Agenda item

To consider the attached report by Graham Hughes, Executive Director: Economy, Transport and Environment at Cambridgeshire County Council

The Joint Assembly RECOMMENDED to the Executive Board that it:

(a)        Approves the principle of the Skills Service model as the basis for achievement of the City Deal objective on skills and requests a further report containing the detailed proposals for the Skills Service for submission to the June meetings of the Joint Assembly and the Executive Board.

(b)        Establishes an informal group of Joint Assembly Members to meet and work with  officers, key partners and stakeholders, that will feed into the report for submission to the June meetings of the Joint Assembly and Executive Board.

(c)        Allocates a minimum of £250,000 per annum, in principle, as the estimated gross cost of funding the model and the availability of contributions towards this from the County Council (£50,000) and the Local Enterprise Partnership (£75,000), therefore approving, in principle, a minimum net budgetary provision of £125,000 per annum.

A report was considered which outlined for the Joint Assembly the potential means by which the skills element of the City Deal could be achieved, and to seek views on whether this or another mechanism was the most appropriate way forward.

Graham Hughes, Cambridgeshire County Council’s Executive Director of Economy, Transport and Environment, presented the report which set out examples of existing training provision with regard to funding received through the Adult Learning and Skills Grant, training offered by further education institutions and private training providers, as well as the training opportunities provided by some of the county’s larger employers.  Also included in the report was an overview of the role of the National Careers Service, the Skills Service provided by the Local Enterprise Partnership, the Cambridge Area Partnership and the Huntingdonshire ‘skills hub’.

It was noted that through the negotiations on the City Deal, the skills element was agreed with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and this included a Skills Service model to bridge the gap between employer needs and aspirations of learners.  Mr Hughes indicated that young people in Cambridgeshire were currently making choices about their development, further education and future careers that could not necessarily be supported by the local economy in terms of potential employment opportunities.  As part of the City Deal,  partners had also committed to deliver a further 420 apprenticeships in the first five years of the Deal.

The report set out a proposed way forward for delivering these requirements, mirroring what was currently being delivered by the Local Enterprise Partnership through its Skills Service model.  This would involve the formation of a team of people who would:

·         visit schools and colleges and work with their internal careers services and young people to explain what opportunities there were in the area in terms of training and employment;

·         work with businesses to understand their needs and relay this back to young people and training providers, both in terms of needs currently and needs in the future;

·         connect with training providers to assist in developing and providing appropriate courses to meet the needs of local businesses;

·         undertake research into current and future needs;

·         market the opportunities available in terms of apprenticeships.

In discussing the proposed Skills Service model, the following points were noted:

·         the Cambridge Area Partnership representation should continue working on building links with employers;

·         work on the skills agenda was already taking place.  It was important to recognise that and note that the proposed Skills Service model would be building on work already undertaken;

·         colleges were already doing a lot to provide people with appropriate skills meaning that they would soon be ready to enter into employment in the Greater Cambridge area;

·         there were lots of examples of apprenticeships happening across the Greater Cambridge area;

·         work already undertaken on the skills agenda should be brought together so that it was clear where the real gaps were and that clear outcomes were articulated about what was seeking to be achieved;

·         it was unclear how success could be monitored going forward.  Targets should be put in place that were specific, measurable, achievable, realistic and time-constrained;

·         the proposed investment did not seem to be large or ambitious enough in view of this issue being at the core of what the City Deal sought to achieve;

·         alternative models such as building on the Cambridge Network grant model discussed earlier at this meeting in respect of inward investment, or offering grants to other organisations, should be explored further.  This could involve key stakeholders bidding for funding to deliver aspects of the skills agenda;

·         the proposal was very modest considering the challenges that would lie ahead as part of this huge agenda;

·         Figure 1 of the report, which set out the current situation with regard to training and development provision in the county, did not accurately represent what happened with regard to training and development at large companies in the area such as AstraZeneca;

·         the proposal should not create any unnecessary bureaucracy;

In response to the comments put forward by Members, Mr Hughes reassured Members that the proposal did not seek to introduce bureaucracy and emphasised that it sought to fill the gaps.  He acknowledged that some things were working very well in the area, but also recognised things that were not working and did not feel that the processes around learners, providers and employers were sufficiently joined up.  This was what the Skills Service proposal would look to resolve.

In terms of the proposed investment and whether it would be enough to deliver the City Deal’s objectives in relation to skills, the investment for this proposal was solely to set up a mechanism to ensure that the right courses and opportunities were in place and that people were attending them.  The proposal was not about providing the actual courses as these would be delivered and paid for by the Skills Funding Agency.  Regarding delivery, Mr Hughes made the point that it had to be independent of any one single provider, with a more generalised approach to ensure that there was fairness in the system and that specific providers were not seen as being favoured.  It was also noted that the Cambridge Network Partnership catered for young people between the age of 14 to 19, whereas the City Deal objectives included people up to the age of 24.  Responding to the point about how success was measured, Mr Hughes stated that the ultimate measure would be how the work undertaken on skills contributed to the local economy.

It was suggested that an informal group of Joint Assembly Members could be established to review the options available and engage with key partners, stakeholders and officers.  Councillor Tim Bick, Anne Constantine, Councillor Noel Kavanagh, Claire Ruskin and Andy Williams were put forward as interested parties should such a group be set up.

The Joint Assembly RECOMMENDED to the Executive Board that it:

(a)        Approves the principle of the Skills Service model as the basis for achievement of the City Deal objective on skills and requests a further report containing the detailed proposals for the Skills Service for submission to the June meetings of the Joint Assembly and the Executive Board.

(b)        Establishes an informal group of Joint Assembly Members to meet and work with officers, key partners and stakeholders, that will feed into the report for submission to the June meetings of the Joint Assembly and Executive Board.

(c)        Allocates a minimum of £250,000 per annum, in principle, as the estimated gross cost of funding the model and the availability of contributions towards this from the County Council (£50,000) and the Local Enterprise Partnership (£75,000), therefore approving a minimum net budgetary provision of £125,000 per annum.