently, and for a mere right to training to level 2, we are in danger of doing too little too late.

2. Therefore, a fundamental issue for Unite is the right to bargain with employers on learning and skills. While the proposals put forward in the DCSF/DIUS Raising Expectations: Enabling the System to Deliver consultation is for a more strategic and coordinating role for local authorities, this may prove ineffective if employers fail to engage with the learning agenda with either the Learning and Skills Council (LSC) or as is planned, Local Authorities.

3. Engaging employers in the skills agenda may also prove difficult, particularly in times of economic downturn, with some employers espousing rhetoric rather than action when it comes to training their workforce.

4. That is why Unite is campaigning for skills and training to be enshrined within collective agreements in order that trade unions can negotiate with employers on this key element which is vital for the success of the business.

FUNDING FOR TRAINING5. Despite CBI figures which indicate that billions of pounds are spent every year on

training at work, it is recognised that a significant proportion of this is spent on health and safety training or other statutorily or regulatory required training. It is also evident that training is not evenly distributed throughout the working population, with those already with advanced skills and those in more senior positions, gaining disproportionately more training than those on the lower rungs of the career ladder with less skills.140

6. Therefore in order to ensure an even distribution of funding and to ensure employer buy-in, Unite proposes a statutory training levy is introduced. This will act to ensure adequate funding; that training is made available to all and that the current system is not overstretched. It will also ensure employers take their responsibility to train seriously.

PAID TIME OFF FOR TRAINING

140 TUC Report: Training who gets it? November 2005

7. Unite is also campaigning for a statutory right to paid time off for training.

8. It is evident from the skills gap between the UK and our competitors that employers are failing to provide an adequate level of training to compete with our economic partners. Indeed Lord Leitch has identified this problem in his review of skills.

9. Unite welcomes the proposals for the right to request time off for training outlined in the Education and Skills Bill however believes that this could be enhanced further by providing paid time off for the training delivered.

10. It is vital that employers bear a significant proportion of the costs associated with training people when in work, given that it will be employers who have the most to gain from an educated and skilled workforce. This is especially true when the training involves sector specific training.

11. Given that the majority of employers in the UK are SME's, Unite also accepts that some smaller employers may have resource implications and find it more difficult financially to provide training. Government funding should be made available to assist SMEs in ensuring that SME's and their employees do not lose out in the global skills race.

DEMAND-LED TRAINING AND THE ROLE OF ULRS12. Unite believes that the demand-side approach put forward in the DCSF/DIUS141

consultation paper could be enhanced through recognition of the role trade unions and specifically Union Learner Reps (ULRs) play in working with employers to support and deliver learning in the workplace. Employer/employee engagement works most effectively in workplaces where there is recognised trade union involvement. Unite therefore identifies a strong role for trade unions in a demand-led training environment in articulating the needs of learners.

13. The positive impact of ULRs in encouraging take-up of training opportunities is well documented, particularly among under represented groups. Unite and the wider trade union movement have been instrumental in driving a demand-led skills agenda within the workplace, with over 18,000 ULRs in the UK engaging with workers on both vocational and non vocational training everyday.

14. Unite will continue to actively recruit, train and support ULRs. Whilst welcoming the additional £3 million of funding made available to the Union Learning Fund (ULF) by the Government last year we would argue that this increase in demand must be met by further such increases in funding in the future.

STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT15. It is vital that the voice of trade unions and other stakeholders interested in the

learning agenda is heard. Unite would therefore wish to ensure that trade unions are given a leading role in articulating and supporting employee demand for learning by ensuring a trade union representative is on the board of all skills delivery and funding bodies. This would include the new arrangement which is put in place following the abolition of the LSC in 2010, and that this is mirrored at a local level where appropriate.

APPRENTICESHIPS16. Lord Leitch's proposals, “for a significant increase in apprenticeship places for

every suitably qualified young person by 2013", is welcomed. However, delivery of this ambitious plan requires co-operation between a number of groups, not least of all employers, with questions still unanswered on responsibility for delivery, issues over quality of provision and inevitably, over funding.

17. Unite is unsure that these questions have been addressed and would wish to explore this issue further.

141 DCSF/DIUS Raising Expectations: Enabling the System to Deliver

@UL@— Unite would propose high quality employer places together with a firm commitment from Government to guarantee the resources to provide an apprenticeship at the appropriate level to those with appropriate qualifications.@/UL@

@UL@— More must be done to encourage completion rates, which in manufacturing stands at 63%. Unite needs to see a clear and strategic programme of work, both inside the company and at any centre of learning.@/UL@

@UL@— Unite would also wish to see wages for apprentices more closely linked to the minimum wage and a real effort to acknowledge and address the current gender inequality in apprenticeship pay. For example, the TUC has evidence of female apprentices being paid £1.54 per hour142.@/UL@

@UL@— Wider equality and gender segregation issues within the apprentice system must also be addressed to encourage equity and diversity and create a more representative labour market reflecting the communities where firms are located.@/UL@

@UL@— Unite also believes that ULRs could provide a mentoring role within the apprenticeship system to support apprentices and is keen to work with the National Apprenticeship Service (NAS) to encourage entry by under represented groups.@/UL@

@UL@— Unite would also support a scheme whereby financial support could be given to apprentices who have to travel away from home to take up apprenticeships. Perhaps similar to a student grant or travel bursary.@/UL@

@UL@— Unite would also wish to see government targets on apprentices involved in all public procurement projects with the continual promotion of equality and diversity within apprenticeship programmes.@/UL@EDUCATION AND SKILLS BILL

18. Unite has concerns about the proposals contained within the Education and Skills Bill regarding education or training post-16 which emphasises a compulsion on young people to participate or face penalties. Unite is not convinced that the compulsory nature of the duty to participate will be successful.

19. The government seems intent on doing everything other than compelling employers to train their workforce. It would seem a perfectly reasonable request, if we are to ensure all young people are given the right skills before adulthood, to compel firms employing these young people, to train them.

20. It is also essential that adequate resources are put in place in order to fully support this initiative. eg if a young person “drops out" of the system—then they are re-engaged as soon as possible. This may be a role for the guidance function within the education system or when in employment, a role for union workplace representatives, in particular ULRs. ULRs can and do provide a supportive function for learners in the workplace and this role could be expanded further looking specifically at a “pastoral care" role.

June 2008

@HR25@

142 TUC Report: Decent Pay for Apprentices

Memorandum 59

Submission from NUS

INTRODUCTION1. The National Union of Students (NUS) is a voluntary membership organisation

comprising a confederation of local student representative organisations in colleges and universities throughout the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland which have chosen to affiliate and which pay a membership fee. We have nearly 750 constituent members (CMs)—virtually every college and university in the country.

2. NUS is one of the largest student organisations in the world and represents the interests of around seven million students in further and higher education throughout the United Kingdom. NUS provides research, representation, training and expert advice for individual students and students' unions. We deal with over 15,000 welfare enquiries each year and train over 3,000 students' union officers.

3. NUS welcomes the opportunity to provide written evidence to the Innovation, Universities and Skills Select Committee's inquiry After Leitch: Implementing Skills and Training Policies. NUS believes that education is one of greatest forces to improve social mobility, social justice and individual enrichment. We also believe re-skilling and up-skilling the population will have a major impact on productivity and the creation of wealth.

SUMMARY4. NUS believes the voice of the learner should be at the heart of any attempt to act

effectively on the recommendations in the Leitch Review of Skills. With 70% of the UK's 2020 workforce having already completed their compulsory education, the Review highlighted the importance of further education, the “Cinderella" of the education sector, as well as the role of higher education. Both sectors need to become more flexible to meet the challenge of providing skills and higher-level skills to those already in employment.

5. From a student perspective, NUS is concerned to ensure that greater regional specialisation in further and higher education course provision should not limit opportunities for individuals to attend the institutions and study the courses that best suit there needs, particularly given that an increasing number of students are based at home due to financial pressures or other commitments.

6. The need to address lifelong learning requires changes to financial support of part-time students. NUS believes this must change to cope with the increasing demand for part-time provision in both further and higher education, particularly for those returning to education to re-skill and up-skill. On this basis, NUS criticised the Government's decision to phase out funding for equivalent or lower qualifications (ELQs).

7. NUS is pleased that the Government is consulting students on higher level skills through the Higher Education at Work—High Skills: High Value initiative. Equipping students with the skills they will need as graduates is vital, so long as we remember that higher education is not just about skills—it is also about gaining a broad education. A careful balance needs to be struck if we're to avoid reducing the role of higher education institutions (HEIs) to simply becoming “graduate factories" for businesses. Economically valuable skills should be explicitly defined to include generic transferable skills that graduates gain throughout their period of study.

QUALIFICATIONS FRAMEWORKS8. NUS were involved in and supported a number of the recommendations of the

Burgess Group Report on higher education qualifications. Reform of existing credit frameworks is vital if flexible lifelong learning is to be made available and accessed by an increasingly diverse student body, particularly with more mature students wanting to study locally and more learners returning to education or juggling learning with other work and family commitments. HEIs need to provide different types of continuing professional development (CPD) and the flexibility of credit in

order to deliver learner-centred work based learning. However, it is also funding for institutions that needs to be flexible and based on credit rather than purely on qualifications.

9. NUS believes that further education and lifelong learning also requires a simple, unified and coherent qualifications framework that offers diverse and engaging learning to all types of learners. A simplified and standardised system should be developed to include all level two and level three qualifications following the creation of the Qualification and Credit Framework (QCF)

USER VOICE—EMPLOYER AND LEARNER10. NUS is hopeful that progress will be made in the development of the role of learner

voice in Sector Skills Councils (SSCs). This initiative needs the appropriate resources if the voice of the learner is genuinely to be placed at the heart of the post-Leitch agenda and the structures through which it is implemented.

12. The employer voice is strong in the Employment and Skills Commission and the National Apprenticeship Service. Yet problems exist for the learner voice in being heard and in being taken seriously in each of these bodies, and space must therefore be built to accommodate it.

11. NUS believes the structures emerging in the wake of the Leitch Review must, in partnership with learner representative bodies and providers, be in a position to deliver Foster's “learner imperative". A significant amount of work is required if the sector is to build on the new legislative and statutory support for learner voice and personalisation and make this a reality in providers across the diversity of the learning and skills sector.

12. To this end, NUS recommends the addition of an aim to deliver a truly responsive system that empowers learners, employers and communities to articulate their needs and enabled them to act upon them effectively. Since the publication of the Foster Review, NUS has worked with working with partners including the DfES Personalisation Project Group, DIUS, the QIA, LSC, AoC and CEL to help develop good learner involvement and engagement practices. However, these practices need more support if they are to be firmly embedded.

13. NUS believes businesses are of strategic importance to the future provision of skills and should have a role in supplying provision to meet their needs. However, we would question proposals to allow businesses to decide on the curriculum. The importance of transferable skills is growing and flexibility is vital if individuals are to be equipped for a working life during which they may change career several times. A simple “predict and provide" model is not necessarily in the best interests of the learners or their future careers.

STRUCTURAL CHANGES14. NUS believes a balance must be struck between general and specialist provision in

the wake of the Leitch Review. NUS is concerned that proposed future changes to the delivery of 14-19 education in local authorities will throw this into sharper relief, with young people being required to make decisions concerning their working lives and careers at an earlier age. The standard of provision must be consistent across the board and the appropriate information, advice and guidance (IAG) should be provided to all. The benefits of local strategies should not eclipse the need for genuine choice and flexibility in order to ensure that learners access the courses and institutions that are most appropriate for their needs.

15. NUS believes a universal, accessible and consistent further education complaints system that guarantees timely and just resolution of learners' complaints, including, at its final stage, an independent adjudicator or ombudsman to ensure the consistency of provision and support.

June 2008

@HR25@

Memorandum 60

Supplementary submission from the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE)

1. This note provides information on HEFCE funded HE institutions (HEIs) income from business.

2. The data is taken from the Higher Education—Business and Community interaction survey (HE-BCIS) 2006-07. The survey is published annually by HEFCE. Data from 2006-07 was published on 10 July 2008.

3. The 2006-07 data was included in the earlier HEFCE data annex submitted on the 27 June 2008.

4. At the evidence session on 9 July 2008, HEFCE Chief Executive Professor David Eastwood provided data on HEI revenues from the following four areas of HEI activity.

@UL@— collaborative research;@/UL@

@UL@— contract research;@/UL@

@UL@— consultancy; and@/UL@

@UL@— Continuing Professional Development (CPD) courses.@/UL@

5. We provide below a time series for the increase in income in these areas, together with other activities measured by HE-BCI between 2000-01 and 2006-07. It should be noted that the HE-BCI survey is conducted in two parts. Financial information is accurate up to the period 1 August 2006-31 July 2007. Qualitative data on employer engagement is taken as a snapshot of activity in January 2008.

6. Financial data is shown in real terms rather than cash terms.

7. For the four specific areas of activity, between 2005-06 and 2006-07 there has been an increase in income to HEIs of 14%.

Income in 2005-06 to HEFCE Funded HEIs from:

@UL@— Collaborative research—£454 million.@/UL@

@UL@— Contract research—£571 million.@/UL@

@UL@— Consultancy—£208 million.@/UL@

@UL@— CPD—£346@/UL@

Total: £1,579 million.

Income in 2006-07 to HEFCE funded HEIs from:

@UL@— Collaborative research—£488 million.@/UL@

@UL@— Contract research—£664 million.@/UL@

@UL@— Consultancy—£239 million.@/UL@

@UL@— CPD—£402@/UL@

Total: £1793 million.

Figure 1

TIME SERIES SUMMARY INFORMATION OF HE-BCIS FOR HEFCE FUNDED HEIs BETWEEN 2000-07

Income from HEFCE fundedHEIs/£ Millions (real terms)

2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2206-07 2007-08

Collaborative research

374 407 398 432 432 454 488 n/a

Consultancy

96 107 140 180 203 208 239 n/a

Equipment services

24 33 40 64 68 72 72 n/a

Regeneration

110 114 124 178 166 177 183 n/a

CPD n/a n/a n/a 276 334 346 402 n/aContract research

n/a n/a n/a 537 558 571 664 n/a

IP (including sale of shares)

n/a n/a n/a 30 49 47 41 n/a

Total

1,697 1,810 1,875 2,089

% HEFCE funded HEIs which provide:

Distance learning for businesses

52% 53% n/a n/a 66% 68% 70% 68%

Short bespoke courses on client's premises

65% 68% n/a n/a 79% 82% 86% 84%

Enquiry point for SMEs

82% 85% n/a n/a 89% 90% 92% 92%

Require 54% 62% n/a n/a 63% 66% 73% 73%

d contracting system for all consultancy

July 2008

@HR25@

Memorandum 61

Supplementary evidence from Million+

Following the Committee's evidence session of 9 July the university think-tank Million+ would be pleased if the following supplementary evidence could be considered.

CURRENT AND FUTURE IMPACT OF LEITCH REPORT ON HE AND FE1. Million+ welcomes the Leitch vision to attract more working age adults into higher

level learning—the UK does need to do more to unlock productivity, innovation and potential in a competitive global economy and universities are key to this agenda.

2. The current Leitch debate should focus on how best we deliver for individuals, employers and the economy. There are five over-arching issues which need to be addressed:

@UL@— Who is in the driving seat—the individual or the employer?@/UL@

@UL@— What is the role of the institution in driving the agenda?@/UL@

@UL@— How far can employers be relied upon to meet Government ambitions for co-funding, bearing in mind that the latter is predicated on a reduction in the unit of public resource? @/UL@

@UL@— How should part-time higher education be funded (students and institutions)?@/UL@

@UL@— Do the current full-time student support arrangements work as well for older students ie students who are more likely to have mortgages/rents or care responsibilities and may be more risk adverse to debt? @/UL@

3. Universities which subscribe to Million+ operate in a national and international market for higher level learning, while contributing to the regional agenda in terms of access, graduate supply and applied research. It would be a mistake to place too much emphasis on the “regional" nature of universities in the delivery of the Leitch agenda.

4. Regional Development Agencies can and do work helpfully with and alongside universities but RDAs are variable and have variable funding. Accordingly, we can see no merit in either funds for Leitch or planning functions related to Leitch being channelled through RDAs.

5. Universities which educate the majority of the UK's higher education students have a long tradition of supporting and progressing Leitch objectives. The key question in terms of the impact of Leitch in the future is whether funding regimes and other policy initiatives will assist and enhance this work.

Are the targets set by the Government following the publication of the Leitch report achievable?

6. The targets are useful as headline figures but their achievement will require:

@UL@— a cultural change from many employers;@/UL@

@UL@— much better time-off rights for employees and workers;@/UL@

@UL@— funding regimes which recognise that this is not necessarily a cheap option for institutions; and@/UL@

@UL@— a significant adjustment in student funding regimes to ensure that those who study part-time or who are mature students are properly supported.@/UL@

Government does need to strike a balance between asking employers and incentivising individuals. A proper review of the 16 hour rule for those reliant on benefits and a fees review for higher education which recognised that university is not just for young people would also help.

How does the principle of “demand led" education fit with HE? What does this mean in practice? How does it work?

7. Universities already operate in a “demand-led" environment in which they respond to the needs of the student and this does not always map neatly onto the needs of the employer. Some employers also want to train graduates “on the job". They are looking for employees with capacity to be innovative and be thought leaders ie they want a mixture of relevant knowledge and relevant skills that they will build on as employers. Trade union learning reps have also encouraged “demand". Along with a statutory framework to facilitate individual rights to time-off for education and training, there is a case for enhanced representation rights along the lines of the health and safety legislation which was backed by statutory rights of representation.

8. Employer engagement and demand-led education have many facets that cannot be conflated, for example, there is:

@UL@— employer engagement in curriculum development;@/UL@

@UL@— full cost courses;@/UL@

@UL@— co-funding; and@/UL@

@UL@— work-based learning. @/UL@

In addition many universities have employability, business and entrepreneurial skills as integral parts of courses, live projects (with employers) as part of the curriculum and employability centres to assist students in maximising their job and employment prospects.

9. While Government and Hefce can try and articulate their policy objective in each area, universities have to translate these into courses and qualifications that potential learners (students) want and feel able to access. Employers do not always anticipate the market and so-called demand-led education which is over-reliant on employer demand can have its own instabilities for students and institutions. This applies to the public as well as the private sector eg NHS workforce planning.

10. Universities, students and other agencies also have to consider whether employer demand is for existing skills ie is it proven demand or future demand. One of the key challenges is anticipating effectively requirements in the future. Universities such as those which subscribe to Million+ play a very important role, linked with their applied research, in anticipating and promoting qualifications for tomorrow's world ie “sunrise subjects" and interdisciplinary as well as intra-disciplinary programmes. For example, the first undergraduate business course (now one of the most popular choices for home and international students) was developed at Middlesex University; In 1997, Abertay University in Dundee launched the first digital games technology masters degree in the world.

11. The individual route is also very important. Some demand-led models can ignore the many part-time students in higher education who are “hidden" to employers because they are looking to move on from a current employer, are part of the flexible workforce or are seeking to move back into paid work. If “demand-led" means exclusively employer co-funded and employer demand and if the availability of public funding is restricted to this narrow definition, there is a real risk that, rather than demand being incentivised, demand will be dampened with opportunities to access higher level skills being further restricted rather than expanded.

Is the current skills structure too complicated? Are there too many bodies involved?

12. The current skills road map is very complicated and it is in danger of getting more complicated with Local Authority commissioning, a Skills Agency and a separate agency for

apprenticeships. It will be important that progression to higher education (level 4) is emphasised in any new arrangements.

13. There is also potentially further complexity in terms of qualifications. The Government is rightly looking to review the number of qualifications. Proposals to allow Sector Skills Councils and colleges agree new qualifications (and to make public funding dependent upon SSC accreditation) are counter-intuitive to this agenda. Higher education is working with other partners to ensure that diplomas deliver progression to HE. A plethora of SSC accredited units and qualifications without any cross-reference to HE or without the considerable investment required to deliver progression will only add to the complexity of the skills agenda at a time when the overall qualifications framework requires simplification.

How well do FE and HE work together and with employers? How should things change?

14. The relationship between universities and colleges should be one of collaboration not competition. Government cannot afford to sidestep clarity about respective roles. Only 5.5% of HE is currently delivered in FE. Any proposal to significantly expand this must take into account quality. Higher level learning is done most effectively when done in partnership with the expertise of a university. Experience suggests there is a minimum geographical and demographic footprint for an HEI and there are important economies of scale that increase quality for students.

15. There is also confusion and a false distinction between academic and vocational qualifications. Relevant skills need relevant knowledge and need to be backed by practice-based learning or live projects. Government should not underestimate the amount or extent of the learning that currently takes place in Universities linked with employment eg foundation degrees, placements, accredited work experience, accrediting a company's own training or delivering in-company accredited training and degrees directly linked with specific employment.

FUNDING16. Co-funding: In developing proposals to expand co-funding arrangements,

Government must be realistic about the extent to which economic uncertainty affects employers' decisions to invest in skills as well as the prospects of those employed in SMEs to engage in co-funded higher level learning. The Government's intention to expand higher education through employer co-funded student places and reduce the unit of the public resource for these students could have unintended consequences similar to the September 2007 decision to withdraw public funding from ELQ provision.

17. Many Universities are working to enhance employer engagement but demand side measures remain weak and there are also regional variations eg in some regions traditional manufacturing industries are being replaced by smaller less capitalised companies and microbusinesses. Co-funding should therefore not replace mainstream funding as a model to deliver expanded access to higher level skills and qualifications. To do so would run the risk in particular of promoting significantly different and less well-resourced funding and resource regimes and access routes for older students compared to those available for younger full-time students who progress to higher education from school or college.

18. The full cost of work based learning is likely to exceed that of “face-to-face" delivery solely on university premises. These hidden costs to the institution need to be considered: employer-engagement / work based HE should definitely not be considered a cheap alternative to full-time conventional HE delivery or be used to undermine the unit of public resource.

19. A shift to the demand-side model of funding, through Skills Accounts, recognises the individual route, but also has the risk to institutions of undermining the unit of public resource by underestimating administration and overhead costs, the needs of particular students and the need of institutions for stability in year-on-year funding.

Do Government programmes such as “Train to Gain" work well? What about the role of apprenticeships?

20. The jury is very much out as to whether overall Train to Gain will deliver additionality on a consistent basis—or whether it is a model which is best value for taxpayers or learners or employers.

21. The Government's support for apprenticeships is welcome—but again these can be subject to the vagaries of the market. There may also be a case for graduate apprenticeships in some areas. However, it is crucial that apprenticeships are not seen as an easy answer to disaffection at school and apprenticeship qualifications must open and offer routes to progression including to higher education.

July 2008

@HR25@

Memorandum 62

Submission from Electronics Yorkshire

RESPONSE TO THE IUSS SELECT COMMITTEEElectronics Yorkshire is a support organisation for the electronics sector, based around a

membership network (over 500 members) and providing services such as training, access to technology, consultancy and information services. Our services are focussed within the Yorkshire and Humber region, however around half of our client group is from outside the region.

The electronics sector within the region is predominantly SME businesses (>90%) and within that, mainly at the micro to small end of the size range. They are responsible for around half of the employment in the sector. Whilst percentages may vary, this is not atypical of the UK in general.

It is worthy of comment here too, that electronics is not so much a sector as a technology—underpinning virtually every kind of engineering/manufacture/process in every sector, for example, 40% by value of a family car is electronics, so the real number of people affected is even greater.

Whilst we recognise that at the upper (Degree) level of electronics qualifications, proceeding down a traditional route is essential, shorter, specific courses satisfying the fast changing demands of industry must also be identified and then provided. Electronics Yorkshire is uniquely positioned to fulfil this need through both its Membership Network and Training and Technology Centre.

There are a number of issues in relation to training provision, below the HE level:

There is a consistent blurring and confusion in use, over the terms “skills" and “qualifications". There seems to be no disagreement about the need for a skilled workforce, including re-skilling and up-skilling at various appropriate points throughout a working life. However, public funding used in mainstream FE type provision is aimed very firmly at qualifications, not skills. Frequently, employers and hence employees, need new skills, not new qualifications.

There is a clear mis-match here between some qualifications funded by mainstream initiatives such as Train to Gain, and the skills required by industry. Very often the qualifications on offer are not in demand and the skills in demand are not offered through the public purse.

One way to address this might be through accrediting short, technical courses, however the process to gain accreditation can be extremely long-winded and time consuming, in some cases, the elapsed time needed outstripping the “life time" of a course in a fast moving industry. Even with an accredited course, there is still no guarantee of funding being available.

Even new initiatives can miss the mark, such as the new Sector Compact recently announced by SEMTA. This purports to be new but uses Train to Gain funding and is very much the same offer. There is a difference in that a second Level 2 or Level 3 can be funded, but only if it is one specific NVQ! Hardly demand-led.

As described above, the electronics sector mainly comprises micro and small businesses, a fact which in turn may lead to a systemic deficiency in the whole process of assessing need, and making provision. The issues encountered by SME businesses are very often different in nature to those of large businesses and more importantly the way in which they are able to react is also different. Aside from issues of cost, releasing employees for training can be a substantial problem. In a business of say six employees, there is no spare capacity to replace an absent worker. The longer a course, the more intense this becomes. Short courses are therefore much easier in this respect.

These needs are not that often articulated either. For similar reasons to those above, SMEs are often poorly represented or not present on the councils of the “decision making bodies", so their voice remains unheard.

Previously, some of the European Structural Funds (which do focus on SMEs) such as ESF have been used to facilitate some short course provision, but this has been of a discretionary nature and not on a systematic, long term basis.

July 2008

@HR25@

Memorandum 63

Supplementary evidence from the Alliance Employment & Skills Board following oral evidence session on 25 June 2008

As requested, please find attached a tidied up version of the diagram I produced on the proposed complex changes in the Employment and Skills landscape.

I have also added a few explanatory comments on the employer issues relating to these changes, which I hope is helpful.

Annex

PROPOSED CHANGES—EMPLOYMENT AND SKILLS LANDSCAPE JULY 08

@LT@IMG SRC=@Q@48we21.gif@Q@@GT@Supporting Comments:

@UL@— The Employer led mechanism has multiple entry points into the “system"—should there be one? How do we avoid mixed messages to employers?@/UL@

@UL@— Services will potentially be funded from multiple sources—how will this be mediated?@/UL@

@UL@— How is employer demand going to influence supply in this system? Is it going to be by representation on Boards/Commissions which may or may not have influence on financial flows and service design? Or are those who design and commission services going to be made more directly accountable to employer views?@/UL@

@UL@— In the “demand-led" approach, what is the balance between demand from employers (who supply the jobs) and demand from individuals (who supply the labour)? To which does “demand-led" refer or is it both? They could be incompatible/send different signals.@/UL@

July 2008

@HR25@

Memorandum 64

Supplementary evidence from the Alliance Employment and Skills Board following the evidence session on Wednesday 25 June 2008

The Committee asked for views on employer willingness to contribute to funding higher level skills provision. I have now had an opportunity to discuss this further with those heading up the Collaborative Higher Education Alliance Partnership, an initiative here in North Derbyshire and North Nottinghamshire, aimed specifically at raising demand for higher level skills amongst both individuals and employers in key sectors to the local economy.

The information is below.

Experience at a national level indicates that employers are more willing to contribute for their existing workforce rather than their potential one, ie Continuing Professional Development rather than Under Graduates. Moreover, they are willing to pay, often in full, for that which is tailored for them in terms of negotiated content and mode, but less so for `off the shelf' provision.

The notion of co-funding has been negative for both providers and employers in that it raises false perspectives of what is being sought. Providers think they are going to get less funding from HEFCE, and employers think they are being asked to pay for something they previously got free. Neither is necessarily the case. Within Train to Gain there is a problem in moving from lower levels where provision may be subsidised, to higher levels where employers are expected to pay. Employers don't always understand the difference.

The employment sectors focused upon by the Collaborative Higher Education Alliance Partnership—Logistics; Health and Social Care; Food and Drink Manufacturing—are being impacted upon by the economic slowdown and in this climate, it will be difficult to get employers to invest, particularly SME's.

July 2008

@HR25@

Memorandum 65

Submission from the UK Commission for Employment and Skills

1. How do you see the role of UKCES developing? What can the UK Commission do that its predecessors could not?

The global economy is continually changing and facing ever increasing challenges and intensifying competition. In such a context, skills are becoming a growing source of competitive advantage and of increasing importance to government, business and trade unions. Governments across the UK have challenging ambitions to make the UK a world-class leader in employment and skills.143 The ultimate goal they seek to achieve is to raise UK productivity, economic competitiveness and prosperity, and to improve social cohesion.

Launched on 1 April 2008, the UK Commission for Employment and Skills is a key recommendation in Lord Leitch's 2006 review Prosperity for All in the Global Economy: World Class Skills. The UK Commission for Employment and Skills is a genuinely employer-led organisation, with Commissioners drawn from the highest levels of the private, public and voluntary sectors, supported by trade union leadership.

The UK Commission aims to raise UK prosperity and opportunity by improving employment and skills. Its ambition is to benefit individuals, employers, government and society by providing independent advice to the highest levels of the UK Government and Devolved Administrations on how improved employment and skills systems can help the UK become a world-class leader in productivity, in employment and in having a fair and inclusive society: all this in the context of a fast-changing global economy. Ultimately, the benefits of the UK Commission's work will be:

For individuals:

@UL@— increased employability and good careers advice; @/UL@

@UL@— the transferable and specialist skills to remain employed; @/UL@

@UL@— enabled by employers to utilise and develop the skills they have, bringing greater job satisfaction; and@/UL@

@UL@— the opportunity to develop further skills to enter higher paid employment or to retrain for another career (career progression). @/UL@

For employers:

@UL@— an employment and skills system and qualifications that provide employees with good basic skills plus entry level expertise appropriate to the company and a willingness to learn more; @/UL@

@UL@— the ability to influence the system so that it continues to meet their needs; @/UL@

@UL@— increased ability to access appropriate training to upskill their workforce bringing a return on their investment; and@/UL@

@UL@— an evidenced business case for investment in and utilisation of the skills of their workforce. @/UL@

For the UK Government and Devolved Administrations:

143 As set out in World Class Skills: Implementing the Leitch Review of Skills in England; Skills for Scotland, a Lifelong Skills Strategy, Success through Skills (Northern Ireland) and Skills that Work for Wales.

@UL@— robust, evidence-based advice on what works to inform decision-making regarding the skills and employment system, resulting in more co-ordinated, targeted, efficient public provision of services; @/UL@

@UL@— qualifications and workforce development led by employer needs; and@/UL@

@UL@— the workforce and economy moving towards government targets for increased employment and upskilling of the workforce through a better employment and skills system and increased employer investment. @/UL@

For society:

@UL@— Increased prosperity, with employment opportunity and sustainable careers for all. @/UL@

Because employers, whether in private business or the public sector, have prime responsibility for the achievement of greater productivity, the UK Commission will strengthen the employer voice, provide greater employer influence over the employment and skills systems and promote employer investment in people.

As part of this, the UK Commission has been asked to take direct responsibility for funding and performance-managing; and advising Ministers on the relicensing of Sector Skills Councils. It will also have a lead role on the work SSCs and others are doing to improve our education and training system so that the available qualifications better reflect the skills employers need.

The UK Commission will assess annually our progress towards making the UK a world-class leader in employment and skills by 2020. Recognising differing aims and priorities in the four UK nations, it will work across all four to support this world-class ambition, advising the relevant ministers on the strategies and policies needed to increase employment, skills and productivity.

To meet the challenge, the UK Commission will be dependent on its reputation and influence, built on its specialist knowledge and rigorous research and analysis, if it is to effect the practical change necessary to meet the UK's ambitions. As an employer-led organisation responsible for championing the development of a demand-led skills and employment system and encouraging greater employer investment in people, the UK Commission will:

@UL@— draw on the expertise and understanding of employers who are already heavily engaged in building effective skills arrangements across the UK for each sector of the economy; @/UL@

@UL@— develop its reputation as a credible and relevant voice and influential expert by fostering effective relationships with employers, the UK Government and Devolved Administrations and other partners; and @/UL@

@UL@— undertake a comprehensive stakeholder mapping exercise to ensure that UK Commission staff engage effectively and appropriately with relevant interests to inform work in pursuit of UK Commission objectives. @/UL@

In forming its advice to the UK Government and Devolved Administrations, the UK Commission will:

@UL@— monitor and challenge the performance of parts of the national employment and skills systems in creating sustained employment and career progression; @/UL@

@UL@— recommend systematic improvements in policy and delivery—including the better use of skills at all levels—through strategic policy development, evidence-based analysis and the exchange of good practice; and @/UL@

@UL@— suggest further innovations and advise how employment and skills related services, working together, can deliver a more effective and integrated service for employers and individuals. @/UL@

In conducting its work, the UK Commission will provide vigorous and independent challenge, advising the UK Government and Devolved Administrations at the highest levels on employment and skills strategy, targets and policies. It will take account of the devolved nature of skills policy in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and employment in Northern Ireland and negotiate how it operates in the nations with this political context in mind. All UK Commission work will consider issues of equality of access and opportunity for all in building a sustainable economy, and will be underpinned by a strong evidence-base from research and analysis of policy and practice to ensure that the advice and recommendations put to Ministers are robust and of the highest quality.

The far-reaching agenda of UK Commission, covers both employment and skills, and crosses the four UK nations. This allows the UK Commission to take a genuinely strategic, overarching view and to pool knowledge, and draw from best practice, across the nations for the benefit of the UK as a whole. It also gives it the legitimacy to explore and tackle issues that cut across policy boundaries, and, thus, to shift the centre of policy analysis beyond skills supply alone to include broader issues such as skills use, retention and demand and the role of skills in employment and economic development. For instance, it enables the UK Commission to tackle important questions, namely: why, when there has been significant progress on the UK skills front since the 1980s, has this not been matched by a comparable productivity miracle? The key to answering this lies in examining and understanding the complex interplay between the supply of and demand for skills and the interrelationships between economic development, employment and skills.

2. What are the key questions that UKCES is trying to resolve?In its first year, until the UK Commission develops its Strategic Plan, which will set out its

priorities for the next five years, the immediate priorities for the UK Commission have been largely driven by its sponsors. These have been articulated in detail in the UK Commission Business Plan144 and include:

@UL@— publication of “a state of the nation" report assessing progress towards making the UK a world leader in employment and skills by 2020, and monitoring progress against international competitors in the context of the aims and priorities of the four nations;@/UL@

@UL@— preparatory work towards publication of the 2010 review of the Employment and Skills System, including establishment of the terms of reference, in negotiation with the four nations;@/UL@

@UL@— advising the UK Government on how we might make it simpler for employers and individuals to access the employment and skills system in England; and@/UL@

@UL@— substantial progress on reforming, re-licensing and empowering Sector Skills Councils (SSCs).The UK Commission needs to fund and manage SSCs to deliver an effective network focussed on continuous performance improvement against the revised SSC remit using the standards set down in the re-licensing Prospectus. @/UL@

The UK Commission is currently in the process of developing its Strategic Plan and this will be published by the end of 2008-9.

Current emerging themes include:

@UL@— simplification and clarity—systems, customer interactions/”journeys" and funding, sub-UK (spatial), and integration with business support;@/UL@

@UL@— learning from and developing best practice/what works;@/UL@

144 As set out in World Class Skills: Implementing the Leitch Review of Skills in England; Skills for Scotland, a Lifelong Skills Strategy, Success through Skills (Northern Ireland) and Skills that Work for Wales.

@UL@— address the employability of the UK workforce, and new workforce entrants;@/UL@

@UL@— focus on vocational qualifications, apprenticeships and recognition of non-accredited/workplace/informal/training not leading to qualifications;@/UL@

@UL@— need for development of leadership and (middle/ people) management skills leading to improved skill utilisation and HPWP;@/UL@

@UL@— employer and individual driven/commitment/participation;@/UL@

@UL@— diversity of employers and their needs;@/UL@

@UL@— equality and diversity of individuals;@/UL@

@UL@— SSCs—measures of success and transparency of performance; and@/UL@

@UL@— development of appropriate system measures—based on outcomes (not input/output).@/UL@

3. What progress has been made with the relicensing of the SSCs? How will this process be organised?

The SSC relicensing programme is organised in the following key phases:

1. Development, consultation and publication of the SSC relicensing employer document and technical prospectus.

2. Appointment of independent Third Party Assessors who will assess SSCs against the assessment framework set out in the technical prospectus.

3. Submission and review of Expressions of Interest (EOIs).

4. Assessment of individual SSCs proposals by Third Party Assessors and reports produced for Commissioners on their findings.

5. Commissioner meetings with SSCs, SSC Committee panels and recommendations to Government.

The SSC Technical Prospectus [insert ref] is the key document for SSCs to use in preparing for relicensing. It describes the role and remit of SSCs in some detail, highlights a range of key policy issues, works through each stage of the relicensing assessment process and provides an assessment framework, setting out the key tests each SSC will need to meet if they are to maintain their licence.

The Employer Document, [insert ref] provides a shorter summary of the role of SSCs, outlines the assessment process and asks employers to both get involved with their SSC and, where they are involved, to offer their views on SSC effectiveness.

The UK Commission has established a high level SSC Committee, chaired by Charlie Mayfield, (Chairman of John Lewis), to oversee the process and advise the full Commission on the formal recommendations that should go to Government. A member of the Committee will visit each SSC as part of the process and the Commmittee will hold panel sessions with each SSC once it has received the formal report form the third party assessors to review the evidence and prepare it's recommendations.

The UK Commission has been working very closely with DIUS and sponsoring Governments across the UK to agree and publish these documents. We have also been in close contact with the TUC and employer organisations to gain their endorsement for the relicensing

strategy and to seek their help in achieving widespread circulation of the Employer Document. The TUC, CBI, CiPD, FSB, IoD and BCC have all endorsed the approach to Relicensing.

All key activities of the Project are currently on track and the following milestones have been achieved:

PHASE 1@UL@— The Employer document and SSC Technical Prospectus were launched at the UKCES Summer Reception on 7 July 2008. They have been well received.@/UL@

@UL@— Our stakeholder management and communications strategy has ensured positive support and endorsement from the leading representative bodies and across UK Governments.@/UL@

@UL@— We are beginning to receive feedback on SSCs from a range of individual employers and representative organisations.@/UL@PHASE 2@UL@— The National Audit Office (NAO) has been appointed as the independent Third Party Assessor to support the UK Commission in undertaking SSC relicensing. It was felt that NAO would bring the experience and credibility to ensure the process is robust, professional, fair and consistent.@/UL@

@UL@— Detailed plans are now being agreed with the NAO, including a three day training programme for assessors to take place in September 2008.@/UL@PHASE 3@UL@— All SSCs submitted their four-page Expression of Interest (EoI) on time by 15 August 2008.@/UL@

@UL@— Each of the EOIs has been assessed, key issues have been identified and a timeline has been drawn up for the assessment phase, taking full account of when each SSC would wish to start the process. @/UL@PHASE 4@UL@— The assessment of SSCs will start in October 2008 and will run through to summer 2009. The work will be organised in five tranches of five SSCs, each of which will conclude with a SSC Committee panel. The panel will meet each SSC and make recommendations. @/UL@

4. Should generic issues such as management skills be addressed by UKCES, rather than each SSC?

The Government is committed to improving how the skills system supports employers through Sector Skills Councils and identifying and responding to sectoral skill needs. There is a concern however that such a focus may inadequately address important generic skills needs that cross the economy. To avoid this potential pitfall, the UK Commission recommends a dual approach to addressing such issues, involving SSCs and the UK Commission itself.

The UK Commission needs to take a lead strategic, advisory role on shaping skills policy on key generic skills such as management and leadership, where recent policy interventions have had limited sustained impact. In the case of management and leadership specifically, we would expect this issue to be one of the top five priorities for the UK Commission given its importance in driving productivity improvement, public service effectiveness and modernisation, and the effective deployment of skills across the economy. Further work will therefore be required to review interventions to date and to consider what further action is required moving forward.

The UK Commission is also looking carefully at the complex set of issues relating to other generic and cross cutting skills and will come forward with detailed proposals following consultation with the SSCs and other sector skills bodies that currently sit outside the SSC network. The UK Commission will need to take a firm strategic role in helping to shape delivery and practice to respond to wider generic skills needs. In this regard, through its executive function it needs to ensure qualifications reform work meets the same standards in generic skills areas as it does in the SSC network.

Our initial analysis has shown that a number of generic skills relate to occupational areas such as Accounting and Publishing—as these align well with some specific sector interests, these skills needs have been incorporated, or are in the process of being incorporated, within specific SSCs. Other generic skills such as administration and marketing and customer services are genuinely pan sectoral. It will be important that the UK Commission works with the lead organisations in each area to formulate the strategic agenda for skills, to contract with whomever can best offer occupational standards and qualifications reform work for each of these occupations outside the SSC network and to encourage the Alliance of SSCs to actively coordinate the dissemination and use of generic skills across the SSC network.

5. Should there be an SSC for small businesses?No. The purpose and remit of SSCs is to bring together employers from strategically

significant sectors of the economy based on coherent patterns of employment and skills. They are not structured by occupation or by thematic issue. The relicensing prospectus does however make it very clear that SSCs are charged with bringing together a coherent voice on skills which represents all types of employers in their sector and that to achieve relicensed status they will need to demonstrate the confidence, support and influence of employers from each part of their sector, including smaller and larger organisations and from each part of the UK. This does not mean, as small organisations themselves, they can be expected to reach out to every small firm in their “footprint". But it does mean that they should actively consult small and large businesses in establishing their strategies, they should involve small and medium sized employers (SMEs) appropriately in their governance, they should ensure their work on qualifications is appropriate for SMEs and they should be building partnerships to ensure the priority skills needs they identify are picked up by the wider skills system.

6. How important is the relationship between UKCES and the further and higher education sectors? How are you working to develop this?

The FE and HE sectors are fundamental to the UK achieving its world class skills and employment ambitions, and thus the relationship between the UK Commission and these sectors is key.

The FE and HE sectors will play a key role in future delivery. The qualification reform process is rolling out concurrently with important reforms in FE and HE, following the afore-mentioned reviews. The experience and expertise within and across the FE and HE sectors is a critical resource for the UK Commission to draw upon to understand whether the intended consequences of education and qualifications reform can be translated into effective learning and training experiences, which, ultimately, enhance the UK's work-class standing. In general the approach taken to the work of reviewing delivery system processes will be highly collaborative, drawing directly on the experience of practitioners. We will establish a number of expert panels to guide system review work, drawing on experienced professionals from FE and HE and beyond. There are also two prominent Commissioners from these sectors. The UK Commission needs to establish relations with a range of strategic and delivery stakeholders in the FE and HE to take into account the challenges and opportunities the sectors face. For instance:

@UL@— It is important to gauge how the range of products that are being developed within the Qualification reform programme can be delivered in different contexts and environments including regions, sub-regions and localities. @/UL@

@UL@— Qualification reform in England covers both compulsory and post-compulsory learning, delivered through distinct public programmes, ie 14-19 reform (including Diplomas) and the Vocational Qualification Reform. The FE sector and, perhaps to a lesser extent, HE are expected to respond (ie to deliver these high profile programmes whilst also offering new flexible approaches (eg “bite sized" training and the achievement of credits). In some instances these may be competing demands in terms of provider resources and user expectations. It will be important to understand how well compulsory and post-compulsory initiatives are coming together as a balanced and rounded offer. It is also important that in the desire to achieve world class ambitions, provision, and associated funding streams, do not become too “target-driven", leading to distorted and unintended outcomes, and under-supply in critical skills areas.@/UL@

@UL@— Recent mergers and the formation of partnerships and networks are bringing about changes to the provider infrastructure, especially within the FE sector, following the

recommendations of the Foster Review. How these emergent `supply chains' can work with the new qualification offer will be important if aspirations for increased mobility, better progression and enhanced skills are to be realised. @/UL@

@UL@— The products of qualification reform include not only new qualification types such as Diplomas and redesigned VQs but also the strategic documents such as Sector Skills Agreements, Sector Qualification Strategies and Sector Compacts, all of which are designed to assist the transition to a more demand led system of provision. The usefulness of these strategies to decision makers and the readiness and willingness of the sectors to use them is a key element in bringing about this change. @/UL@

@UL@— The strong policy emphasis on Apprenticeships, coupled with changes to the compulsory leaving age potentially represents a significant change to our understanding of the transition from compulsory education to working life and further learning. We would hope to learn more about how this transition is working, from those in the field and the customers they work with, ie employers and individuals. @/UL@

@UL@— We are also mindful of the increasing range of activity at sub-regional level, for example attempts to strengthen sub-regional progression from further to higher education and highly skilled employment through the Lifelong Learning Networks. Looking at the rate of growth of higher education delivered in those FE Colleges who have pursued the `mixed economy' approach to provision may also be important. Collaboration and, in some cases, competition between the FE and HE sectors in what may come to be considered as new terrain may be increasingly important in drivers of growth of intermediate and higher level skills called for by Lord Leitch. @/UL@

In addition there may be specific issues that the UK Commission needs to specifically monitor in the FE and HE sectors following recent policy reviews and reforms. For instance:

@UL@— Commitments to progressive self regulation for the FE sector are an important post-Foster development and UK Commission will need to be aware of how this process is impacting on quality, success and responsiveness to employer and learner needs. @/UL@

@UL@— In a broader context, the role of the FE system in the progressive integration of employment and skills services may be significant, as the aspiration for a growth in the percentage of adults of working age who are active in the labour market will require provision of specific training and opportunities for recognising new skills for the returners to the labour market and those leaving the benefit system. Groups targeted by recent policy interventions, such as lone parents and Incapacity Benefit claimants may be new customers of the FE system. These reforms may also bring new providers into the FE sector. Therefore, the relationship between a broader and increasingly self regulating FE sector and an aspiration to integrate the FE service into the wider employment and skills system could be an important one. How the advice and guidance provided by the Adult Advancement and Careers Service links with advice provided “in-house" among learning providers may be an important aspect of these changes. Advice and guidance on new qualification offers, progression routes and the use of credit as the new currency of achievement across all qualification frameworks will also be significant to learners and to employers. @/UL@

@UL@— The strong policy emphasis on promoting workforce development amongst adults who have left compulsory education also raises important challenges for the HE sector and requires HE institutions to move away from their traditional customer base. There is a role for the UK Commission to monitor the extent to which the HE sector can meet employers and employees needs to access high quality, high level learning, optimising the use of technology and maximising opportunities to fit learning around the demands of work, family and community. In this context it will also be useful to assess the effectiveness of new co-funding arrangements with employers.@/UL@

@UL@— In addition, in a knowledge-driven economy, it will be important to consider what role HE can and does play in stimulating on-going innovation, and sufficient levels of research and development. In this regard, it will be useful to monitor the links between the HE and business sectors, the degree of partnership working, levels of sustained investment, and knowledge transfer. @/UL@

7. What are the chief problems identified so far in the simplification project?The simplification project being led by the UK Commission has identified six concerns from

employers:

@UL@— difficulties of access for employers to the system—relating to the extent to which employers understand the system, feel competent to seek to engage, succeed in finding the right organisation and/or service to meet their requirements, and find the initial contact welcoming and responsive;@/UL@

@UL@— complexity of programmes and initiatives—the extent to which the employers understand, or are confused or even overwhelmed by, the range of programmes and initiatives on offer, are able to assess the potential for a particular initiative to meet their requirements, and be sure that their choice is the most appropriate of those available;@/UL@

@UL@— too restrictive constraints on individual programmes and initiatives—the extent to which the eligibility rules and limitations on programmes unduly restrict the ability of individual employers to participate in a programme, or a sufficiently wide range of employers from engaging with it; @/UL@

@UL@— excessive bureaucracy in administrative arrangements for programmes or initiatives—the extent to which the administrative rules and reporting requirements of programmes are unduly demanding, time consuming or burdensome on employers, disproportionate to the real accountability requirements;@/UL@

@UL@— complexity of structures and organisation—the extent to which the sheer number and range of skills and training organisations, and/or the extent to which they seek to engage directly with employers, confuses or overwhelms employer interest; and@/UL@

@UL@— rapidity of change—the rate of changes in programmes, initiatives, organisations and procedures adds a further dimension of confusion for employers, who can find it extremely difficult to keep up with change and even become aware of new developments, let alone understand them. @/UL@

8. What would an ideal system of skills planning and delivery look like?The simplification project is about simplification of the English skills system from the

perspective of the employer. The wider question of what the skills planning and delivery system should look like has to be much wider than that. It has to be more than England. It has to be more than simplification of access—to include simplification and/or improvement of processes, objectives, governance etc. And it has to be about employment—because a fundamental premise is that there is a need for greater integration between employment and skills.

It would be premature to answer this question in detail. This is a subject to which the UK Commission will be devoting considerable thought and energy in the coming years. It will develop a picture of how the delivery system should ideally be structured in the course of preparation of its 2010 review. But in broad outline, the system of skills planning and delivery should have the following characteristics:

1. Integrated. To include:

@UL@— Integrated with economic development. Recognising that skills are a derived demand—that the reason we need skills is to support economic activity.@/UL@

@UL@— Integrated with employment. This is much more than just creating an efficient interface between Jobcentre Plus and the SFA. It's about ensuring that all parts of the skills system have as a major priority (in many cases the overriding priority) helping people get and progress in work, through meeting the needs of employers for skilled staff. So it is as much about integrating the aims of skills and employment as it is about integrating employment services with skills services.@/UL@

@UL@— Integrated, to some extent, with the wider social support network—recognising that the barriers to obtaining skills and putting them to use in the labour market are not purely skills barriers but often include issues related to disability, caring responsibilities, discrimination etc.@/UL@

2. Simple to understand. Fewer brands that change less often; less cumbersome processes; etc—the points covered under simplification above. This also needs to be true for individuals as well as employers.

3. Driven by outcomes not processes.

@UL@— A strong focus on articulating goals that promote the achievement of long term valuable goals. @/UL@

@UL@— This may mean doing the necessary work and taking the necessary risks to set targets that are challenging to measure—for example:@/UL@

@UL@— it is far easier to measure whether one has hit a target of getting someone into full time employment (of any kind, with a minimum duration of 13 weeks) than it is to measure whether one has got a client into a long term, sustainable job with job satisfaction and good prospects for progression and pay increases. But the latter is actually what we want. So targeting the former is probably not the best way to get it; @/UL@

@UL@— targets for distinct skills outcomes and employment outcomes, allocated to different bodies with the system, are easier to establish but will not drive an integrated employment and skills system. @/UL@

@UL@— It should also mean driving performance more and more by telling people what to do but not specifying in detail how to do it. @/UL@

4. Responsive to the varying challenges and opportunities offered by different:

@UL@— people;@/UL@

@UL@— places; and@/UL@

@UL@— employers.@/UL@

8. What progress has been made in identifying how to measure and encourage the development of employability?

The UK Commission is leading on a project examining employability skills, seeking to identify best practice in this area. The concept of employability has been debated for many years amongst policy makers and researchers, and there are dozens of different definitions.

In 1989 the CBI published Towards a Skills Revolution, the report of its Vocational Education and Training Task Force, which put a clear emphasis on these skills. In the two decades since, numerous reports have articulated the need for these skills, and have provided definitions under a range of different headings, including Core Skills; Key Skills; Essential Skills; Functional Skills; Skills for life; Employability Skills; Generic Skills; and Enterprise Skills—to name but some.

Research for the UK Commission identified 135 reports that touched on the nature and value of employability skills, broadly understood. Little in this material contradicts the proposition that these skills are of wide value and are in short supply. However, close scrutiny of these shows that whilst there is no shared agreement on a definition, and/or measurement, and the concept has been used with a variety of meanings and in different contexts, the reality is that 80-90% of the definitions are common.

There are some definitions that command quite wide acceptance. The CBI definition and the definition developed by the Canadian Conference Board and subsequently adopted by the Skills for Business Network are probably among the most authoritative. But, although at the level of fine detail

there is considerable diversity, all reputable definitions overlap to a great extent. There is very clear “clumping" around personal communication skills, using numbers, words and technology, problem solving, team working and customer care, for example. Nevertheless different definitions command a loyalty out of proportion to the their distinctiveness.

Our conclusion from this overview is that the challenge with employability skills is not to define them, or to prove that employers want them, or to show how they fit in with the aspirations of individuals. The challenge is to help people acquire them. So the question the Commission is focusing on is not “what are employability skills?", or “why do we need employability skills?", but “how do people learn employability skills?"

The UK Commission will produce a detailed document before the end of 2008 setting out the results of a review of practice in teaching employability skills in over a hundred FE colleges, universities, employment providers, non-profit organisations and businesses. This document also draws on a survey of the existing academic literature on the subject. The purpose of the document is to draw together such a consensus as there is on what is good practice in inculcating employability skills, and to form the basis for further work necessary:

@UL@(a) to develop teaching/training and assessment approaches where necessary; and@/UL@

@UL@(b) to establish ways of motivating and equipping the employment and skills system to adopt these approaches.@/UL@

October 2008

@HR25@

http://www.ukces.org.uk/pdf/080814%20D%200809%20Business%20Plan%20final.pdf

Memorandum 66

Updated submission from the Government

INTRODUCTION1. The Government welcomes this further opportunity to report to the Committee on

the progress it has made in realising the world class skills ambition described by Lord Leitch.

VISION2. Our vision is for a prosperous and fair Britain in which the talent of every

individual is used to build a skilled, resilient and innovative workforce that rivals the best in the world.

3. Leitch showed that skills are a key driver for both economic prosperity and fairness in the new global economy. Investment in skills is key to enabling people and businesses to make the most of opportunities and to increase their resilience to external shocks such as a changing economic climate. Supporting people to gain skills also ensures that their opportunities are not pre-determined by their background but that everyone can play their full part in society.

LEITCH TARGETS4. In order to achieve this vision, we committed to achieve the following targets:

By 2020

@UL@— 95% of working age adults will have functional (level 1) literacy and (entry level 3) numeracy skills;@/UL@

@UL@— more than 90% of working age adults will be qualified to level 2, with a commitment to achieve 95% as soon as possible;@/UL@

@UL@— 68% of working age adults will be qualified to level 3 (represents an additional three million);@/UL@

@UL@— 400,000 apprenticeships in England; and @/UL@

@UL@— over 40% of working age adults will be qualified to level 4 and above.@/UL@LEITCH RECOMMENDATIONS

5. Leitch pointed out that, with a majority of the 2020 workforce already in the labour market, we needed to direct much of our effort towards these people and made recommendations about how we should do this. These included:

@UL@— increase adult skills across all levels;@/UL@

@UL@— route all public funding for adult vocational skills in England, apart from community learning, through Train to Gain and Learner Accounts by 2010;@/UL@

@UL@— strengthen the employer voice;@/UL@

@UL@— increase employer engagement and investment in skills;@/UL@

@UL@— launch a new “Pledge" for employers to voluntarily commit to train all employees up to Level 2 in the workplace;@/UL@

@UL@— increase employer investment in Level 3 and 4 qualifications in the workplace;@/UL@

@UL@— increase people's aspirations and awareness of the value of skills to them and their families; and@/UL@

@UL@— create a new integrated employment and skills service. @/UL@PROGRESS TOWARDS LEITCH TARGETS

6. We have interim targets for what we should have achieved by 2011:

@UL@— Level 1 literacy (2011 indicator) is 597,000 achievers. Although actual performance will not be measured until 2008-09, current performance is on track to achieve the 2011 indicator.@/UL@

@UL@— Level 1 numeracy (2011 indicator) is 390,000 achievers. Again, performance will not be measured until 2008-09 academic year, but latest data from 2006-07 also indicates that we are on track, albeit with a steep trajectory to 2011. @/UL@

@UL@— Level 2 (2011 indicator) was to have 79% of working age adults qualified to at least Level 2. We are only at the beginning of the measurement period and the proportion of adults qualified to Level 2 or higher now stands at 70.6%. The target is very stretching and we are continuing to expand Train to Gain through recently announced Sector Compacts in key industrial sectors, including manufacturing, construction and processing. @/UL@

@UL@— Level 3 (2011 indicator) was to have 56% of working age adults qualified to at least Level 3. The actual level now stands at 50.3%. As happened with Level 2 there has been a slow initial take up of Train to Gain. We expect to see an upturn, following the introduction of the free entitlement for learners aged 19-25 and the roll-out of Sector Compacts.@/UL@PROGRESS AGAINST LEITCH RECOMMENDATIONSIncrease adult skills across all levels

7. In his report, Leitch said that “progress towards world class is best measured by the number of people increasing skills attainment. The raised ambitions will require additional investment by the state, employers and individuals. The Government is committed to increasing the share of GDP for education and skills. Additional annual investment in skills up to Level 3 will need to rise to £1.5—2 billion by 2020."

Investing in adult skills

8. We are making significant investment in programmes such as basic literacy and numeracy and full level 2 and full level 3 qualifications that provide adults with the skills needed to participate fully in an economically successful and cohesive society. This is a planned and continuing strategy to respond to the skills challenges we have as a country, and is relevant to all adult learners in particular those across the lower socio-economic groups.

9. Funding for adult participation will reach £3.6 billion per year by 2010-11, an increase of 17% compared with 2007-08. This will support on average over three million funded adult learners per year over the next three years. We have realigned funding from a high number of shorter and low quality courses to those that offer the greatest opportunity to gain the skills for employability and further progression in learning. This strategy is working with increasing numbers of adults gaining basic literacy and numeracy, level 2 and level 3 courses and gaining the skills they and their employers need to succeed in an increasingly competitive economy:

@UL@— 2.28 million learners achieving their first Skills for Life qualification in literacy, language or numeracy since 2001;@/UL@

@UL@— by the end of 2007 there were 1.78 million more adults in the workforce qualified to Level 2 than at the end of 2001; and@/UL@

@UL@— recent research shows that of those learners who have completed their Train to Gain course 43% had received better pay and 30% promotion.@/UL@

10. It is also worth noting that the latest National Adult Learning and Adult Population Survey, which covers learning outside of LSC-funded provision, also shows that adult participation in learning has remained steady over the last few years.

Skills for Life

11. Skills for Life is a radical and successful strategy that, since its launch in 2001, has transformed the teaching of adult basic literacy, language and numeracy skills in England. Skills for Life introduced—for the first time ever—national standards and curricula for literacy, language and numeracy, and a national test.

12. Skills for Life covers literacy, numeracy and language (ESOL) from pre-entry level up to Level 2—see annex A for an explanation of the various levels. Literacy and numeracy learning is free of charge to all adults (people aged 16+) with literacy/numeracy skills below Level 2. Fee remission for language (ESOL) learning was ended in August 2007 as part of our ESOL reforms, though learners on income-related benefits are still able to access free provision:

@UL@— since 2001, 5.7 million adult learners have taken up 12 million Skills for Life learning opportunities, with over 2.25 million adults gaining a first qualification counting towards the target;@/UL@

@UL@— our Public Service Agreement (PSA) target to improve the literacy, language and numeracy skills of 2.25 million adults by 2010 was met in June 2008, two years early;@/UL@

@UL@— our long term ambition is for 95% of adults with functional literacy/numeracy skills by 2020, up from 85% literacy and 79% numeracy in 2005;@/UL@

@UL@— since 2001 we have invested £5 billion in Skills for Life @ £660 per achievement;@/UL@

@UL@— over the period 2007-08 to 2010-11 planned expenditure is £3.9 billion; and@/UL@

@UL@— we have spent over £1 billion on ESOL since 2001; helping two million learners improve their English language skills.@/UL@

Routing all public funding for adult vocational skills in England, apart from community learning, through Train to Gain and Learner Accounts by 2010

13. Leitch said that the skills system must meet the needs of employers and individuals and that vocational skills must be demand led rather than centrally planned. Consequently we are routing much of our investment through Train to Gain to meet employer demand and are developing Skills Accounts to empower learners.

Train to Gain

14. Train to Gain has been developed as the Government's premier service to support employers in England of all sizes and in all sectors, to improve the skills of their employees, unlock talent and drive improved business performance.

15. Through Train to Gain, employers can now access:

@UL@— government funding, to sit alongside their own financial contribution, including a subsidy of up to 100% for certain training;@/UL@

@UL@— quality-assured, impartial advice from skills brokers with expertise in the employer's business area to help identify skills needs at all levels;@/UL@

@UL@— help in identifying and sourcing the training and qualifications at all levels that will best address those needs;@/UL@

@UL@— advice on wider business needs, provided by the Business Link network, into which the Train to Gain brokerage service will be integrated from April 2009; @/UL@

@UL@— high-quality, vocational skills training, delivered at a time and place to suit the employer, from a wide range of further education and other providers; and@/UL@

@UL@— for small employers with fewer than 50 employees a contribution to wage costs for the time they release employees for training. @/UL@

16. Train to Gain operates on the assess/train/assess model approach to development; this approach is more efficient and cost effective for employers. An initial assessment identifies the individual's existing skills and skills gap against the qualification sought. Training provision then meets the needs identified in that initial assessment. Lastly, there is a follow-up assessment to determine the extent to which the training need has been met.

17. Since it was fully rolled out in the autumn of 2006, over 100,000 employers have engaged with Train to Gain. It has supported over 570,000 learners to begin their learning programmes and over 291,000 learners have achieved a qualification of which over 254,000 are full level 2 and almost 16,000 full level 3 achievements.

18. Funding for Train to Gain will increase from £520 million in 2007-08 to over £1 billion by 2010-11. This makes a significant contribution towards the Government commitment to increasing the proportion of adult skills funding that is delivered through demand-led routes. In addition, by 2010-11, we expect adult learners with Skills Accounts to be able to access £500 million of adult funding, increasing to around £1.5 billion. But we need to go further still. Train to Gain: A Plan for Growth, published in November 2007, described how we are making the service more flexible to ensure it meets the needs of employers and employees.

Train to Gain Evaluation

19. In the development of Train to Gain we have sought to minimise any deadweight ensuring that the Government investment in Train to Gain secures additional training and does not replace employer investment. There is a target that 51% of employers engaged through Train to Gain are “hard to reach". This is defined as not having Investors in People accreditation and not having a recent history of training leading to a qualification. This target is currently being exceeded with 73% of employers being “hard to reach". Evaluation also shows that of employers engaged in Train to Gain 72% reported training staff who had not been trained before, 67% said they trained more staff than they would otherwise, and 55% trained more junior/less experienced staff than they would otherwise.

20. 27% of employers did have some training history outside Train to Gain, but the Train to Gain training led to those employers increasing the number or range of employees involved, or enhancing the quality of their workforce training. This suggests that just under half of all employers who have been in contact with a Train to Gain skills broker (47%) have carried out additional training that could be attributed to the Train to Gain service.

21. Employers confirm that their employees have gained new skills through Train to Gain, in the evaluation 74% of employers report they have noticed an improvement in the skills of employees in relation to their specific job role. Employers also reported positive impacts on business performance: 51% reported some increase in staff productivity, 42% reported an impact on the bottom line, and 25% said that the training had supported the introduction of new products or services.

22. For individuals the evaluation showed that most learners were gaining new skills not just having existing skills accredited; 73% of learners say they had acquired skills to do their current job better as a result of training through Train to Gain and 81 per cent reported that they had gained skills that would help them do a better job in the future. Employers clearly value these new skills as 43% of Train to Gain learners reported they had gained better pay and 30% had gained a promotion as a result of their training. Even for individuals who did not gain new skills the accreditation of their existing skills is of value both personally for example in increased confidence and in the labour market, allowing them to demonstrate their skills to other employers.

Sector Skills Compacts

23. To help ensure that the Train to Gain offer meets the needs of every sector, we have been developing “sector skills compacts" with employers in key sectors of our economy which tailor the Train to Gain offer to their specific needs and circumstances. The sector compact sets out the specific offer to employers in the sector within Train to Gain and makes a reality of the “something for something" deal called for by Leitch. In return for additional flexibilities in Train to Gain secured through the compact, the Sector Skills Councils (SSCs) or sector body will work with employers to stimulate demand for higher volume of skills in their sector.

24. We have already agreed compacts with SSCs for five sectors Semta, ConstructionSkills, People 1st, Proskills and Skills for Justice, together worth some £440m over three years. A second tranche of sector compacts are in development.

Skills Accounts

25. A Skills Account will give learners access to a new range of services which will help them take control of their learning and working life. Through a Skills Account, individuals will receive greater choice and support, and will therefore have a sense of ownership over their own future. They are designed to provide a gateway through which learners can access personalised careers advice including details of courses in their area, and their eligibility for Government funding to meet the costs of learning. In introducing Skills Accounts we are not altering any of the existing eligibility criteria or entitlements.

26. A Skills Account will also include a confidential record of an individual's achievements so that they can share these with employers, careers services or others who may find it helpful. As the service develops the range of products and services will increase so that a Skills Accounts becomes the one-stop-shop for learning.

27. As a first step towards Skills Accounts we are making sure that, from age 18, depending on existing qualifications, all young adults who do not go to university will now have access to a range of entitlements up to Level 3.

28. Universal Skills Accounts trials will begin in September 2008 in the South East and East Midlands regions, building on the trials of Adult Learner Accounts which were also trialled in these regions. The focus of the Skills Accounts trials will be on building and testing the core products and support services. The key success factor is to ensure a quality service and an experience that works for learners and providers and which in turn has a positive impact on both learner motivation and provider responsiveness.

29. In year one (academic year 08/09) we will focus on product development and testing systems, progressing to a phased introduction of Skills Accounts across England in year two (academic year 2009-10), with full national roll-out beginning in 2010. We expect Skills Accounts to be fully rolled out by 2015. By 2010-11 £500 million Government funding will be accessed by learners with Skills Accounts. This will rise to £1.5 billion by 2015.

STRENGTHENING THE EMPLOYER VOICE30. Under this heading, Leitch recommended we rationalise existing bodies, strengthen

the collective voice and better articulate employer views on skills by creating a new Commission for Employment and Skills, reporting to central government and the devolved administrations. The Commission will manage employer influence on skills, within a national framework of individual rights and responsibilities.

UK Commission for Employment and Skills

31. The Commission came into being on 1 April 2008, and in July published its Business Plan for 2008-09. We have asked the Commission to advise Government on what more we should be doing to simplify the system in England. We are not, of course, just thinking in terms of skills development but also about recruitment, retention and the effective utilisation of skills.

32. Areas of advisory work set out in the Commission's first Business Plan include:

@UL@— the first State of the Nations Report, detailing progress since the Leitch report and/or against each nation's skills strategy, current trends and projections. The Commission will deliver this report by 31 March 2009;@/UL@

@UL@— a programme of projects on employment and skills services, including publishing a basis for the 2010 review of whether more radical change is needed to integrate employment and skills services (including Higher Education) in England, Wales and Scotland, and a project on simplification of employment and skills services in England; and@/UL@

@UL@— a series of Commission projects to give a clearer picture of the development and use of skills in the workplace, including a UK-wide project on the role of skills utilisation and high performance working in business success.@/UL@

33. In addition the UK Commission has responsibility for funding and managing the performance of SSCs and for advising the UK Government and Devolved Administrations on SSC Relicensing. The Commission published the Relicensing Prospectus and a supporting employer facing document in July, and aims to make substantial progress on relicensing during this year, completing the process in 2009. Re-licensed SSCs will have a new remit sharply focussed on raising employer investment, articulating the future skills needs of their sector, and ensuring that the supply of skills and qualifications is driven by employers.

34. The UK Commission is currently consulting on the Five Year Strategic Plan which it will develop by the end of 2008-09, setting out its longer term goals for the period 2009-10 to 2013-14. It has also commenced a major review of the “collective measures" available to Government to stimulate employer investment in skills and is engaged in work to report on the effective utilisation of skills. Finally, the Commission is leading on the development of a “Talent Map", an interactive web-tool to help employers easily find and engage with publicly funded education, employment and skills systems. The prototype is currently being tested with employers, intermediaries and representative bodies.

INCREASING EMPLOYER ENGAGEMENT AND INVESTMENT IN SKILLS35. Under this heading, Leitch recommended we reform, relicense and empower SSCs

and deliver more economically valuable skills by only allowing public funding for vocational qualifications where the content has been approved by SSCs. Expand skills brokerage services for both small and large employers.

Sector Skills Council Re-licensing

36. The Government is clear that a strong and highly effective network of employer led SSCs is crucial to the successful implementation of its long term skills strategy. They are a key link between employers in each part of the economy and the education and training system and provide vital intelligence to help ensure that the system continues to develop to meet employer needs. Since the publication of World Class Skills, Government has worked with key stakeholders and developed an approach to re-licensing SSCs which the new UK Commission for Employment and Skills will implement. The UK Commission for Employment and Skills issued a re-licensing prospectus on 14 July 2008 setting out a refocused remit and the challenges SSCs will have to meet to be re-licensed. The UKCES will make recommendations to Government on which SSCs should receive a new licence, and we expect that all new licences should be issued by the end of 2009.

37. All SSCs have now completed their first full Sector Skills Agreements (SSAs). These are a key mechanism for setting out the skills needs of each sector, and help underpin the move to a more demand-led system. They provide the framework for SSCs to work with employers, key delivery agencies like the LSC, and with Government to address priority skills issues in their sectors. SSCs' work in developing SSAs provides a platform for working with SSCs on how their identified skills needs can, in future better be met through the Train to Gain service. Discussions on this are taking place with a number of SSCs with the intention of agreeing with them `compacts' to help tailor Train to Gain provision to meet the needs of employers in their sector and thus boost skills and improve productivity. In developing their SSAs, SSCs recognise the increasingly important role played by the English regions in the skills agenda. Regional Development Agencies contribute

sectoral intelligence held in the regions and provide examples of good practice in sector development work that have already been tested in the regions.

38. All SSC have, based on their SSAs and labour market intelligence completed their Sector Qualifications Strategies (SQSs). Eighteen Standard Setting Bodies are also developing Qualifications Strategies (QSs). SQSs and QSs outline the current and future learning and qualifications needs by employers in sectors or occupations. Specific qualification needs are then identified and detailed in SQS/QS Action Plans, which help direct the vocational qualifications (VQs) developed by awarding organisations.

39. Based on these qualifications strategies and plans, SSCs now lead the process of ensuring that VQs fully meet the needs of their sector and are consistent in terms of standards and transferability. To fulfil this role, SSCs have been piloting a process of “approving" VQs prior to accreditation; a final approval process is currently being developed and will be in place by early 2009. SSCs are also responsible, in England, for advising the Learning and Skills Council (LSC) on those VQs that should be priorities for public funding.

A new “Pledge" for employers to voluntarily commit to train all employees up to Level 2 in the workplace

40. Leitch recommended we launch a new “Pledge" for employers to voluntarily commit to train all eligible employees up to Level 2 in the workplace. He suggested we review progress of employer delivery in 2010 and, if the improvement rate was insufficient, introduce a statutory entitlement to workplace training at Level 2 in consultation with employers and unions.

41. The Skills Pledge has been introduced and is a public commitment by employers to support their employees to improve their skills and gain qualifications. It not a product or service—it's a philosophy which signals an employers' understanding of the value of skills to their business and to their employees. Launched in 2007 we are making excellent progress. Already almost six thousand employers have committed to the Skills Pledge covering 4.8 million people.

Right to request Time to Train

42. We have just completed a consultation and are now planning legislation to introduce a new right to request time to train to millions of workers. This will give employees a legal right to ask their employer to give them time away from their mainstream duties to undertake relevant training. Employees can request time to undertake any training—whether nationally recognised qualifications, or shorter, more targeted, and unaccredited courses.

43. This new right would help encourage and support adults to develop their skills and rise as far as their talent will take them. That empowerment will be particularly valuable for those employees who don't currently receive training. And, by helping to raise their employees' awareness and aspirations in relation to skills, the proposed right would support and encourage employers to invest in the skills of their employees as a driver of future business performance.

INCREASE EMPLOYER INVESTMENT IN LEVEL 3 AND 4 QUALIFICATIONS IN THE WORKPLACE44. Under this heading, Leitch recommended we extend Train to Gain to higher levels,

dramatically increase Apprenticeship volumes and improve engagement between employers and universities. He also suggested we increase co-funded workplace degrees.

Apprenticeships

45. The Government has made a record amount of funding available for the Apprenticeships programme, which is planned to increase by almost a quarter between 2007-08 and 2010-11 to over £1 billion. Apprenticeships are a high-quality route to success; they rely on the appropriate mix of practical and theoretical learning. Our Apprenticeships system has been revived and rebuilt over the past decade. With the advice and support of Sector Skills Councils, we now have more than 180 available and in more than 80 different occupational areas. Apprenticeships enable businesses to develop people with the right skills at the right time and are a mechanism for developing the talent which employers need. We are making good progress in implementing “World-

class Apprenticeships". The Government has more than doubled the number of young people and adults starting high-quality Apprenticeships, with 184,000 starts last year. Completion rates are at the highest ever at 63%.

46. Work is now underway to expand and strengthen Apprenticeships. For example—we have developed a strategy for public sector engagement and are making it easier for employers to have their own training accredited. In July 2008 the Government published an Apprenticeships draft Bill to underpin and help sustain the improvements in the quality of the programme. This draft Bill will ensure that Apprenticeships are a badge of quality skills for young people and adults and for employers. Apprenticeship starts are projected to grow to almost 210,000 by 2010-11. Legislation will drive forward the provision of sufficient Apprenticeship places to meet the entitlement for our young people to have an offer of an Apprenticeship place by 2013 and we anticipate one in five young people will start an apprenticeship by 2020.

47. From this autumn, DIUS will require that successful contractors for college construction projects take on apprentices, we are also working to ensure major developments such as the Olympic and Paralympic Games include opportunities for Apprenticeships. Our recently published Manufacturing Strategy gave a renewed focus on Apprenticeships with 1,500 new manufacturing apprenticeships, in addition to the 9,000 places announced earlier this year which will increase the total number of manufacturing apprenticeships by over 10%. We will expand the new places by inviting bids from larger manufacturers to train additional apprenticeships, including for their supply chains thus creating further opportunities.

INCREASE PEOPLE'S ASPIRATIONS AND AWARENESS OF THE VALUE OF SKILLS TO THEM AND THEIR FAMILIES

48. As part of our overall response to the Leitch Review, a key element of our strategy was to raise awareness of the importance of skills. A cultural shift in approaches to learning is the aim of the campaign `Our Future. Our Hands. Our Success' which was launched in July 2008. It has proved successful by stimulating an increase in the appeal of learning new skills and is prompting people to explore opportunities and actually do a course. By tackling the main perceived barriers to learning—time, cost and employer support, we are encouraging yet more people to acquire new skills. Our evaluation has shown that employers and individuals across the piece—including the hard to reach pre level 2 group—are responding very positively. Awareness of Train to Gain is much increased and an econometric analysis undertaken by Learndirect has shown the 12% uplift in calls to the careers advice line attributed to the Skills Campaign equates to around 37,000 calls.

CREATE A NEW INTEGRATED EMPLOYMENT AND SKILLS SERVICE49. Leitch recommended we create a new integrated employment and skills service

based up existing structures, to increase sustainable employment and progression.

Integration of employment and skills

50. As noted by the IMF, our labour market is flexible and responsive and is one of our key strengths, but we cannot be complacent, we need to continue to be ahead of our competitors in reacting flexibly to changes in the economy and the market place. As set out in World Class Skills and in Opportunity Employment and Progression DIUS and DWP are working closely together to create an integrated welfare and skills system. This led to the Work Skills command paper, published in June 2008 which set out how the Government would overhaul the Skills and Welfare systems.

51. In the West Midlands in September 2008, and in other areas from November 2008, we are trialling a more coherent and joined-up service to help people get into and on in work. The trials of an integrated employment and skills (IES) service will cover a range of measures such as Skills Accounts and careers advice. As a package they will include earlier and more thorough identification of skills needs, access to financial, training and other support to address any barriers, improved referrals and exchanges of information between careers advisers, Jobcentre Plus and skills learning providers.

52. In Manchester and Birmingham the systems will be decentralised with traditional distinctions between adult training and Job Centre Plus broken down and services redesigned with the

interests of individuals and employers at the centre. We expect these reforms to help up to 75,000 people in the Birmingham city region and 30,000 in Greater Manchester

FURTHER INITIATIVES TO ACHIEVE THE LEITCH VISION53. In addition to implementing the recommendations made by Lord Leitch, we have

developed a range of additional policies and programmes to help us achieve the Leitch vision. The most important of these are set out below.

Adult advancement and careers service

54. We are developing an adult advancement and careers service to deliver tailored employment and skills advice and support to adults, empowering individuals with the information they need to identify the training and gain the skills that will enable them both to find jobs and to advance in their careers.

55. The new service will provide more coherent support for individuals, merging the enhanced nextstep and learndirect advice services and working in partnership with Jobcentre Plus. The advancement and careers service will have a key role in supporting the delivery of Skills Accounts, and will provide an integrated service for identifying individuals training needs through Skills Health Checks.

56. Key elements of the service will be trialled progressively from 2008-09 to 2010. Prototypes will test ways of joining up wider sources of advice such as housing, employment rights and childcare as well as skills, jobs and careers providing “no wrong door" access to advice on the full range of barriers to learning and getting on those individuals, in and out of work, may experience. The prototypes will run from autumn 2008 in North West, London, South East and West Midlands regions. A skills health check tool is being developed and trialled from autumn 2008 in the West Midlands. The tool will be available online, initially aimed at Jobcentre Plus customers, with subsequent releases throughout 2008-09 enhanced to meet the needs of the higher skilled user. When fully developed the skills health check will be available to all, linked to their skills accounts and information and advice from the adult advancement and careers service.

UK vocational qualifications reform programme

57. We are supporting demand by introducing reforms to improve flexibility of qualifications to better suit the needs of employers and employees and to allow people to request time to receive work related training. The next two sections set out how we are tackling these challenges.

58. The UK Vocational Qualifications Reform Programme (VQRP) was set up in 2005 with the aim of ensuring that the system of developing vocational qualifications (VQs) is led by demand. It aims to create a system:

@UL@— based on learner and employer needs; @/UL@

@UL@— with greater clarity and more flexibility and choice; @/UL@

@UL@— encouraging a more skilled and productive workforce; @/UL@

@UL@— allowing individuals to fulfill their potential; and @/UL@

@UL@— supporting greater social justice and opportunity. @/UL@

59. To encourage individuals to undertake more qualifications, and to increase employers' support for training, we are reforming the vocational qualification system to give accredited vocational qualifications the flexibility to meet learners' and employers' needs in a more responsive and inclusive manner. The Qualification and Credit Framework (QCF) for England, Wales and Northern Ireland has been tested and trialled over a two year period and detailed plans for its roll-out are now being developed for Ministerial approval in autumn 2008.

60. Through SSCs, employers have a leading role in reforming vocational qualifications for their sector. We are making it easier for employers to have their own training programmes nationally accredited. Around 40 have had their training accredited by working with existing awarding organisations, a further four employers, two employer representative organisations and 1 further education college have been accredited as awarding organisations in their own right. The employer trade bodies between them represent hundreds of employers, particularly SMEs. More than 50 other employers are currently discussing the options for having their training accredited.

Responding to employment and skills needs in particular places

61. The Sub National Review, published in July 2007, highlighted the importance of place and the role of skills in economic development. The SNR placed an important focus on the sub region, particularly the city region, as a key economic driver and changed the balance between the region and the sub region. The SNR gave Local Authorities a greatly enhanced role as key strategic partners for the RDAs.

62. Because of the economic development role of Local Authorities, DIUS is engaging more closely with them, notably through the inclusion of skills indicators in Local Area Agreements and the emergence of skills as a key theme in Multi Area Agreements. MAAs are emerging as the key tier with regard to skills—they cover geographical areas which make real sense in terms of skills and travel to work and provide a vehicle for significant interaction between central and local government in a number of policy areas.

63. An MAA brings together central government, local authorities and other partners to agree new approaches for their local economy, in return for a commitment to deliver progress on the ground. The flexibilities which have been granted by Government Departments through MAAs have been widely welcomed by LAs and others. This is seen as a genuinely devolutionary approach which is making the system more responsive and enabling groups of LAs to deliver challenging outcomes in the sub region.

64. The Government has progressively made the employment and skills system less top-heavy by devolving responsibility to those much closer to the ground. The Working Neighbourhoods Fund, for instance, is providing £1.5 billion over three years to support local authorities with concentrations of deprivation to do more to tackle worklessness and low levels of skills and enterprise in their communities. The City Strategy is also passing more responsibility to local level to address worklessness, raise skills and reduce poverty.

THE DELIVERY SYSTEMA responsive further education sector

65. A high quality and responsive further education sector is essential if we are to deliver the skills the country needs and give greater control to employers about the training they receive. We are widening the provider base to deliver greater choice for employers but only by ensuring high quality delivery will we increase employer trust and investment in FE. All colleges and work based providers will be assessed on employer responsiveness as a performance indicator in the Framework for Excellence. Those who fall short will be offered encouragement to raise their performance. The Training Quality Standard is a quality mark which has been introduced to demonstrate that a provider has achieved excellence in working with employers.

66. The latest Learning and Skills Council survey of employers found that:

@UL@— nine out of 10 employers that use further education say that it has benefited their business; and@/UL@

@UL@— half say it has specifically increased productivity, boosted employee motivation, job satisfaction and employee retention.@/UL@

67. The National Learner Satisfaction Survey 2007 showed 91% of Work Based Learners (WBL) satisfied (26% extremely satisfied) with their learning experience, this compares to 90% (27% extremely) satisfied with Further Education. This has remained broadly flat since 2001

(92% 2001, 90% 2002, 2003 and 2004), but the proportion of extremely satisfied learners has risen from 17% in 2001 to 26% in 2007 for WBL learners. Satisfaction with WBL teaching remains high (at 90%).

68. 94% of WBL learners agree that their learning programme has given them skills that they can use in a job (86% for FE learners), 94% agree that taking part in their course will help them move forward in their careers, and 71% feel that their course is essential for their current job.

The learning and skills improvement service

69. In creating a system which is responding better to employers and learners the FE sector is developing a culture of self improvement—enabling leaders, teachers and trainers to access the support and advice they need to improve performance and meet the needs of learners and employers. We have created the Learning and Skills Improvement Service (LSIS) to bring together the Quality Improvement Agency and the Centre for Excellence in Leadership. This brings the responsibility for quality improvement with management and leadership development together, in a single organisation, for the first time. The LSIS was announced on 10 June and the merger will complete on 1 October. LSIS' focus will continue to be on learners and supporting providers to become excellent and maintain successful sustainable performance. Learning Providers are being supported in the delivery of the Vocational Qualifications Reform Programme and the Foundation Learning Tier by a Qualifications Reform Support Programme which will be led by the LSIS.

Developing links and promoting progression from Further Education to Higher Education

70. There is already much close working between FE and HE with over 150 FE colleges currently providing HE and around 190,000 students taking HE options in FE colleges. In taking up the powers to award Foundation Degrees, colleges will need to continue working with other institutions, particularly at a local and regional level, to make sure that students can identify progression routes if they wish to go on to further higher-level study.

71. A prime example of successful collaboration between FE and HE is in the West Midlands, where the sectors have developed progression agreements through Lifelong Learning networks LLN). The LSC has strengthened this process by appointing a Train to Gain HE coordinator within each LLN in the region to facilitate better understanding of the HE offer, and to develop links between employers, the brokerage service and FE.

72. The University of Brighton has developed particularly successful progression routes with an FE college: the University's campus linking to the college with which it has developed joint curriculum planning and cross institutional partnership.

73. Traditionally HE has been driven by demand—from students, typically young people seeking full-time Honours Degrees. The approach set out in our consultation document Higher Education at Work was intended to lead to an HE system which is more demand-led in terms of responding to business as well as prospective learners.

74. Many employers express their demand in their graduate recruitment activity and early responses to Higher Education at Work confirms that, as employers' preferred way of building up a highly skilled workforce. But we will not meet the Leitch targets for Level 4 and above if employers do not engage more seriously in providing their existing workforce with high level skills. We are targeting messages on employers to convince them of the necessity, and the benefits, of workforce development on the basis that it will stimulate the step-change we require.

Future reforms

75. Whilst the current landscape has worked well, the ever increasing pace of change means that the learning and skills infrastructure needs to be reshaped to ensure the best quality and most responsive supply of learning for young people and adults. The Government's White Paper: Raising Expectations: enabling the system to deliver, proposed substantial transformation of the system.

76. The consultation on the proposals in the Raising Expectations: Enabling the system to deliver White Paper closed in June 2008. There were a range of considered written responses and good attendance from stakeholders at a series of consultation events around the country. The Government published the first stage of its response on 30 July in following two documents:

@UL@— Raising Expectations: Enabling the System to Deliver—Summary of the Events and Written Responses; and@/UL@

@UL@— Raising Expectations: Enabling the System to Deliver—Update and Next Steps—which lays out the next steps following the consultation. @/UL@

77. The reforms set out in the white paper will require legislation, which will be included in the Education and Skills Bill (session four) due to be published in draft later this year.

78. The plans are to transfer responsibility for 16-19 funding to local authorities, supported by a new Young People's Learning Agency. Local Authorities will come together in sub-regional groupings to plan and commission the full range of 16-19 provision enabling them to meet the challenges involved in raising the participation age and to deliver new entitlements. For young people, the demand for apprenticeships will be aggregated at a sub-regional and regional level to agree requirements with the new National Apprenticeship Service.

79. In addition, the new Skills Funding Agency (SFA) will support the move to funding which responds to demand. It will route funding swiftly to learning providers and will be a single point of intervention where performance pre or post 19 does not meet standards. The SFA will have a national and regional presence and will be responsible for joining up delivery of the system and services at every level to respond to users needs. This will be through the delivery of Train to Gain for employers and through Skills Accounts for individual learners. The latter will also be linked to the new adult advancement and careers service to ensure that more people have access to high quality information and guidance to enable them to get the skills they need to enter into and progress within employment. The proposed changes will be implemented over a number of years.

80. Work is underway to develop the specific organisational design of the Skills Funding Agency and to develop an implementation plan by the end of October.

81. In addition, we are setting up a National Apprenticeships Service to take end to end responsibility for the Apprenticeships programme, including ultimate responsibility for the delivery of targets. It will be a discrete coherent service, led by a Director and reporting to the Secretaries of State for DCSF and DIUS and managed within the Learning and Skills Council LSC and subsequently by the Skills Funding Agency.

IMPROVING THE FLOW OF SKILLS AND QUALIFICATIONS OF YOUNG PEOPLE COMING INTO THE LABOUR MARKETYoung people

82. In developing the adult skills response to Lord Leitch's recommendations we are taking into account the future workforce. As young people take the challenging step into further or higher education or into work, we are aiming to ensure that they have the right skills they need to succeed and that the economy needs to prosper. To achieve that we are reforming 14-19 education. The programme of reform for the 14-19 phase of education has three clear goals:

@UL@— to ensure that all young people enjoy an education that fulfils their potential and stretches and challenges them so that they can go on to further or higher education or employment;@/UL@

@UL@— to give young people the knowledge and skills that employers and the economy and the nation need to prosper in the 21st Century; and@/UL@

@UL@— to close the achievement gap so that all have an equal opportunity to succeed, irrespective of gender or race, disability or background. @/UL@

83. Building on the secondary curriculum, young people will be able to choose from a range of learning routes and qualifications which are key to raising participation and achievement so that they can see clearly the options that are on offer to them; make an informed choice that will enable them to fulfil their potential and progress further with the knowledge and skills that are recognised and required by HE and employers.

84. At the core of this system will be four learning routes so that all young people can make a choice that engages and motivates them and gives them these skills and qualifications vital to future success:

@UL@— strengthened and reformed General Qualifications (GCSEs and A levels);@/UL@

@UL@— 17 lines of the new Diploma that combines theoretical with more applied learning;@/UL@

@UL@— apprenticeships that will become a mainstream option for all young people who are suitably qualified; and@/UL@

@UL@— the Foundation Learning Tier with progression pathways to improve on the current complex array of provision below level 2.@/UL@

85. Whatever route young people choose, they will gain skills needed to apply what they know and to operate confidently, effectively and independently in life, in further and higher education, and in work. Functional Skills in English, maths and ICT and personal, learning and thinking skills will be a core part of all 14-19 qualifications.

86. And where young people need our help the most, we will provide additional support. For example, young people out of education, employment or training (NEET) between the ages of 16 and 18 are wasting their own potential and their potential to contribute to society and the economy.

87. Our target is to reduce the proportion of 16-18 year olds who are NEET by two percentage points (from the 2004 baseline of 9.6%) by 2010. To achieve this we have set out a strategy and toolkit that will help local areas and their delivery partners to re-engage these young people, for example through careful tracking of NEETs and those at risk of becoming NEET, through motivating learning opportunities that meet their needs and interests, and through more personalised guidance and support

Migration

88. We are working hard to ensure that we are increasing skill levels and the ability of the population to gain jobs in growing and successful industries. However, in the shorter term there is a key role for managed migration to fill those jobs that cannot yet be filled by British workers or workers from the European Economic Area (EEA). The recent independent Migration Advisory Committee report to Ministers has identified a number of skilled occupations where there is currently a shortage and also a reason to recruit migrants from outside EEA.

89. We are working with the sectors covering these occupations to help each sector to ensure they are equipping their workforce with the skills they will need to deliver the jobs of the future. One of the most powerful ways is by ensuring that the public support and funding available through the Train to Gain service is tailored to meet those needs.

CONCLUSIONS90. We committed, by 2020, to achieve:

@UL@— 95% of working age adults to have functional (level 1) literacy and (entry level 3) numeracy skills;@/UL@

@UL@— more than 90% of working age adults qualified to level 2, with a commitment to achieve 95% as soon as possible;@/UL@

@UL@— 68% of working age adults qualified to level 3. (represents an additional 1.9 million);@/UL@

@UL@— 400,000 apprenticeships in England; and@/UL@

@UL@— over 40% of working age adults qualified to level 4 and above.@/UL@

91. In respect of the first three, to plot progress, the interim indicators set out below were set for 2011. (The baselines for Leitch started at 2006.) It should be kept in mind that we are still at the beginning of the three-year period where the Skills indicators will be measured; it is early in the day, but overall signs are positive that we will make progress towards the 2011 targets. The scale of ambition for some indicators is significant and we are taking further action to raise demand and increase learner numbers. There are also some concerns that the Labour Force Survey may be under-reporting achievements at this stage.

92. The Leitch review illustrated a huge task for the nation. Since its publication, global economic problems mean that businesses and individuals are facing challenging times. We need to ensure that we equip British business and the greater population to respond to these changing circumstances and a key tool will be improving their skill levels to aid productivity and competition. The targets we have set will need the continued commitment of Government, employers and individuals themselves.

93. We have set out a range of measures designed to achieve these targets. From changes to the skills landscape and the infrastructure; strategies to tackle quality improvements including in capital buildings, revised funding mechanisms; targeted programmes to raise participation and achieve higher level qualifications and importantly action to tackle our perception and approach to skills development.

94. The rates of return to learning at higher levels are good and the incentives are there for both employers and individuals. The costs of becoming a world leader in skills and sustaining high levels of employment is significant, but the cost of failure is greater -social exclusion, higher levels of unemployment and the cost to industry and the economy of an unskilled workforce, insufficiently equipped to compete in a globalised economy.

95. We have come a long way in a short time. However, the challenge is still there to be met. We, the nation as a whole, are providing the investment to meet the skill needs for 2020. But there is still much to do and we will remain relentless in our pursuit of attaining the goals Lord Leitch set out for us. We have no other option

September 2008

Annex A

STATISTICAL

Overall, England's skills profile has increased significantly since 1997, with a substantial reduction in the proportion of working-age adults with no qualifications, and an increase in the proportion qualified to level 4 or above.

@LT@IMG SRC=@Q@48we22.gif@Q@@GT@

Within that overall national picture, the picture varies by region, although the overall trajectory remains upward.

@LT@IMG SRC=@Q@48we23.gif@Q@@GT@

@LT@IMG SRC=@Q@48we24.gif@Q@@GT@

@LT@IMG SRC=@Q@48we25.gif@Q@@GT@

In recent years, Learning and Skills Council expenditure has been increasingly focused on national skills priorities, ie skills for life, and first, full level 2 and 3 qualifications. The number of adults studying on those national skills priority programmes has increased in recent years, including a 42% increase in the numbers studying towards a full level 2 qualification between 2005-06 and 2006-07.

@LT@IMG SRC=@Q@48we26.gif@Q@@GT@

1. The headline success rate in Further Education colleges has improved dramatically since 1997, from 53% in 1997-98, to 78% in 2006-07.

@LT@IMG SRC=@Q@48we27.gif@Q@@GT@

Source: Learning and Skills Council Benchmarking Data.

Note: Figures exclude external institutions.

2. Since its national roll-out began in April 2006 (full national coverage was reached in August of that year), Train to Gain has grown quickly. Over 101,000 employers have engaged with Train to Gain, over 570,000 learners have started learning programmes, and over 291,000 have achieved qualifications.

@LT@IMG SRC=@Q@48we28.gif@Q@@GT@

The LSC grant letter for 2008-09 sets out how funding will be allocated over the next few years, with a continued emphasis on national skills priorities.

@LT@IMG SRC=@Q@48we29.gif@Q@@GT@

The number of Apprentices is forecast to increase over the three year period 2008-09 to 2010-11.

@LT@IMG SRC=@Q@48we30.gif@Q@@GT@

Earnings returns

People with higher qualifications earn more on average than similar individuals with lower qualification levels. In general, higher qualifications carry higher earnings returns and academic qualifications earn more than their vocational counterparts

Chart 1—Earnings returns to selected qualifications

Academic Qualifications

Old NQF Level New NQF Level Female Male

Higher Degree 5 7-8 12% 9%First/Foundation Degree

4 5-6 29% 26%

2+ A Levels 3 3 14% 14%5+ A*-C GCSEs 2 2 9% 11%

(or equivalentVocational QualificationsVocational higher degree

5 7-8 52% 40%

HNC or HND 4 5 9% 13%RSA (advanced diploma or certificate)

3 3 10% -5%

Source: Jenkins et al (2007): The Returns to Qualifications in England, Updating the Evidence Base on Level 2 and Level 3 Vocational Qualifications. CEE Discussion Paper no 89.

The return to most qualifications has remained relatively constant over recent years. Chart 2 below shows graphically the returns by qualification levels/types from 1997 to 2006. This would suggest that the supply of skilled labour has been keeping pace with employer demand.

Chart 2. Returns to qualifications 1997—2006

@LT@IMG SRC=@Q@48we31.gif@Q@@GT@

Source: Jenkins et al (2007): The Returns to Qualifications in England, Updating the Evidence Base on Level 2 and Level 3 Vocational Qualifications. CEE Discussion Paper no 89.

While a number of studies have found the returns to lower level vocational qualifications to be negligible at best, two recent studies based on longitudinal data have found strong positive returns to vocational qualifications at Level 2.

Jenkins et al found substantial positive returns to vocational level 2 qualifications gained in adulthood, see chart 3 below.

Chart 3—Earnings returns to level 2 qualfications by age gained

@LT@IMG SRC=@Q@48we32.gif@Q@@GT@

Source: Jenkins et al (2007): The Returns to Qualifications in England, Updating the Evidence Base on Level 2 and Level 3 Vocational Qualifications. CEE Discussion Paper no 89.

Forthcoming research by the Center for the Economics of Education also finds substantial positive returns for individuals gaining NVQ2 qualifications in their 20s and 30s. This research also finds higher returns for individuals of lower ability, with returns as high as 37% for low ability women.

Other research has also found a positive return for those who leave school with poor qualifications. McIntosh (2004) found that women who leave school with poor GCSEs (or equivalents) who later go on to achieve Level 3 vocational qualifications in their 20s earn 14% more than otherwise similar but unqualified school leavers who do not achieve further qualifications. However, for men the gain from further learning is even greater at 25%.145

Returns from qualifications are also dependent upon occupation and industry sector.146

Employment returns

145 McIntosch 2004 Vocational Qualifications. CEE Discussion Paper no 89.146 Jenkins et al (2007): The Returns to Qualifications in England, Updating the Evidence Base on Level 2 and Level 3 Vocational Qualifications. CEE Discussion Paper no 89.

Individuals with higher qualification levels are more likely to be employed (see chart 4). Almost 90% of the population of individuals with NQF4 or above are in employment compared to just slightly less than 50% of those individuals who have no qualifications. Equally individuals with higher qualifications are less likely to be unemployed. Chart 5 shows the associated unemployment levels for economically active individuals by qualification level. Data extracted from quarter 4, 2007 Labour Force Survey.

Chart 4. Employment rate by highest qualification level

@LT@IMG SRC=@Q@48we33.gif@Q@@GT@Chart 5. Unemployment rate by highest qualification level

@LT@IMG SRC=@Q@48we34.gif@Q@@GT@

Wider benefits

Returns from gaining qualifications are not simply limited to financial gains. There are also important wider gains to both individuals and the wider society. For example improvements in levels of depression and obesity are associated with gains in qualifications.147 This research showed that the most significant effects were experienced by those who moved from no qualifications to gaining a level 1 qualification. Strong significant effects were also experienced by individuals moving to level 4 qualifications.

Other research has highlighted the association between level 2 qualifications and women's cervical screening behaviour. This research showed that women with level 2 qualifications had a 5.7 percentage points higher probability of having more than two cervical smear tests in 11 years compared to women with qualification blew level 2148.

Society also benefits from the growth of skills in the population. Research has found that a one percentage point increase in the proportion of the working age population with O level or equivalent qualifications reduces the costs of crime by £10m-£320 million, through its effects on wages.149

The benefits of skills and qualifications are not just accrued by the individuals but by employers and wider society. Evidence has shown that employers often capture some benefit of training for themselves. For example, while not directly comparable in formal qualifications, two studies have suggested that the productivity impacts of training are approximately double the wage benefits.150

It is also important to note that the skills profile of the UK workforce has improved over time (see one of the graphs in original memo) and this has contributed to the economic growth of the UK. Analysis suggests that improvements in the skills of UK workers have contributed to around one fifth of annual growth in the UK economy over the past 25 years.151

147 Feinstein, L (2002) Quantitative Estimates of the Social Benefits of Learning, 2: Health (Depression and Obesity) Wider Benefits of Learning Research Report.148 Sabates, R and Feinstein, L (2004) Education, training and the take-up of preventative health care, WBL Research Report No 12.149 Feinstein, L (2002) Quantitative estimates of the social benefits of learning, 1: Crime WBL Research Report No 5.150 Dearden et al (2000) Who gains when workers train? Training and corporate productivity in a panel of British industries, IFS; Dearden et al (2005) The impact of training on productivity and wages: evidence from British panel data.151 Bell et al (2005) A Quality Adjusted labour input series for the United Kingdom (1975-2002) Bank of England Working Paper 280.

Gaining higher qualifications seems to lead to the increased likelihood of undertaking further learning. Analysis of the Labour Force Survey (Q4, 2007) clearly showed that more qualified individuals are increasingly likely to undertake further job related learning (see chart 6).

Chart 6. Percentage of working age population who have undertaken job related education or training in the past three months, by highest qualification

@LT@IMG SRC=@Q@48we35.gif@Q@@GT@

Higher Education

There, in general, are real economic gains to individuals who go on to study for a degree. The graduate earnings premium is comfortably over £100,000, after tax, compared to those with two or more A levels. Graph X, below, shows the graduate earning premium by age.152 These data take into account real earnings growth and employment probabilities and is discounted, so that equivalent to today's valuation.

However, these returns do vary considerably according to the subjects studied. Gross lifetime earnings premiums for Medicine are almost £350,000 but the earnings premium for arts degree graduates is less than £50,000. However, the lifetime earnings premium for a graduate is approximately £150,000.153

Graduates also enjoy better health and are more likely to vote and be actively engage in their communities.154

Graph 7. Graduate lifetime earnings profile

@LT@IMG SRC=@Q@48we36.gif@Q@@GT@

Annex B

PROGRAMME FOR THE INTERNATIONAL ASSESSMENT OF ADULT COMPETENCIES (PIAAC)

DIUS is making a contribution to the costs of the OECD's international development work for 2008. The Department is represented on the PIAAC Board of Participating Countries and at meetings of the national project managers.

PIAAC (fieldwork 2011) will allow a benchmark of adult literacy and numeracy against a much wider set of industrialised countries than in the International Adult Literacy Study (IALS, fieldwork 1996), and to look at what has changed in the intervening fifteen years. (No part of the UK took part in the Adult Literacy and Lifeskills Survey, which ran in the middle of the current decade.)

By combining a direct measure of key cognitive skills with measures of formal educational attainment, PIAAC will offer a more complete picture of the stock of human capital than has yet been available by way of comparing OECD countries. The OECD's annual collation of qualification statistics is a useful monitoring tool, but provides only a rough proxy for actual cognitive skills.

PIAAC will include:

@UL@— testing for functional literacy skills;@/UL@

@UL@— testing for functional numeracy skills;@/UL@

152 Internal DfES analysis.153 PwC (2007): The economic benefits of a degree.154 Bynner et al (2003).

@UL@— an assessment of the skill requirements of jobs for the employed members of the sample; and@/UL@

@UL@— a background questionnaire on individual characteristics and other contextual information.@/UL@

PIAAC will provide an important measure for Government in the context of the Leitch ambition for the UK to be a world leader in skills by 2020, benchmarked against the upper quartile of the OECD.

@HR25@

Memorandum 67

Letter from Lord Young of Norwood Green, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Skills and Apprenticeships

INNOVATION, UNIVERSITIES, SCIENCE AND SKILLS SELECT COMMITTEE SUB-COMMITTEE ON AFTER LEITCH: IMPLEMENTING SKILLS AND TRAINING POLICIES

I recently wrote to you on 24 October providing supplementary information to address a number of issues raised by the Committee. The supplementary information among other things set out the DIUS vision for skills. However, I would like to bring to your attention to a speech delivered by John Denham, Secretary of State, to the CBI on 24 October entitled “Strategic Skills".

In this speech the Secretary of State outlined his strategic vision for how the skills system needs to develop and re-iterated his commitment to a demandled system driven by the needs of individuals and employers. He outlined his concerns that individual employer demand may not be sufficient to create a critical mass of the requisite skills and as such Government needs to do more to influence demand not only through policy and regulation but through procurement and purchasing.

Employers need to be supported in organising their demand for skills particularly at sub-regional, regional and a more local level. All of which has to be underpinned by a radical simplification of the system with the minimum of bureaucracy.

I have attached a copy of the speech for your information155.

Tony Young

Lord Young of Norwood Green

October 2008

@HR25@

155 Not printed, http://www.dius.gov.uk/speeches/denham_cbi_241008.html

Memorandum 68

Supplementary submission from the Higher Education Funding Council for England

I noticed a discussion of the role of HEFCE in the regions at the Select Committee's session with David Lammy and Stephen Marston earlier in the month (8 October 2008). The specific issue appeared to be whether HEFCE is adequately equipped to make an active contribution to developing higher level skills in the regions. As HEFCE was not represented at the session, a short briefing may be helpful.

HEFCE conducts its responsibilities in a highly efficient and effective manner. In 2008-09, we will allocate a grant of £7,073 million and spend £20.2 million (of which £17.7 million is provided by DIUS) on our own operations in doing so. Within this, we will spend £1.5 million on our accommodation in Bristol and London, and £12.4 million on salaries for around 230 (full time equivalent) staff. Running costs from DIUS are restricted to 0.25% of grant.

HEFCE has a national role and focus. It does though take account of regional and local aspects in how its policies are implemented. Our engagement with the Higher Education Institutions and Further Education Colleges delivering higher education, and with regional partners such as the Regional Development Agencies and Skills Partnerships, is managed by three Institutional Teams headed by Associate Directors. 50 staff are currently based within these teams, including seven Regional Consultants with identified regional and institutional responsibilities. The teams are nominally based in our head office, but spend a substantial proportion of time engaging directly with partners in the regions for which they are responsible.

Higher Education is delivered by a high performing sector, which is to a significant extent characterised by large and highly capable organisations. This drives our regulatory framework and funding system, and it also informs our approach to strategic engagement within the regions, which secures change through incentives within the funding system and selective use of our Strategic Development Fund. This approach has been successful in reshaping higher education provision in places like Cornwall, Cumbria, East Lancashire and Suffolk, and it has underpinned the partnerships now being developed by HEls throughout the country to deliver employer-relevant provision on a greater scale.

I am confident that HEFCE's way of working is the best fit to the sector for which we are responsible and I cannot foresee a situation in which it would be possible or appropriate for us to incur the running costs necessary to operate regional offices in the manner of, for example, the Learning and Skills Council.

I hope that this helpfully clarifies the position, but please do not hesitate to contact me if you or any members of your Committee would like further information on this issue.

@HR25@

Memorandum 69

Supplementary evidence from the Government following the evidence session on Wednesday 8 October 2008

INNOVATION, UNIVERSITIES, SCIENCE AND SKILLS SELECT COMMITTEE SUB-COMMITTEE ON AFTER LEITCH IMPLEMENTING SKILLS AND TRAINING POLICIES

NOTE 1A note on the Analysis of the Trends in Employer Spending on Training

1. We know that around one third of employers still do not train their workforce and persuading them of the business benefits of investing in skills is a big challenge. However, there is evidence from the National Employer Skills Survey 2007 (NESS 2007—see table at end of this section) of a positive trend with more employers now providing training for their workforce; it has risen from 64% in 2004 to 67% in 2007.

2. NESS 2007 also showed that employer spend on training had increased from £33.3 billion in 2005 to over £38.6 billion in 2007—a real terms increase of £3.5 billion after inflation. The average spend per employee on training increased to £1,725, up from £1,550 in 2005. Fees to external providers accounted for 7% of total spend, trainee labour costs accounted for 47% and trainer labour costs for on-the-job training for 22%.

3. NESS 2007 http://research.lsc.gov.uk/LSC+Research/published/ness/ also indicated that more employers are taking training seriously with 48% of employers having a training plan and 35% a separate training budget up from 44% and 34% respectively.

4. Although these are positive indications we recognise the challenge we face to raise employer engagement and investment in skills. A number of measures are in place to encourage and support employers to invest in training.

5. Through Train to Gain we are raising employer demand for skills by providing a service to support employers in England of all sizes and in all sectors, to improve the skills of their employees, unlock talent and drive improved business performance. Latest management information shows that 74% of employers engaged through Train to Gain are “hard to reach" and do not have a recent history of significant investment in training. Evidence from independent evaluations of Train to Gain published in May 2008 shows that it is encouraging more employers to put more staff forward for training than would have otherwise:

@UL@72% of employers reported training staff who had not been trained before.@/UL@

@UL@67% of employers said they trained more staff than they would otherwise.@/UL@

@UL@55% of employers trained more junior/less experienced staff than they would otherwise.@/UL@

Employer Evaluation Report can be found at http://readingroom.lsc.gov.uk/lsc/National/nat-ttgemployerevaluation-may08.PDF

Learner Evaluation Report can be found at http://readingroom.lsc.gov.uk/lsc/National/nat-ttglearnerevaluation-may08.PDF

6. Train to Gain is a developing service with new measures and flexibilities to ensure it more closely meets the specific needs of employers of all sizes and in all sectors. Most recently, on 21 October we announced further flexibilities to provide private sector SMEs with better support for training in the current economic climate. By 2010-11 we plan to invest over £1 billion public funding in skills through Train to Gain.

7. One key new flexibility we are developing is “sector compacts" with employers in key sectors of our economy which tailor the Train to Gain offer to their needs and circumstances, including the specific needs of SMEs. These are three-way agreements between DIUS, the Learning and Skills Council and Sector Skills Councils (SSCs) or sector bodies. In return for additional flexibilities in Train to Gain secured through the compact, such as sector-specific joint marketing with LSC and funding for repeat learners on prioritised full qualifications, the SSC or sector body will work with employers via the Train to Gain brokerage service to stimulate demand for higher volume of skills in their sector. This focuses on increased take-up of the skills pledge, apprenticeships, full level 2 and 3 qualifications and Skills for Life.

8. Sector compacts have so far been agreed with five SSCs and sector bodies, SEMTA, ConstructionSkills, People 1st, Proskills and Skills for Justice were announced by the end of June 2008. Included in the anticipated outcomes for those compacts are:

@UL@— 50,000 Skills for Life achievements.@/UL@

@UL@— 18,000 Apprenticeships starts.@/UL@

@UL@— 32,000 Management and Leadership outcomes.@/UL@

We expect five more to be announced shortly. Further tranches of sector compacts are in development and all compacts agreed will be reviewed regularly to ensure that they continue to be responsive to new employer needs and the impact of the changing economic landscape on different sectors.

9. The Skills Pledge forms part of our strategy to create a culture in which every employer sees up-skilling and re-skilling their workforce as one of the most powerful things they can do to drive their businesses forward. The Skills Pledge is a public commitment by an employer to their workforce that they will develop the skills of their employees, including all employees lacking basic skills or a first full Level 2 qualification.

10. Since it was launched in June 2007 over 6,800 employers have made the Skills Pledge, covering over 4,900,000 employees. Early results from a recent survey (the survey has not yet been published, we will provide the Committee with details on how to access the survey in due course) of 800 of the first 1300 employers to make the Skills Pledge show that it is driving increase training:

@UL@— three in five respondents have increased the breadth of their training provision which means people have a wider range of skills and increased prospects;@/UL@

@UL@— 63% of employers are providing more training opportunities than before;@/UL@

@UL@— 28% of respondents have had no previous involvement with either Train to Gain or Investors in People;@/UL@

@UL@— 34% of employers now have a training plan that they didn't have before which means they are more focussed on the skills they need for business success; and@/UL@

@UL@— 53% are offering more level 2 training than they did before which is giving more people a platform from which to progress and achieve.@/UL@

11. We acknowledge that the current economic downturn could have a negative impact on levels of training. The measures described above will help to counteract this and we will do everything additional we can to support continued investment in training.

Table NESS Training Activity and Expenditure

NESS04 NESS05 NESS07Training ExpenditureTotal training n/a £33.3m £38.6m

expenditure over the previous 12 months

(16% increase)

Per capita training expenditure (total workforce)

n/a £1,550 £1,725

Per capital training expenditure (training employers' workforce)

n/a £1,800 £1,975

Per trainee training expenditure

n/a £2,550 £2,775

Training Activity% of establishments training staff over the last 12 months

64% 65% 67%

% of establishments with a training plan

44% 45% 48%

% of establishments with a budget for training

34% 33% 35%

% of employees receiving training

61% 61% 63%

NOTE 2A note on the evidence that co-funding at Level 4 will work in the UK context, including details of other countries where the HE system delivers a substantial amount of Level 4 training in partnership with employers

12. There is very little comparative international evidence available on employer involvement in the delivery of higher education (HE), or on employer co-funding of HE/Level 4 training, though there is evidence, from the OECD, on the broader issue of the proportion of HE that is privately funded (see table below). What does exist, and this has to be treated with some caution due to definitional differences between countries and missing data, indicates that, across the OECD, around a quarter of expenditure on tertiary education comes from private sources, and that this share has been gradually increasing in recent years. The UK is slightly above the average, at around a third. However, in some countries there is a much higher private share—up to around three quarters in one case. Even though we cannot say how much of this share is attributable to employers it does indicate that there may be some scope for increasing support from private sources.

Tertiary education 2005 2000 Index

of change between 2000 and 2005 in expenditure on educational institutions

Publi Private sources Priva Publi All Publi

csources

te: ofwhich,subsidised

csources

privatesources1

csources

All privatesources1

Householdexpenditure

Expenditureof otherprivateentities

All privatesources1

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)

OECD countriesAustralia 47.8 36.3 15.9 52.2 0.7 51.0 49.0 115 130Austria 92.9 5.5 1.6 7.1 2.3 96.3 3.7 129 255Belgium 90.6 5.0 4.4 9.4 4.6 91.5 8.5 101 113Canada2,3 55.1 22.3 22.6 44.9 0.8 61.0 39.0 105 134Czech Republic 81.2 9.4 9.4 18.8 m 85.4 14.6 147 199Denmark3 96.7 3.3 n 3.3 n 97.6 2.4 115 161Finland 96.1 x(4) x(4) 3.9 n 97.2 2.8 114 162France 83.6 10.3 6.1 16.4 2.3 84.4 15.6 106 113Germany 85.3 x(4) x(4) 14.7 m 88.2 11.8 102 131Greece 96.7 0.4 2.9 3.3 m 99.7 0.3 228 2,911Hungary 78.5 6.9 14.6 21.5 n 76.7 23.3 129 116Iceland3 91.2 8.8 m 8.8 m 94.9 5.1 170 307Ireland 84.0 14.1 1.9 16.0 4.8 79.2 20.8 109 79Italy 69.6 18.0 12.5 30.4 4.6 77.5 22.5 100 151Japan3 33.7 53.4 12.9 66.3 m 38.5 61.5 93 115Korea 24.3 52.1 23.6 75.7 0.3 23.3 76.7 136 129Luxembourg m m m m m m m m mMexico 69.0 30.6 0.5 31.0 0.9 79.4 20.6 119 206Netherlands 77.6 12.0 10.4 22.4 1.2 78.2 21.8 110 114New Zealand 59.7 40.3 m 40.3 m m m 118 mNorway m m m m m 96.3 3.7 117 mPoland 74.0 26.0 m 26.0 m 66.6 33.4 193 135Portugal 68.1 23.4 8.5 31.9 m 92.5 7.5 101 582Slovak Republic3 77.3 9.1 13.6 22.7 0.4 91.2 8.8 127 387Spain 77.9 18.7 3.4 22.1 1.8 74.4 25.6 119 99Sweden 88.2 n 11.8 11.8 a 91.3 8.7 111 155Switzerland m m m m m m m 133 mTurkey m m m m m 95.4 4.6 m mUnited Kingdom 66.9 24.6 8.4 33.1 n 67.7 32.3 148 153United States 34.7 36.1 29.2 65.3 m 31.1 68.9 132 111OECD average 73.1 - - 26.9 1.4 78 22 126 286EU19 average 82.5 - - 17.5 1.3 85 15 127 334partner countriesBrazil m m m m m m m 118 mChile4 15.9 83.0 1.1 84.1 3.9 19.5 80.5 92 117Estonia 69.9 26.9 3.3 30.1 6.0 m m 113 mIsrael 48.7 34.9 16.5 51.3 5.3 56.5 43.5 93 127Russian Federation m m m m m m m 228 mSlovenia 76.5 17.2 6.2 23.5 n m m m m

1. Including subsidies attributable to payments to educational institutions received from public sources.

To calculate private funds net of subsidies, subtract public subsidies (column 5) from private funds (column 4).

To calculate total public funds, including public subsidies, add public subsidies (column 5) to direct public funds (column 1).

2. Year of reference 2004 instead of 2005.

3. Some levels of education are included with others. Refer to “x" code in Table B1.1a for details.

4. Year of reference 2006 instead of 2005.

Source: OECD. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2008).

Please refer to the Reader's Guide for information concerning the symbols replacing missing data.

13. To move forward in an internationally competitive economy we need to equip more working adults with high level skills.

14. Our strategy builds on the targets and principles of Leitch—for at least 40% of the workforce to be qualified to level 4 or above by 2020. But this cannot be achieved through school leavers alone as around three-quarters of the 2020 workforce has completed compulsory education—hence the need to reach out to those in the workforce.

15. To this end we are working, via HEFCE, with a growing list of institutions to develop more Higher Education that is flexible, relevant and responsive to the needs of learners and employers and explore models and practices that work well whereby employers fund part of the teaching and learning costs associated with their employee's development. As employers, and employees, will be the main beneficiaries of high level skills its right that they share in the cost of the provision.

16. To support this activity, via the 2008 HEFCE Grant letter, we allocated £15 million of new resources in 2008-09, £40 million for 2009-10 and at least £50 million for 2010-11. Through this pilot funding, HEFCE will support 5,000/10,000/20,000 new co-funded entrants, infrastructure development and facilitate wider employer engagement activity.

17. We expect to meet the target for 2008-09 as HEFCE has agreed proposals to deliver around 8,000 places.

NOTE 3A note on how Skills Accounts will work, with particular reference to individual entitlements

18. Skills Accounts will raise the demand for learning amongst adults by giving them better information up front about what public funding they are entitled to for skills development; and will empower individuals to make better choices about the learning that meets their needs by both providing access to better information and advice on courses and careers, and by giving them a tangible mechanism for registering their interest in a course with a provider.

19. Skills Accounts will be a universal offer available to all adults from autumn 2010. We will offer accounts to 18 year olds alongside a progressive roll out of accounts to adults—both those in the workforce and jobseekers. By 2015 the majority of funding for individuals in FE will be accessed through Skills Accounts.

20. An individual with a Skills Account will have:

@UL@— a unique learner number, acting as their “account number";@/UL@

@UL@— an online record of their skills and qualifications, which over time will have the same effect as an online CV, could if the individual wished be shared with current or prospective employers, and can also be used to plan future learning;@/UL@

@UL@— access to an online system enabling them to find out how much public funding they are entitled to for training, and in due course to find out how much funding they can get for additional support with the costs associated with training;@/UL@

@UL@— the ability to generate a “voucher" for a particular course, setting out the amount of public funding they are eligible for;@/UL@

@UL@— an online statement of the funding invested in their learning, either by the state, their employer, or themselves, which will become increasingly populated over time; and@/UL@

@UL@— access to information, advice and guidance on careers and skills to help them make the right choices about learning and work. This will initially be delivered by the current Careers Advice Service and local nextstep services, but over time will be delivered by the new adult advancement and careers service. The advice will be offered each time an individual finishes a course.@/UL@

21. Skills Accounts will not be “real bank accounts" which contain money to be used as required by the individual. They will provide information about the public funding that an individual is entitled to, based on their circumstances and their choice of course. Once they have then formally registered that interest with a provider, and begin the course, funding will flow direct to the provider to cover the Government subsidy to the cost of training, as it currently does. In this way, funding will stay within existing systems rather than flowing outside them. In this sense, the “voucher" is a “virtual voucher", without any direct monetary value.

22. The one exception to this rule is where Skills Accounts will be used to get information about eligibility for learner support funding—ie. money which is paid direct to the individual, such as the Adult Learning Grant, rather than to providers to support the cost of delivering learning. In this case, existing payment systems would still be used, but funding would flow directly to the individual.

23. Skills Accounts will be the main mechanism through which people unlock their entitlements to public funding, rather than the entitlements themselves. The entitlements offer was set out in the joint DIUS/DWP publication, Work Skills, in June 2008 http://publications.dius.gov.uk/workskills/downloads/Workskills_command_paper.pdf

24. From age 18, depending on existing qualifications, all young adults who do not go to university will have access to a range of entitlements up to Level 3 to spend on their vocational training, be it at a local college, training provider or in work through Train to Gain. For those not already qualified at this level, these entitlements—which will be accessed through Skills Accounts when they are rolled out—would typically be worth some £7,000. This is the average amount an individual without any qualifications could be entitled to enable them to gain basic skills, first full Level 2 and first full level 3. The actual amount will vary depending on the chosen course.

25. The Skills Accounts model takes account of the lessons learnt from the Individual Learning Accounts scheme. Only accredited providers will be eligible to receive funding for learners accessing training using Skills Accounts.

26. Skills Accounts trials commenced in the South East and East Midlands on 29 September 2008 with individuals opening accounts at selected colleges across each region. From November, learners in these regions will also be able to open and manage Skills Accounts online and through the Careers Advice Service and local nextstep services. Skills Accounts will be trialled on a national basis from September 2009, before rollout in September 2010.

ADDITIONAL QUESTIONSQuestion 4. What is the DIUS vision for the skills picture of the future? What will the delivery framework look like?

27. The vision for skills was set out in detail in the Government White Paper, “World Class Skills, published in July 2007. The strategy for reform of the further education delivery framework was set out in the White Paper: “Further Education: Raising Skills, Improving Life Chances" of March 2006.

28. The further education (FE) and skills system has a crucial role to play in enabling this country to meet current and future challenges. Our vision for the system is therefore an ambitious one: FE is at the heart of our actions to unlock the talent of individuals; build strong and inclusive communities; and develop the skills and innovation employers need to compete successfully.

29. The FE system needs to engage those who are most disadvantaged and disaffected—including those who are most excluded from the labour market and society. Increasingly, it will also have to support those who are newly unemployed and who may need to update their skills and navigate their way though a changed labour market. And, at the same time, the FE system needs to support employers, and those already in work, providing the high level skills, enterprise and innovation this country needs to compete successfully, now and in the future.

30. To deliver this, it has to be diverse and it has to be flexible; able to adapt to changing needs and circumstances, and offer high quality provision for learners of all ages; employers from all sectors; and communities across the country.

31. We expect to see colleges and providers working together in new and innovative collaborations and partnerships to deliver this challenging agenda.

32. Our ambition is for a rich and diverse FE sector, comprised of a whole range of organisations working locally, regionally and nationally.

33. We recognise that the FE system is undergoing radical change; driven by the twin imperatives of creating a demand-led system, and the more effective integration of employment and skills.

34. The introduction of Skills Accounts, alongside the expansion of the Train to Gain programme, will enable the system to become even more demand-led. In this way, we will see real consumer power placed in the hands of individuals and employers, who will choose where and when they will take up the learning and training opportunities available to them. The FE and Skills system will continue to adapt to this—developing its strengths and specialism's, bringing in new providers as required, in order to expand its customer base.

35. The integrating employment and skills agenda—which will strengthen and grow in the coming years—also requires a refreshed approach. In particular, it will require ever closer co-operation and alignment between the activities and agencies of the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills (DIUS) and the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP), as set out in Opportunity, Employment and Progression [give full weblink reference].

36. Within the FE system, we also want to recognise the particular role that colleges have to play- as leaders in their community—not just in education but as institutions that can respond to the needs of communities; helping businesses and individuals to adapt and prosper.

Question 5. The DIUS departmental report identifies two key areas of risk (failure to engage employers and learners and reform overload in FE) which would affect the Government's delivery of the Leitch agenda. What assessment have you made of the probability of these risks occurring?

37. High level risks are monitored on a quarterly basis by both the Skills Public Service Agreement Programme Board and the DIUS Risk Sub Committee. Risks are assessed based on likely

impact and probability. Both risks are currently assessed as Amber/Green (medium probability and impact). Countermeasures are in place to manage the risks.

38. On the risk of sector instability and reform overload key countermeasures include:

@UL@— The establishment of a Machinery of Government Joint Programme Board, jointly chaired by DIUS and DCSF, which meets monthly to oversee delivery of the machinery of government organisational reforms, monitor stresses on the FE sector and manage risks associated with sector overload.@/UL@

@UL@— A MOG Capability Strategy has been developed which is focused on sustaining delivery during the transition period and ensuring we have the right people in the right place to build the capability of the new organisational and funding framework.@/UL@

39. On failure to engage employers and learners countermeasures include:

@UL@— Implementation of Skills Accounts and the Adult Advancement and Careers Service to help stimulate learner demand—Skills Accounts trials commenced in the East Midlands and the South East in September and the AACS prospectus will be launched in October. Fuller details are given in Note 3 above.@/UL@

@UL@— Communicating a clear vision and case for action through all communications channels. High profile marketing campaign activity for Train to Gain and Apprenticeships is designed to inspire greater investment from employers and learners.@/UL@

@UL@— The wider picture on employer engagement is covered in Note 1 above.@/UL@

Question 6. What assessment would you make of your progress so far? What are the obstacles to faster realisation of the Leitch vision?

40. The statistical annex to the DIUS supplementary memorandum submitted to the Committee in September set out a range of relevant data on progress. The following data offers a picture of the progress made against key Leitch targets.

Level 2 and level 3 (Labour Force Survey)

There are PSA Targets referring to two distinct cohorts:

@UL@To reduce by at least 40% the number of adults in the workforce who lack level 2 or equivalent qualifications between 2001 and 2010; working towards this, one million adults in the workforce to achieve level 2 between 2003 and 2006. This requires an additional 3.6 million adults in the workforce to be qualified to level 2 or higher by 2010.@/UL@

Latest position@UL@— In the Labour Force Survey (LFS) Quarter 2 2008, the proportion of economically active adults in England qualified to at least level 2 or equivalent was 74.4%. This represents around 18.2 million adults from an economically active population of 24.5 million.@/UL@

@UL@— There are 2.1 million more adults in the workforce qualified to Level 2 than at the end of 2001. The interim PSA target for the number of adults achieving Level 2 was met.@/UL@

@UL@To raise levels of attainment for men aged 19 to 64 and women aged 19 to 59 so that:@/UL@

@UL@ (i) 79% are qualified to at least level 2 by quarter 4 by 2011.@/UL@

@UL@ (ii) 56% are qualified to at least level 3 by quarter 4 by 2011.@/UL@

@UL@ (iii) 36%are qualified to level 4 and above by quarter 4 by 2014 with an interim milestone of 34% by quarter 4 2011.@/UL@

Latest position (Q2 2008, LFS)@UL@— 70.6% qualified to at least level 2.@/UL@

@UL@— 50.3% qualified to at least level 3.@/UL@

@UL@— 30.2% qualified to at least level 4.@/UL@

Skills for Life

@UL@In addition, the Leitch Review of skills recommended that the Government set a target of 95% of adults to achieve the basic skills of functional literacy and numeracy by 2020. In 2004 the Government set a PSA target to improve the basic skills of 2.25 million working-age adults (19 and over and 16-19 and not in full-time education) between 2001 and 2010 with a milestone of 1.5 million adults in 2007.@/UL@

Latest position@UL@— By the end of 2006-07 2.276 million learners had achieved their first Skills for Life qualification. So the previous 2010 PSA target has already been met, two years early.@/UL@

Apprenticeships

@UL@In support of the Leitch Review of Skills, the Government set a PSA target to increase the number of apprenticeship completions (all ages, 16 plus) to 130,000 by 2010-11.@/UL@

Latest position@UL@— In 2006-07, 184,000 apprenticeship starts and 112,000 apprenticeship completions. We are on track to achieve the 2010 completions target.@/UL@

The targets from the Leitch report for 2020 are already extremely ambitious. Accelerating them is unlikely to be realistic. The major constraints on the speed with which the targets can be achieved include:

@UL@(i) The rate of increase in employer engagement and investment in training (see notes 1 and 2).@/UL@

@UL@(ii) The rate of increase in individuals' willingness to train.@/UL@

@UL@(iii) The capacity of colleges, universities and training providers to offer education and training programmes to the necessary number of learners.@/UL@

@UL@(iv) The speed of implementation and growth for the major programmes that will deliver high quality, demand-led services for employers and individuals—particularly through Train to Gain, Skills Accounts and the Adult Advancement and Careers Service.@/UL@

Question 7. Will the Government provide additional funding to assist the Sector Skills Councils (SSCs) to fulfil the new roles assigned to them (eg with regard to qualifications)?

41. The SSCs core remit covers i) raising employer engagement and investment in skills, ii) ensuring authoritative Labour Market Intelligence, and iii) ensuring qualifications and standards meet employer needs. This is a clearer and more focused remit for SSCs. They are not new roles. This remit builds on activity which has been central to SSCs' purposes since they started. Through the UK Commission's Grant-in-Aid letter DIUS is providing recurrent core funding to SSCs of £48 million in 2008-09 to cover the core remit. For additional roles SSCs receive targeted programme funding. Examples of additional funding include Information Advice and Guidance, Women in Work and the 14-19 Diplomas.

42. In addition to the core funding for SSCs the 2008-09 UK Commission Grant in Aid letter has £2.1 million for SSC work on National Occupational Standards, £11.7 million of National Vocational Qualifications levy funding for SSCs and £1.1 million to cover qualifications work

specific to the Devolved Administrations. From 1 October 2008 the NVQ levy is being replaced by Grant In Aid funding to SSCs, to give SSCs a reliable source of income for their work on qualifications.

43. Overall Grant in Aid funding for SSCs through the UK Commission for Employment and Skills in 2008-09 is £76.7 million. The Government believes this should be sufficient to enable the network to carry out its core remit effectively.

44. There are 25 SSCs. Each SSC receives an average of £5.2 million through UK CES through a three year contract. The level of funding varies across SSCs from £3.9 million to £7.2 million across the three year contracts. SSCs also receive additional funds from other sources, including:

@UL@(i) Funding from Government Departments which sponsor the relevant sector (eg the Department of Health and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport).@/UL@

@UL@(ii) Funding from employers through membership and service activity.@/UL@

@UL@(iii) Levy funds in those cases where training levies exist, notably the Construction Industry Training Board (CITB) and the Film Industry Training Board.@/UL@

Question 8. What can be done to increase collaboration between FE and HE and to ease progression from one sector to the other? How do you see the role of Lifelong Learning Networks developing?

45. We agree that it is important that further education and higher education work together effectively in the interests of customers—both learners and business—and we therefore want to strengthen partnership and facilitate progression.

46. This has to take into account that both sectors are diverse, with institutions having a high degree of autonomy, determining their own mission in relation to market opportunities and demand.

47. A proportion of HE is delivered through FE colleges with on average about 140,000 enrolments in each academic year. Around 280 FE colleges (FECs) collaborate with HE Institutions (HEIs) in the provision of HE taught in colleges. Most of them include foundation degrees in their offer, which facilitates progression to HE for students following vocational and professional courses in a college. This provision and collaboration is supported by the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE), with institutions having the opportunity to increase their student places.

48. Foundation degree forward (fdf) is involved in work to increase progression for students on advanced apprenticeships to HE. Having identified the common elements of apprenticeship programmes that facilitate progression to HE, fdf are working to produce a commonly understood and applied recipe for apprenticeship progression, and will use this in working with the Sector Skills Councils and employers to support progression to HE for apprentices.

49. HEFCE is investing approximately £105 million of development funding across 2005-11 and over 15,000 additional student numbers in 30 Lifelong Learning Networks (LLNs), incorporating 120 HEIs and over 300 FECs. This is a substantial investment and represents national coverage of LLNs. The interim evaluation of the programme is indicating that LLNs are making real progress in tackling the progression opportunities for vocational learners.

50. HEFCE funding for LLNs sought explicitly to help institutions work collaboratively by putting in place a number of processes and procedures, primarily around advice and guidance provision, curriculum adjustments, and progression agreements. The intention from the start was that the initiatives of the LLNs must become embedded in the core business of institutions in order to survive long-term.

51. The key future role for LLNs will be to sustain the practices and processes they have developed that contribute to institutional and cultural change with regards to vocational learners

as part of what the institutions themselves do. In addition, LLNs will support their partner institutions in implementing the employer engagement agenda.

52. The HEFCE consultation paper on the New University Challenge acknowledges that FECs as well as HEIs have an important role in developing locally-based HE, supporting progression routes to HE and working with local businesses to develop skills. It is likely that most proposals for HE centres will involve collaboration between HEIs, and between HEIs and FECs.

53. As the HE context evolves, we will want to ensure that improvements in collaboration and progression between FE and HE are maintained. The HE Debate is providing an opportunity to address such questions. The FE sector as a whole has an important part to play in our strategy for higher level skills, building on its links with smaller businesses and traditionally strong focus on work-related learning including its expertise in delivering Foundation Degrees.

Question 9. Does it make sense to have one body dealing with FE funding and another with HE funding (and another funding stream for pre-19)?

54. To support our key adult policies of creating a demand-led system for employers and learners and integrating employment and skills, we propose to put in place a new dedicated single Skills Funding Agency which builds on the success of the Learning and Skills Council but is better placed to respond quickly and flexibly to national, regional and local skills needs. The new Skills Funding Agency will be a focused, streamlined agency with a closer relationship to Government than currently exists between DIUS and the LSC, more analogous to the DWP/Jobcentre Plus relationship.

55. This approach for further education and skills would not fit with the existing arrangements for higher education funding delivered through the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE). The purposes and operations of higher education are not the same as those of further education. We need to retain funding and administrative frameworks that are suitable for the circumstances of the two sectors, while also ensuring co-ordination and progression between them in the interests of learners. As set out in the response to Question 8 above, Higher Education and Further Education are increasingly working together with much HE already delivered through FE colleges.

56. FE colleges are used to receiving public funding from a variety of sources. As recognised in the DIUS/DCSF consultation paper earlier this year (“Raising Expectations: enabling the system to deliver"), it is important that any information provided to separate funding bodies only needs to be provided once and can be shared; that decision making and administration is kept streamlined; and that progression in learning is encouraged between the pre-19 and post-19 phases. That paper explained the rationale for, and proposed operation of, the new organisational arrangements that will route funding for pre-19 learning through local authorities working with a new Young People's Learning Agency, with post-19 education and training and the Apprenticeships programme funded through the Skills Funding Agency.

57. For young people, the Government is putting in place local accountability to deliver the right level of education and training for every 14-19 young person. Through transferring commissioning responsibility to local authorities for pre -19 year olds, we are moving resources and decision making powers away from central government to place leadership of the system, accountability for outcomes, duties and the funding to deliver, at a local level. The main purpose of the Young People's Learning Agency will be to provide support to local authorities so that they can carry out their new responsibilities effectively. Principally a funding body, it will also perform a number of functions that make most sense to be done nationally for reasons of cost effectiveness, efficiency and administrative simplicity.

58. The SFA and YPLA will work closely together to avoid unnecessary duplication and we expect them to seek efficiencies, for example, through shared services.

Question 10. How do your policies reflect the need to focus on those who have already left compulsory education and who wish to reskill or refresh their skills? What are you doing for part-time students?

59. Supporting individuals who have already left compulsory education is a key priority for the Government. Around three-quarters of the 2020 workforce have already left compulsory education, so we recognise the need for more people currently in the workforce to acquire better skills and qualifications.

60. We are increasing our investment in support at all levels for adults to acquire the skills they need to find and progress in work. Following the announcement in Work Skills of the extension of the 19-25 Level 3 entitlement to Train to Gain, we now have a universal offer of free education and training up to Level 3 for individuals aged up to 25. This will support large numbers of individuals who have left compulsory education to continue developing their skills through a range of routes and applying them in the workplace, particularly to acquire the crucial technician, associate professional and advanced craft skills at level 3.

61. Through support for the FE service, the Government supports a large number of older learners who are already qualified to at least Level 2 or Level 3, who are re-skilling to meet new skill needs at work, or changing their career paths.

62. We are increasing flexibility for individuals to reskill in the workplace to meet employers' needs. In May 2008, John Denham announced the first five Sector Compacts, which tailor the Train to Gain offer to the needs of employers in a particular sector, in exchange for a commitment to promote employer engagement with the Train to Gain service. The Compacts include relaxations of “firstness" of up to 30%, in order to meet employers' strategic skill needs in those sectors. The first five compacts are expected to deliver an additional 150,000 first full level 2s over three years, alongside a significant number of learners who are re-skilling at Level 2. Likewise, Compacts include similar relaxations for Level 3 skills. The first five compacts are expected to deliver an additional 57,000 first full level 3s over 3 years, with a significant number of learner's re-skilling to achieve 2nd Level 3 qualifications.

63. The package of support for private sector SMEs announced on 21 October, to help sustain training in the current economic downturn, represents a further significant step in extending flexibility within the Train to Gain programme, so that we can support more adults to reskill and refresh their skills.

64. Part-time students are able to freely access FE provision, with a wide range of courses designed to meet their needs. In 2006-07, there were around 1.8 million part-time adult FE learners, constituting around 87% of all adult learners.

Question 11. Are you monitoring the impact of your policies on those involved in lifelong learning?

65. The Department uses a range of information to monitor the impact of its policies on learners. These include the following:

@UL@a) Data collected by the Learning and Skills Council (LSC) through the Individualised Learner Record (ILR). This is published through Statistical First Releases (SFR) and provides information on the number of learners participating on LSC funded courses and achievement of learners on particular courses. The SFRs enable the Department to monitor the impact across a range of learner types, including age and ethnicity.@/UL@

@UL@b) Labour Force Survey (LFS)—this is a very large household survey designed to give information about the number of people with jobs, the details of these jobs, the job-search activities of those without work, and levels of qualifications held by those in the labour force. It is used to measure progress against the Government's PSA targets.@/UL@

@UL@c) Learner Surveys—these cover both work-based and non work-based learning. For example the FE Learners Longitudinal survey which examined the experiences and destinations of FE learners aged 19 or over who took a FE course in 2003-04, and the Train to Gain Employee Evaluation which collects evidence from employees undertaking training under Train to Gain.@/UL@

Are you concerned by the downward trend in participation?

66. Our strategy has been to realign funding from a high number of short courses and non-qualification bearing programmes to qualifications such as Skills for Life, full level 2 and full level 3 that offer the greatest opportunity for adults to gain the skills necessary to participate fully in an economically successful and cohesive society. This is a planned and continuing strategy to respond to the skills challenges we have as a country.

This strategy is working:

@UL@— We have met our interim Skills for Life target with over 2.25 million learners achieving their first Skills for Life qualification in literacy, language or numeracy since 2001.@/UL@

@UL@— There are 2.1 million more adults in the workforce qualified to Level 2 than at the end of 2001.@/UL@

@UL@— More adults are gaining the skills they and their employers need to succeed in an increasingly competitive economy.@/UL@

67. It is also important to consider learning outside of LSC-funded provision to represent the full levels of adult participation in learning. The latest National Adult Learning Survey showed that adult participation in learning has remained steady over the last few years.

68. We will be spending on average around £1.5 billion per year through the LSC to protect a full range of first step and progression programmes encouraging adults back into learning. As well as improving skills levels and employability this learning will help strengthen families and communities, offer opportunities for personal enrichment, and improve social justice and community cohesion.

69. We value informal adult learning (“non accredited learning for leisure, pleasure and personal or community development") and recognise its role in empowering individuals and we have safeguarded a budget of £210 million per year up to 2010-11.

70. We have conducted a wide consultation in order to develop a new vision for informal adult learning in the 21st century—one in which more people have the information and support to choose what, where and when they want to learn. We have received 5,500 responses from a wide range of organisations and individuals. The responses make it clear that, as well as attending the traditional LSC-funded adult education classes, people are now learning in a multitude of ways, including through:

@UL@— activities funded by a range of Government departments and NDPBs;@/UL@

@UL@— classes organised and delivered by third sector organisations;@/UL@

@UL@— informal learning offered by national organisations like the National Trust, RSPB and English Heritage;@/UL@

@UL@— self-directed and self-funded learning activities, such as 5,000 + reading groups and 700 University of the Third Age (U3A) groups with 207,014 members; and@/UL@

@UL@— learning available through internet websites, digital TV and mobile technology.@/UL@

Question 12. What would be the obstacles to developing additional targets for participation, progression and different groups?

71. We are working to ensure that our programmes are effective in meeting the needs of all groups in the population.

@UL@— Our CSR PSA indicators are based on whole working-age population targets. The previous 2010 Level 2 target was focused on the economically active population only, so we have broadened our focus to include the economically inactive so we can go further in supporting the most disadvantaged to progress.@/UL@

@UL@— Both DIUS and LSC have published Single Equality Schemes—these are not target driven but identify the need to address the barriers faced by particular groups.@/UL@

@UL@— The LSC remits colleges and providers to set their own Equality and Diversity Impact Measures (EDIMs). These reflect the fact that national targets can be too imprecise whereas locally determined EDIMs can offer a more sophisticated and differentiated response to identifying and addressing the needs of those disadvantaged groups within local communities.@/UL@

@UL@— The LSC supports this through dialogue with providers and via a major support programme, commissioned in 2008, which is helping providers to develop single equality approaches, and to improve how they monitor data and set targets.@/UL@

72. We are not convinced that it would be useful at this point to introduce additional targets to focus on different groups.

@UL@— Adding an additional target would be likely to add burdens to the FE sector, at a time when we are trying to reduce bureaucracy and promote greater self-regulation.@/UL@

@UL@— Nationally set targets are unlikely to reflect the needs of diverse groups which will vary massively, across localities.@/UL@

@UL@— At present there are a number of issues concerning the collection of relevant data which would limit the validity of additional targets:@/UL@

@UL@— limited availability of reliable data in some domains such as sexual orientation or religion/belief.@/UL@

@UL@— under-declaration of disability/learning difficulty@/UL@

@UL@— statistical issues when dealing with high levels of disaggregation, where small variations in numbers of learners can create major fluctuations in figures@/UL@

@UL@— A lot of what we are doing focuses more on “soft" issues—ie behaviour, attitude and culture change (eg encouraging more Bangladeshi girls into apprenticeships). Setting targets would not necessarily be an effective way of addressing the barriers some groups face.@/UL@

October 2008

@HR25@

Memorandum 70

Submission from Kevin O'Leary, Education Management Consultant

AFTER LEITCH: IMPLEMENTING SKILLS AND TRAINING POLICYI have just read with interest the minutes of evidence of the above meeting (to be published

as HC 505-iv).

I have carried out extensive Doctoral research into the reasons why SMEs do not engage sufficiently in education or development of their staff and am impressed and encouraged by the focused and probing nature of your questions. Given my knowledge of SME behaviour and attitudes I wonder if you and your Committee might find it helpful if I add some comments.

I would happily comment on most of the questions raised but I will confine myself to a particular few.

Q280 “...Somebody writes a report and says, `Woe is us; the world is coming to an end,' and then 10 years later we write another report that says, `Woe is us.. ' Surely Leitch is just one of those, is it not, it is just a passing fancy?"

Unfortunately my research lends support to the view that Leitch will be just another “passing fancy". The National Skills Task Force was set up in 1997 “to provide advice to the Government on the nature, extent and geographical and industrial pattern of skills and shortages" and “how best to ensure that the education and training system responds effectively to identified need". The Task Force produced several main reports and 29 research reports. Does anyone remember its recommendations? And will the UK Commission for Employment and Skills go the same way?

(I am currently preparing five reports on my research and findings, and have enclosed a copy of the first draft of the first volume, SME Resistance: What does the Literature Say?, which summarises the work of others, including the findings of the National Task Force. It is a draft so I would ask you to bear that in mind if referring to it.

You may be interested to know that the second volume describes a proposed Model of Engagement. Volume Three addresses the issue of Trust and Brand Prejudice, and how to overcome the latter and create the former. Volume Four describes the engagement structure, processes and mind-set change FE colleges will require to be able to engage SMEs; and Volume Five offers the same remedies for private training providers. If you are interested I will happily send you copies of all five volumes when they are finalised).

Q282 “But you are delivering qualifications; you are not delivering skills".The Economist Newspaper answers this question succinctly; “Qualifications are a poor

proxy for skills".

Qualifications are not the same as skills. If one uses the widest possible interpretation of a definition of skills—the ability to perform a particular task—then all qualifications impart or demonstrate at least one skill—the ability to gain a qualification. If we accept a more common interpretation, which tends to focus more on demonstration of practical motor-skill abilities, such as sawing a piece of wood into required shapes, welding pipes together or carrying out a surgical procedure to swap human hearts, then we begin to see that qualifications are not necessarily the same as skills. Some qualifications, eg some `A' Levels, and possibly some degrees, will impart only academic knowledge.

But all of this is to miss the point. When owner/managers say they want skills rather than qualifications, what they are really saying is “Possession of a skill is proof of ability to perform a relevant task—but possession of a qualification, even one that purports to include the teaching of this skill, is not". The skill may not have been taught effectively, it may not have been taught at all, or, if taught, may not have been learned. Owner/managers will happily regale us with examples of employees who have an alleged “appropriate" qualification but not the expected skills! When I was lecturing I recall spending the first three two-hour lessons of a particular module in a recognised qualification teaching my 17 year old students how to write a health & safety policy document,

knowing full well that at their expected level of employment in industry they would not be required to do so!

And there is another facet. Sometimes when employers talk about skills they may well be including “attitude" and “behaviour". They will not be impressed by college-leavers who do not manifest an appropriate work ethic. A young employee with an “appropriate" qualification who sees no wrong in frequently not turning up for work on Monday morning because he had a “heavy night" the night before helps to reinforce his employer's suspicion of “college courses".

For colleges to persuade employers that “qualifications" are very close to representing a collection of appropriate skills they must first ensure that they are, and then find ways of convincing employers that it is so.

In the wider context, if we accept Leitch and ensure that all his target groups achieve the recommended qualifications, we will be failing the people of this country if we then tell them the British workforce is now appropriately skilled!

Q285 “...David, you must answer the question: I am right, am I not? (whether in fact they—universities and FE—actually upskill the nation and increase productivity is a by-product rather than the driving force)".

Yes, you are right. In my time in FE, and more latterly with the LSC, our principal pre-occupation and driving force was to deliver whatever the government (or its relevant agency) said we should deliver. From time to time a colleague might mutter “how can we be sure we are teaching our students what we should be teaching them?" but I cannot recall a single time when any of my colleagues pursued the question seriously.

Q295 “David, this is fantasy land is it not, employers have never banged down the doors of universities or FE colleges with cheque books?"

I agree with you. But I must emphasise that my research with employers reveals that just as they are prepared to pay for modern computerised machine tools or stock for resale, they are prepared to pay for training if they believe that particular training will add value to the business! Just as they would not buy inappropriate machine tools or the wrong stock, they will not pay for training which they believe will not or may not add value. Why should they?

Q299 “...Is not `demand led' the same kind of thing? What does demand led mean, for goodness sake?"

Dr McVicar is right to point out that there are different forms of demand: demand from employers; demand from employees; demand from students; demand from government.

Demand-led in the sense that it means “being led by demand" is of course as old as man's time on the planet. When a fisherman caught more fish than he needed and a crop grower grew more crops than he needed and each wanted some of what the other had they each responded to the other's demand by swapping some of their surplus! But the expression “demand-led" in the current context may have come into existence around the time of the publication of the Learning and Skills Council's Draft Workforce Development Strategy (2002). I have to quote from my own research, “The report's main elements were a determination to create what it called a demand-led system" and that “the creation of a demand-led system requires that demand, whether by employers or individuals, be well informed advised and guided" and “then went on to describe the product and services it wants to promote to employers".

I then ask “How can the strategy be `employer and demand led' while the nature of the products to be promoted is already decided? The clue lies in the statement that the creation of a demand-led system requires that demand be well informed, advised and guided. The most likely explanation, and one that removes the apparent contradiction, is that when the LSC talks about `demand' it does not actually mean what the employers already know they `want'; it means `advise and guide them to make sure they want what we have decided we want them to want!'" In other words the LSC is choosing to ignore, or is unable to understand, the age-old, undeniable, natural human characteristic of “wanting" something, and instead is choosing to believe that demand can be decreed!

Sadly, while Parliament allows this process to continue, substantial amounts of tax-payers' money are being wasted.

Q301 “...it is the employers who control the planet who want the employees educated in their interests. Is that what Leitch is all about? Is the demand coming from employers in both further and higher education?"

I am struggling to understand why employers might want their employees educated not in their interest and haven't got an answer!

Yes, there is demand in the market-place, from employers, at FE and HE level. But it is a mistake to assume that because employers buy FE and HE education programmes that these programmes are determined by employers or that they are precisely what employers want.

Many years ago I was a member of two working bodies set up by an awarding body (which shall be nameless) as a response to enquiries from several employers who wanted some enterprise programmes to be created. After the first meeting of the two bodies (working jointly at the beginning) the representative employers left and never returned. We learned later that they were so disenchanted by the nature and progress of the meeting that they resolved not to return! We continued without them, and when the two programmes were designed and published as two new qualifications, the industry attendees were named in the credits!

For another opinion I need to refer you to my research again. “Matlay's (1999) examination of the criticism levelled at some NVQs led him to lay at least some of the blame for SMEs' less-than-enthusiastic attitude to them at the door of the government and civil servants. He questioned the claimed extent of employer involvement and in citing Field (1995) did not fight shy of observing that “the emergence of S/NVQs in Britain seems to owe more to the aspirations of a small group of modernising civil servants and training professionals than to a genuine government concern for the Vocational Education and Training needs of the workforce".

Q304 Dr Collins suggests the Government should make it a right for employees to access training, certainly up to Level 2

If the Government goes down this road it must be prepared for an employer backlash. After all, employers pay Corporation Tax and Income Tax which help to fund the schools system which is supposed to educate our young people to a level akin to Level 2. It is as if the Government is saying “we used your money and failed to use some of it appropriately so we want you to bear a cost again, by paying for your staff to be trained or to give them time off work at your expense, or both".

This aside, how would a system of compulsion work? Who would select a chosen course for an applicant member of staff? How would the employer know it was an appropriate course? How would he know it represented the best value for his money? Who would recompense him if the member of staff failed the course or withdrew part-way through? How would the employer cope if too many of his staff applied at the same time? How would he rank such applications in terms of who goes first and who goes second?

However well the legislation might be drafted we can be confident employers will become education and training averse.

Q320 “...Whether you think we have made the present system of qualifications for skills and training too complicated?"

I am not qualified to comment on HE but, currently, the number of qualifications available at FE level is somewhere between 17,000 and 24,000 depending on which government figures one relies on. I do not suppose even practitioners in FE are conversant with more than several hundred. How are potential students and employers expected to cope?

But it is not just the sheer number of qualifications. The entire education infrastructure is overwhelmingly complicated and not designed to meet the needs of students or those who pay. Far too much of our education system is designed to meet the needs and aspirations of providers, ie schools, colleges and universities, and government. A massive overhaul is long overdue, but first I would recommend that the present system is examined to remove the most obvious and unnecessary complications and barriers. It might look somewhat piecemeal but it can be done relatively quickly,

without setting up a whole new review body. And to help the reformers I recommend that as they examine each rule or procedure they ask, “how does this add value to our students or those who pay?"

Q333 “How do you relate to the sector skills councils because they almost cut across the new structure? Do you think there are too many representative bodies for employers?"

I am not at all sure that Sector Skills Councils are needed. I cannot emphasise enough the many and various ways in which SME owner/managers have expressed dismay, anger or open contempt for the plethora of bodies that successive governments create. Perhaps if we ask the question “what do Sector Skill Councils do that was not being done by other agencies or bodies, and what do they do that is unambiguously necessary?" and/or “What meaningful benefit did we not enjoy before we introduced SSCs?" we might be surprised by the answers.

The Leitch Review of Skills claimed that “employers collectively articulate their qualification needs through their Sector Skills Council". This claim conflicts markedly with the findings of a survey conducted for the Sector Skills Development Agency (Skills for Business network: Survey of Employers, 2006). The survey found that only one in seven employers is aware of Sector Skills Councils generally and only one in seven of establishments aware of their SSC have had any dealings with it".

Q338 “...Manchester University tutor, Etienne Wenger, who has developed this concept of communities of practice".

It is fascinating that you should raise this. It is an area of study that has not been given enough attention. No, I don't believe Leitch allows for this sort of learning—flexible and workplace learning as you put it. There is evidence that for a given work-orientated learning target such learning is more readily and effectively achieved in the workplace than away from it. Leitch tends to focus principally on conventional qualifications (which he repeatedly confuses with skills, as already discussed) and conventional delivery. As an aside, it would be interesting to be able to compare learning outcomes and attitudes of apprentices who successfully completed old-style Apprenticeships, which were in-house devised and an embedded practice of the work community, with Modern Apprenticeships which are not devised in-house and probably seen as an add-on rather than something embedded in a firm's culture. The challenge and difficulty with communities of practice is knowing how to tap into the process and somehow, with the agreement and support of particular `communities of practice', determine if and how we and the wider community can benefit from them.

December 2008

@HR25@