BIS published The Government’s Productivity Plan: Second Report of Session 2015-16 on the 1st of February, which reports that ‘The Government is right to be concerned by the lack of productivity growth in the United Kingdom’ but that they ‘question whether the document has sufficient focus and clear, measurable objectives to be called a “plan”.’
The report continues that ‘this broad and expansive document represents more of an assortment of largely existing policies collected together in one place than a new plan for ambitious productivity growth.’
The policies in the Productivity Plan that are looked over in the report include employability skills, apprenticeships, education and training, and other investments. Related to HE, the report highlights a few areas.
First, it brings the apprenticeship target into question:
‘The Productivity Plan stated that “apprenticeships are a key part of some of the most successful skills systems across the world”. As such the Government appears to have placed apprenticeships at the heart of achieving productivity growth through improving the skills base of the economy. The Plan reiterated the Government’s commitment to increase the number of apprenticeship… and has therefore committed to significantly increasing the quantity and quality of apprenticeships in England to three million…putting control of funding in the hands of employers. The Government has indicated that it is for businesses—not Government—to drive skills policy through demand. It is counterintuitive for the Government to set a quantitative target on the industry to provide three million apprenticeships while suggesting that the provision of skills must be employer-led. We support the principle of increasing the number of apprenticeships, but the target is something of a blunt and arbitrary tool. Given that apprentices are employed by firms, we recommend that the Government, in its response to this Report, sets out the rationale—and publishes the evidence base—for it setting a target of three million apprentice starts when that may run against what businesses actually require.’
The Committee also observe a lack of ‘parity of esteem in education and training’, stating that:
‘…there was evidence of insufficient or ineffective investment in developing and improving the basic and intermediate skills of the workforce, stating that this was particularly true in “technical and vocational skills” which was restricting productivity growth.34 During our inquiry, we heard that there remains an imbalance between vocational and academic training. To that end, we welcome the measures in the Enterprise Bill that give apprenticeships the same legal protection and status as university degrees. However, there remains a mismatch in the level and types of skills required by the economy which could be narrowed by addressing the perceived distinction between ‘formal’ Higher Education and ‘vocational’ Further Education.’
In addition, the report recommends that ‘the Government does not allow migration pressures to influence student or post-study visa decisions. Specifically, it should relax the post-study visa restrictions. It is illogical to educate foreign students to one of the highest standards in the world only for them to leave before they have had an opportunity to contribute to the UK economy.’
Lastly, the report notes that ‘the United Kingdom’s “level of public and private R&D investment has been internationally low and falling”, stating that in 2012, it only invested 1.72 per cent of GDP into R&D.’ It recommends that ‘the Government produces a “roadmap” for increasing the total level of public and private R&D investment in the United Kingdom to three per cent of Gross Domestic Product’ should the Government be ‘serious about productivity and competitiveness’.