Members in FE below transcript sent to DfE re 2023/24 spending plan.
Further Education Sector Joint Trade Union Side written submission in response to the DfE’s Spending Plans for 2023/24 EQIA Public Consultation
Thank you for the opportunity to review and respond to your proposed spending plans and associated EQIA. I write on behalf of the non-teaching trade unions who make up the JTUS for the Further Education Sector, NIPSA, UNITE and UNISON. This submission focuses firmly on the impact of these proposals upon the FE Sector and resultant detriment to Section 75 equality groups. We have chosen to write this submission rather than complete the online survey as we believe that the survey questions are narrow and it would have been difficult to make many of the points below under the survey questions posed. We would ask that this submission is taken fully into account by the Department when considering responses to this consultation process and seek confirmation of same.
The JTUS fully recognises the final paragraph under “Conclusion” on page 26 of the consultation paper that the proposals are “actions required as a consequence of an extremely constrained budget allocation.” We do not believe that it is the role of any Government Departmental official/s to make swathing cuts to public sector funding and services and condemn the Secretary of State in the strongest possible terms for this continued focus on austerity by proving a punishment budget for NI for this current financial year rather than a budget which is predicated on the need for Government Departments to fund excellent sustained public services.
We do not believe that the approach taken to the required Equality Impact Assessment process is complete. Neither does it reflect the guidance and best practice issued by the Equality Commission for NI in a number of significant aspects. We note the ECNI’s criticism of Government Departments in this regard. We therefore question the Department’s conviction towards the EQIA process and are critical of its failure to manage or mitigate against the negative consequences that will be experienced by those most vulnerable in our society, for which Colleges provide a desperately needed source of education, skills development and community, particularly for those in our society whom the mainstream education process has failed to date.
To add meaningful context, the number of NI domiciled students enrolled on regulated courses by deprivation quintile was around 44.9% of total FE enrolment, based upon the 2021/22 academic year statistics, according to your Department’s Statistical Bulletin published annually. This equated to 22,277 students. Between 2017 and 2022, the proportion of those enrolled from the most deprived quintiles rose from 20.5% to 22.3%. It is worthy of note that over 50% of regulated enrolments at NWRC and SWC came from the two most deprived areas. The key point is that FE colleges make a real difference in widening access to education and training for those from the most deprived areas of NI, which therefore requires funding based upon need rather than suffering arbitrary cuts. Your EQIA process does not consider this specific impact or mitigate against the fact that funding cuts will disproportionately affect students from the most deprived areas, despite your Departmental vision for encouraging social inclusion.
When Disability as a specific section 75 characteristic is examined across the FE Sector in 2021/22, over 16,000 students had registered a disability/learning difficulties. This equated to 15% of the total FE Sector enrolment that year. Yet your EQIA does not make any reference to the negative impact upon such students and the services provided to them. This is just two of the Section 75 categories that your approach to EQIA has failed to take into account.
The ECNI states that “due consideration must be given to taking all possible steps to avoid or reduce any likely adverse impacts to protect people in our society most at risk of disadvantage within the Section 75 Groups. Effective EQIAs should therefore inform policy decisions. This should include consideration of anticipated equality impacts of budget proposals, consideration of mitigation and/or alternative policies with the final Stage 7 EQIA report, dealing with any policy change for the proposed policy in light of consultation and evidence informing the EQIA”. Your rationale for not conducting a full EQIA on all section 75 categories due to the negative impact upon each being equal is therefore perverse and incorrect. The purpose of screening a policy is to examine if any of the Section 75 categories will be negatively impacted and, if so, it is the Department’s duty to complete full and meaningful EQIAs to identify and mitigate against any negative consequences. DfE has to date fundamentally failed to do so and we would ask that full EQIAs of each Section 75 category be completed prior to decisions being taken, and any negative impacts be mitigated in an action plan which is shared with stakeholders. Furthermore, should any of the proposals change, amended proposals would require further screening and full EQIA to ensure that any disadvantages can be clearly identified and suitable mitigation put in place.
The ECNI goes on to state that “it is for the public authority to evaluate the data it has relied upon to determine equality impacts on people in the respective Section 75 groups of the proposed budget cuts”, yet your consultation paper asks the consultee to do so. The EQIA paper does not include consideration of the potential impact for Section 75 groups. Furthermore, the individual and cumulative equality impacts of related policy proposals should be considered, taking account of the available data. We are fully supportive of the ECNI’s position that the “consideration of mitigation and/or alternative policies is crucial in the context of budget reductions”, as referenced in the ECNI’s response to DfC’s spending plans public consultation. The main mitigations identified in your EQIA focus on mitigating the impact of budget cuts more generally rather than concentrating on specific impacts on people in particular section 75 groups and mitigating against these. The EQIA should be informing stakeholders so that they may consider whether they agree with the Department’s assessment of impacts and plans for prioritisation of the budget and thereafter take account of responses before taking final decision. The current EQIA document fails to do so.
The EQIA must also set out the monitoring arrangements that will be put in place to monitor the actual impacts on the Section 75 Groups of budget decisions. Section 75 duties are continuing duties and it is important that the Department demonstrates that it has paid the appropriate level of regard to its promotion of equality and good relations in its budget decisions as required by the duties. We are therefore concerned about the potential for funding decisions to impact on equality of opportunity across the equality grounds, as exemplified above. Unless there is additional funding provided to your Department, and thence to the FE Sector to address the shortfalls, there is a risk that this will result in a reduction in, or loss of, key pre-employment education and skills development services which will particularly disadvantage those already most in need and furthest from the labour market. Your Department needs to clarify how you will fund Colleges to continue to support the needs of people from the different equality groups and clarify how they will continue to support the needs of people within these groups. This should include clarity on actions to address any shortfalls or gaps in funding that may impact negatively upon these groups.
There is also a requirement for the Department to ensure a focus on identifying and addressing any equalities, emerging or exacerbated, as a result of the Covid-19 Pandemic or the Policy responses to it, including in terms of inadequate funding. Without a budget for the FE Sector based upon need, the DfE’s opportunity to meet the 4 key missions stated on page 8 of the EQIA document ie to invest in skills, economic infrastructure, research and innovation and business development will be severely curtailed. This in turn will fetter DfE meeting and exceeding its key listed strategic objectives, in particular to enhance education, skills and employability and drive inclusive sustainable growth whilst building the best economic infrastructure.
The fact that some of the funding being proposed is non recurrent fetters the opportunities that would otherwise be available for the FE Sector to flourish. This does little to ensure that the strategic framework can enact the vision of enhancing skills for a 10x Economy. Again, the suspension/curtailment of the delivery of key skills programmes, including all Age Apprenticeships, will do long term damage to the overarching ambitions of both DfE and Colleges. It is unjust and unfair, and potentially legally challengeable, for extra funding for UK wide initiatives, including the NJC national pay awards, not to be provided to associated employers to implement. Whilst the consultation document (on Page 15) makes reference to all these shortcomings, including “the consequences for employment, education….and wellbeing”, again there does not appear to be any suggested mitigations to protect those most in need of the services that the FE Sector provides. Not only do you propose to further reduce the 2023/4 in year budget, but additional in year savings of £9m will be impossible for Colleges to make without the loss of services and the dedicated staff that support them.
JTUS trusts that all of the above points will be taken fully into consideration to help shape a budget that is based on the needs of the most vulnerable in our society and looks forward to reviewing a much improved budget based upon need and significant mitigations to minimise any detriment to any equality groups.
Yours sincerely