Agenda item

To consider the attached report.

The Joint Assembly agreed by 7 votes to 6 to RECOMMEND that the Executive Board:

Agree to withdraw the report and defer consideration of this item so it can be discussed the Skills Working Group, with the outcome of this being reported back to the next meeting of the Joint Assembly and Executive Board in November.

The Joint Assembly considered a report to be presented to the next Executive Board meeting, which set out progress with the skills work stream and recommended next steps. 

The Strategic Programme and Commissioning Manager, in introducing the report confirmed that the skills work stream had so far secured good progress across its involvement in a number of activities and current projects had been delivered on time and within budget.  However, the work stream had not yet been able to demonstrate a direct and fully evidenced link between the work agreed to date and the 420 apprenticeship target agreed as part of the City Deal Agreement.  A number of proposals were being recommended to address this issue, including setting up a GCP apprenticeship matching/brokerage service with a focus on STEM based apprenticeships. 

The Joint Assembly was invited to consider and comment on the recommendations to be presented to the Executive Board.  The main points of discussion are summarised below:

·         Councillor Bridget Smith expressed concern about the proposals, which she saw as the GCP’s exit strategy from direct involvement in skills work.  While she accepted that the LEP and the Combined Authority had significant roles in this area, she stressed the fact that the GCP was the only body looking specifically at provision in South Cambridgeshire and Cambridge City and if the GCP pulled out there was no guarantee that anyone else would fill the void.  Councillor Smith was also concerned that the proposed solution had not yet been discussed by the newly formed Skills Working Group and was of the opinion that the report should be withdrawn until such time as the Group had been afforded an opportunity to consider it.  That aside, Councillor Smith commented that she had very serious concerns about what the paper was proposing and suggested that the idea of a brokerage scheme was being proposed without any evidence to suggest it would address the problem or was what people wanted.  She was surprised that it was planned to only promote STEM apprenticeships when previously it had been agreed to promote construction. 

·         Helen Valentine was also skeptical that the proposals were the right solution as she was not at all sure that the GCP had a valid role to play in skills.  She was anxious that there would not be a good return on money spent on this proposal. She accepted this was part of the original bid but saw no problem in admitting after stage one to agree that as a result of work to date the GCP was not best placed to deal with skills matters. 

·         Councillor John Williams commented that he disagreed with the proposed focus on STEM and reiterated the need to focus on construction.  There was a desperate need to train up a local workforce to undertake this type of work.

·         Councillor Grenville Chamberlain supported Councillor Smith’s suggestion that the Skills Working Group be asked to look at this in more detail and report back.  Mark Robertson also spoke in support of this. 

·         Councillor Tim Wotherspoon did not see the benefit of deferral and pointed out that the recommendations did not refer specifically to an exit strategy.  He suggested most of Councillor Smith’s concerns could be addressed by expanding to proposed brokerage service to include construction.  He drew attention to the need for some urgency given the requirement to meet the apprenticeship target agreed with Government as part of the City Deal agreement. 

·         Claire Ruskin commented that she had been involved in earlier discussion on this and had been told that it was expected to achieve the target; although she acknowledged it had been some time since the Skills Group had met and circumstances may have changed.  Ms Ruskin commented that the 420 target was a ridiculously small number and suggested that a more ambitious target should be set.  She suggested there was a need to look at the total picture, see which links were broken and act accordingly.  The paper did not include any evidence to suggest what was being proposed was the right solution. 

·         Councillor Tim Bick commented that he had also been involved in earlier work on skills and had been disappointed at the way people had tried to focus on different aspects of the skills agenda.  He was of the view that GCP should be focusing on making a difference in the broad skills market in the area.  There had been poor consistency in views from the Executive Board on this subject and from support officers.  He accepted that a brokerage service had a role to play but suggested that this was grossly oversold in the paper.  While this helped allocate people to an identified role, but it did not solve the problem of supply not equaling demand.  He agreed that there was some merit in this being looked at by the new Working Group.

In response to the comments made the Strategic Programme and Commissioning Manager emphasised that this did not represent a withdrawal from skills work.  Instead it was hoped this would facilitate better working with the LEP and Combined Authority and make sure that the work being done by the GCP helped them in the longer term.  It was hoped that the proposed brokerage service would compliment not replicate existing services provided by others.  The Interim Chief Executive confirmed that as part of developing this proposal officers had met with Cambridge Regional College and it had ben agreed that the focus would be on providing additionality to what was currently provided.  She added that the discussion demonstrated that there was a huge amount of complexity in the delivery of the skills system and one of the reasons it was being suggested that the GCP step back from it within the overarching strategy was there was a risk of it adding to that complexity.  At the same time there was serious concern that there were young people missing out on opportunities that the GCP could afford to assist with for the next 18-24 months whilst that wider strategy was considered. 

Councillor Bridget Smith proposed an alternative recommendation which was seconded by Councillor Grenville Chamberlain and on being put to the vote was duly carried by 7 votes to 6:

The Joint Assembly agreed by 7 votes to 6 to RECOMMEND that the Executive Board:

Agree to withdraw the report and defer consideration of this item so it can be discussed with the Skills Working Group, with the outcome of this being reported back to the next meeting of the Joint Assembly and Executive Board in November.