One of the early moves of the new Labour Government was to launch Skills England; a new body aimed at bringing clarity to the UK’s confused skills landscape and tackling the long-standing issues around apprenticeships.
As part of its ambitions, Skills England aims to “simplify and devolve adult education budgets to mayoral combined authorities so they can address their adult skills needs directly and support growth in their areas.” This sounds promising – local leaders have more power and more knowledge of their regions, and theoretically, can deliver better outcomes.
As part of the accelerating devolution agenda, it’s clearly positive that local areas should have the freedom to direct funding to meet their specific needs, but in skills, as elsewhere, local needs might not always align with the overall national priorities, and that might cause issues.
On planning reform, how the Government’s mission to ‘Get Britain Building’ conflicts with local interests in newly-won Labour seats across the South remains to be seen. On skills, there is the risk that national skills priorities are not met by locally directed decisions and, on a human level, it also risks creating a ‘postcode lottery,’ where people miss out on opportunities simply because of their location.
Combined Authorities are passionate about their regions and their residents. But their legal remit is to serve their areas, not consider the needs of the entire country, and that’s where we might run into some issues.
Whilst I firmly believe in the power of devolution to unlock the country’s productive capacity and improve lives, it must be executed thoughtfully, not rushed and haphazardly.
Currently, combined authorities with devolved control over their adult skills budgets can set their own standards, criteria, and eligibility, outlined in documents known as Funding and Performance Management Rules. Each combined authority has its own version. Last year there were 10 authorities who had this power, and thanks to the new devolution deals there will be more in the next academic year.
In theory, this system works. If London needs more electricians, the GLA can adjust criteria and funding to make these qualifications more accessible. If the West Midlands needs more HGV drivers, the WMCA can similarly drive this change. This responsiveness supports local jobs, boosts well-being, and benefits the country with a better-skilled workforce and a happier, healthier population.
But what about the 50% of the English population currently not living in a combined authority area?
Well, as things stand these people are stuck with the National Funding and Performance Management Rules set by the Education and Skills Funding Agency (ESFA) and have little say over what is needed to support their local economies.
Already, we have seen this hybrid centralised/devolved approach lead to bizarre disparities.
For instance, a 25-year-old living and working in Heald Green, Greater Manchester, can access a free Level 2 training course, whereas if they lived half a mile down the road in Handforth, Cheshire they may not qualify.
Even if you do live in a combined authority area, you are not immune from the complexity.
Let’s take a West Yorkshire resident wishing to attend their local college to undertake a plastering qualification. As a West Yorkshire resident, and as they meet the eligibility criteria, they should qualify for funding. But there is a problem. Their local college just happens to be located outside of the West Yorkshire boundary. As the college doesn’t have a contract with the WYCA, the resident will either have to pay out of pocket, to the tune of hundreds of pounds, to undertake the course, or commute one hour each way to a college within the West Yorkshire boundary who can offer them the provision.
This might sound ridiculous. But it happens. And it happens because devolution has not been fully locked down yet. We have not been able to get it right. There may be cobbled-together workarounds to some of these issues but they are plastering over constitutional matters, and there are people who fall still through the cracks.
This creates a postcode lottery, where those in combined authority areas benefit from services unavailable to others. People don’t choose their homes based on whether they’re located in a powerful combined authority – at least not yet – but this can significantly impact their skill level, job prospects, and life chances.
The Deputy PM has proposed addressing these ‘devolution deserts’ by empowering more local areas. While this could be a solution, it needs careful implementation. If every area sets its own standards, criteria, and rules in vastly different ways, it could lead to confusion.
What if learners have to move and continue their studies in a different authority? How will independent training providers navigate conflicting rules while maintaining quality? And how can we ensure national progress if everyone is focused on their own goals?
The implications of this patchwork of skills funding have not, at least yet, been properly considered.
Skills England has the potential to bring much-needed clarity and unity, ensuring local areas can leverage their knowledge while maintaining equal opportunities nationwide. The goal is to avoid making the problem more complex while striving for a more equitable and effective system.
However, Skills England must be careful. Of course, devolution is important, but devolution can cause confusion if not implemented correctly and not supported by a coherent national framework. This is what Skills England must do if it is to make a success of the current skills landscape.
