What A Difference DWP Makes – Or Does It?

The recent publication of a second ministerial letter setting priorities for Skills England comes hot on the heels of the letter from Secretary of State for Education Bridget Phillipson at the start of June. More work for the joint Chief Executives, Tessa Griffiths and Sarah Maclean, who now have to revise their 2025/26 business plan on which the ink has hardly had time to dry.

But how different are the two letters? And what clues does the letter from Pat McFadden contain about any difference in approach the move of skills policy from the DfE to the DWP might bring?

Beyond some agile re-wording of the same content, there are some noticeable changes in the October letter. Gone is any reference to building 1.5 million homes, and gone is the June letter’s intriguing reference to attracting “significant internationally mobile investors”. There are four tangible policy differences: specific reference to tackling NEETs as a priority, mention of the government’s new target of getting two thirds of young people into higher education and apprenticeships, inclusion of an argument that we need to address the “full breadth” of labour market needs, and a commitment to “pro-employer” policies – in the hope that in return for a better skills system employers will be persuaded to invest more in training. It’s clear from these additions that government thinking about skills policy has evolved quite a bit since the summer.

There are two risks attached to the unexpected arrival of the DWP to the skills arena. One is that there will be a distinct tilt towards prioritising lower level skills needs over any others – linked to the new focus on the economically inactive and NEETs. In a climate of severe budget restraints, this will depend on whether ways can be found to allocate sufficient resources to the full spectrum of skills challenges, and if sources of extra funding can be identified. So far, the only confirmed ideas are the proposal for a levy on international HE students, and the steep hike (up 32%) to the Immigration Skills Charge, though it’s also apparent that other government departments, such as Energy Security and Defence, are being mobilised to invest directly in sectoral skills initiatives. We’ll all be watching the November budget statement keenly to see if the Chancellor comes up with any other announcements on raising revenue for skills.

The second risk is that the arrival of the DWP makes skills policy over-complicated, despite the exhortation to Skills England to prioritise simplifying the system. The sheer number of different policy proposals made in the Post-16 White Paper has already raised the question of how all the many initiatives it contains are going to be coordinated and managed by the array of local and national bodies responsible for implementing them.

Thankfully, we have events coming up over the next few weeks with two very wise and experienced heads to help us make sense of the DfE/DWP double act. On 20^th November we’ll be talking to Stephen Evans, CEO of the Learning & Work Institute, a think-tank which has for years been focused on the interface between employment and skills. In an article in FE News (“What Difference Could Moving Skills to the DWP Make?”, 14^th October), Stephen reminds us that skills have moved from department to department repeatedly over the recent past , and observes that “ultimately what matters is what you do rather than the building you do it in”. His article nevertheless raises some major concerns, especially over the need for more simplification by consolidating multiple initiatives into something more joined up. He also reflects on the acute centralisation of England’s skills system, and makes a plea for genuine decentralisation – “let local leaders lead”. It will be fascinating to explore his views on what needs to be done to avoid the risks and realise the potential opportunities of having two ministerial departments working in tandem.

Then on 4^th December we’ll be interviewing Tom Bewick, who has just published a book, “Skills Policy and the Future of Work” (Bristol University Press), reviewing 150 years of UK training and skills policy. A former skills adviser under the Blair government, now Visiting Professor at the University of Staffordshire, few people have greater expertise and hands-on experience of the twists and turns of policy. Tom has developed a new analytical framework for interpreting the evolution of skills policy, through his notion that there have been four phases of development – or “Training States” – since the Victorian era. The modern phase, which he dubs the Technocratic State, is what we have had since 2011, and we’ll find out whether he views the DfE/DWP axis as a continuation of it or something new. His characterisation of the Technocratic State as “a state of concentrated neoliberal managerialism and policy hyper-activity” certainly seem reflect the current climate. Indeed, it looks very much as if a model in which government not only sets prices and regulates training, but decides what products – qualifications and occupational standards – are eligible for public funding, is not only being further embedded with regard to the FE sector, but is now being applied increasingly to Higher Education as well.

From a Lifelong Education perspective, Education, Work, Skills and Pensions flow together across the lives of all of us, influencing the quality of our individual life experience and the health of our economy and society. So maybe bringing them all together under one cross-departmental strategy is the logical way forward. Let’s see how far Stephen Evans and Tom Bewick agree.