Adrian Grove, business development director, Qube Learning, questions whether government rhetoric matches the action in education.
When the Skills Bill passed into law last April, it was announced with a pledge that the Skills and Post-16 Education Act would level up and drive economic growth across the whole country – welcome news for the logistics sector.
Alex Burghart MP said: “This legislation will make sure everyone can gain the skills they need to progress into a rewarding job, and businesses have access to a pipeline of talented, qualified employees for their workforces – boosting productivity.”
But by the time the Autumn Statement followed, there was not a single reference to post-16 education and by the end of 2022, the traineeships ‘brand’ which introduces many young people to a career in warehousing and logistics, had been retired. Funding has been channelled instead through other streams such as study programmes or AEB.
So how does the rhetoric of levelling up skills, productivity and workforce match the actions of government reducing provision? And what does this mean for the logistics sector which has already struggled under the pressure of the last 4 years, with Brexit and Covid?
As far as I can see, the government is so fixated on getting candidates into employment at a certain level, that the opportunities at the bottom of the career ladder are being narrowed too severely. The ‘bigger’ qualifications that the government wants to channel candidates into can be too much of a step up, and it’s vital that we retain an accessible range of workable alternatives.
Smaller programmes, such as awards, certificates and diplomas, often represent the first step onto the career ladder for many; and while the government may consider boosting numbers at Level 3 apprenticeships to be a success, the hard truth is that by reducing access to the basic skills covered in the smaller programmes, significant numbers may not be able to manage the higher levels.
In a situation where numerous employers are being forced to limit smaller programmes because funding has either been withdrawn or they do not understand how to access what government-backed funding is left, how can it possibly make sense to reduce the opportunity and funding to the first step?
For “businesses [to] have access to a pipeline of talented, qualified employees for their workforces” (Alex Burghart again) lower-level qualifications are essential to allow candidates a chance to develop their skills from an accessible starting point. This is the place from which these candidates can develop the necessary basic skills and knowledge to qualify and gain employment.
As someone who left school at 16-years-old and followed a non-traditional career path, one step at a time, I know the value in meeting a candidate where they are.
If we work with candidates collaboratively towards a personalised goal a level or two from where they were when they started, then this is when we really achieve ‘levelling up’.
It is in the government’s interest to encourage and support people into work, and entry level provision is therefore crucial in reducing pressure on the benefits system and lifting people out of poverty. Not only that, but the warehousing and logistics sectors have been under so much pressure since Brexit and the pandemic, that there is already a chronic shortage of workers.
The actions of ministers are not going far enough to encourage people into work at the first rung of the career ladder and the gap between the qualified and unqualified workforce will not only leave a severe impression on social mobility but have a knock-on effect in this sector, increasing the skills gap over time and weakening supply chains.
This is about as far from the Skills Bill pledge to progress candidates into a rewarding career as we can get.
There is little value to be gained from blocking the path of new starters, and the continuing the squeeze on funding (alongside the government’s poor view of post-16 provision) needs further revision to ensure learners and employers are offered the right choice of programmes.
In fact, without revision, the restriction of accessible education opportunities under the rhetoric of social mobility and boosting skills in the UK could be considered discriminatory in my view.
Recently I read an estimate that by the time we hit 2025, Further Education funding will be lucky even to reach 2010 levels. That’s only two years away. The UK is teetering on the edge of a huge skills gap and workforce crisis, and to keep the country running, Government must focus less on attainment statistics and more on the progress targets that will get us there.
It’s baffling that we must ask why words don’t match actions, when accessibility should be top of the agenda for training and employment in the UK. Ministers must reconsider the lack of funding and provision for access programmes and adjust the policies surrounding them to avoid breaking their promise to maintain a skilled and productive workforce in UK.
