Select committee: Education Committee

Recommendation 43

Third report - A plan for an adult skills and lifelong learning revolution Published 19 Dec 2020 Paragraph 118 Addressed to Department for Education
Recommendation (the committee's words)
Funding for the education and skills and employability strands of the new UK Shared Prosperity Fund must at least match those of their predecessor funds, and no region A plan for an adult skills and lifelong learning revolution 53 should be worse off. Government must involve local and combined authorities on the design of the UKSPF. Funding must be devolved to combined authorities who are best placed to make decisions about how to allocate funding in the most effective way for their communities.

From: Education Committee, Third report - A plan for an adult skills and lifelong learning revolution (HC 278), paragraph 118, 19 December 2020

Government response

The government responded to the whole report on 12 March 2021.

Summary written by Accountability Index from the government's response. It is not the government's own words.

The government says it has "considered the findings and recommendations of the report carefully" and responds to each recommendation, largely by pointing to existing and planned measures such as the Skills for Jobs White Paper and the Lifetime Skills Guarantee.

  • On a long-term strategy, it points to the Skills for Jobs White Paper and a Lifelong Loan Entitlement equivalent to four years of post-18 education from 2025, and says it will consult on its detail and scope "later this year", with legislation "where necessary".
  • On funding, it says funding beyond 2021-22 "will be considered as part of a wider Spending Review later this year which will include full costings".
  • On devolving National Careers Service funding, it states "There are no plans to devolve careers budgets".
  • On the Union Learning Fund, it says it "chose not to continue to support" it, and will instead use the funding for wider skills and retraining.

Read the government's response ↗ Report an error