Draft

Unionlearn and Union Learning: a review of the first ten years

1 Introduction

Unionlearn is the Education, Learning and Skills arm of the TUC. It was set up in 2006 and is fairly unique in the world. It is almost the only skills organisation to survive today from the many skills bodies created by the then Labour Government. A review of its first ten years casts light on many current skills issues, as well as on unions and skills.

Unionlearn has three main purposes:

• Support learning in the workplace, by managing the Union Learning Fund (ULF) • Train Union reps and officers through TUC Education • Develop and argue for policy on all aspects of skills, training and education

Unionlearn was born on 1st April 2006. It was launched by Brendan Barber, the TUC General Secretary, at a conference on 2nd May 2006 at Congress House, the home of the TUC, attended by Ruth Kelly, Secretary of State for education and Gordon Brown, Chancellor of the Exchequer, together with over 400 delegates from unions, Colleges, Sector Skills Councils and many other organisations.

Unionlearn grew out of a recognition that it made sense to pull together all the TUC’s learning and education activities into one distinct organisation. It is governed by a Board which is elected from the TUC General Council. Although part of the TUC and housed in Congress House it has a distinct identity. It did not appear overnight but was developed over two years of discussion and modelling of different options. It evolved out of much previous work on education and skills, spanning several decades.

Throughout the nineties there had been a growing range of activity under the general heading of “Bargaining for Skills”. This was led by the TUC and had developed strongly in the 6 TUC regions in England, and in the Wales TUC, and in the Scottish TUC. Much of this activity had been funded by regional bodies; initially Training and Enterprise Councils and latterly by Regional Development Agencies or their Welsh and Scottish

equivalents. Some had also been funded by the European Union, mainly through the “Equal” programme of the European Social Fund. The University for Industry (UFI) also supported union learning as did the Higher Education Funding Council (HEFCE) and the Department for Education and Skills (DfES) Adult Basic Skills Unit. All this was grouped under the heading of TUC Learning Services. Workplace learning received a major boost with the advent of Union Learning Reps (ULRs) who were established under the 2002 Employment Act which came into force on 1st April 2003, though there had been ULRs from 1998. From 2003 ULRs gained legal rights to paid time off to support workplace learning.

TUC Education has always been a major part of the TUC, particularly since the 1960’s when it took over the union education programmes previously run by the WEA or some Labour Colleges, though of course many Unions also run their own education programmes and some specialist colleges also remain such as Ruskin or Northern College. Throughout the seventies numbers of students on the TUC Education programme grew strongly, supported by government funding. It fell, in line with overall union membership through the eighties and nineties, though government funding was not withdrawn until 1995. Funding was quickly reinstated (on a fee remission, not grant basis as before) by the 1997 incoming labour government and TUC Education resumed growth. It took over the training of Union officers after the closure of the TUC’s National Education Centre in 2004, doubling officer trained numbers within 2 years.

Policy work had also been steadily growing in the years leading up to the launch of Unionlearn. This was driven by the need to develop a response (and an alternative vision) to the 1979 – 1997 Conservative Government’s changes to Education and skills, which were in turn driven by a wide recognition that economic success demanded a better education and skills system. Unions were also becoming much more interested in policy issues, again due to recognition that workplace skills were crucially important to working people, many of whom were massively disadvantaged. As skills bodies such as the Learning and Skills Council became established, nationally and locally, with union reps involved in their oversight, these reps also needed support to engage in the world of skills policy. It should be added that the LSC was established by David Blunkett, then Secretary of State, in part at frustration over the relatively poor record of the previous Training and Enterprise Councils (TECs) which were in many cases building up surpluses and were frequently criticised by both employers and unions for being unresponsive to local skills needs and pursuing their own agenda. The LSC was a much more centralised body under close central government control.

By 2004, all this activity (Workplace learning for members; Education for reps and officers; and Policy) had outgrown its home in the TUC’s Organisation and Services Dept (OSD). Altogether there were 140 staff involved, almost 35% of the TUC’s entire staffing. Almost all of this

funding was external so it did not divert resources from other TUC work. However it was a major management effort and diverted a lot of attention and energy of senior staff. It was also a risk: had the funding ceased the TUC would have faced the need to end employment for all the externally funded staff. Although staff were on fixed term contracts, linked to the length of the funding, redundancies are always very difficult in an organisation like the TUC.

Learning Services was a very distinctive part of the TUC because it had grown up relatively quickly and because much of TUC Learning Services (unlike the remainder of the TUC) was externally funded. The management of such a large and complex body of activities, with multiple funding sources, was challenging within a traditional TUC Dept. Above all, there was a desire to create a strong new union institution which would knit together all this activity, create a stronger and higher profile for unions work on skills, help unions develop their own capacity even further, and present a new face of Trade Unionism. In the early discussions in 2004 it was known as “The Workers University” but that was quite quickly changed in 2005 to the “Union Academy” and then (after expert advice) became Unionlearn.

2 Finances

In order to understand Unionlearn it may help to look at funding over the ten years:

Table 1. Income and Expenditure of Unionlearn 2006 - 2015

Year TOTAL INCOME £M

From Central Govt

From TUC

From Other

TOTAL EXPEND ITURE

disbursed to ULF projects

On other UL activity

Total no of Learners Excl TUC Ed

Cost per learner

2006 9.6 3.7 1.01 4.9 9.4 0.0 9.2 101,000 £170 2007 21.9 17.4 1.04 3.5 21.9 13.1 8.8 153,000 £114 2008 21.9 17.4 1.08 3.4 22.0 13.2 8.8 141,000 £123 2009 22.5 18.5 1.04 3.0 22.0 13.3 9.3 162,000 £114 2010 23.5 21.5 1.02 1.0 23.3 13.4 9.9 176,000 £122 2011 22.9 21.4 1.1 0.5 22.5 13.3 9.2 202,000 £106 2012 22.5 21.0 1.1 0.5 22.3 13.2 9.1 178,000 £118

2013 20.9 18.7 1.1 1.1 20.8 13.0 7.8 177,000 £106 2014 17.5 15.3 1.1 1.0 17.5 12.2 5.3 184,000 £83 2015 16.6 14.00 1.1 1.5 16.3 11.2 4.1 18,000 £78

Sources: Unionlearn Annual Reports 2009 – 2015 and internal Reports and Accounts.

Note: The total number of learners excludes TUC Education numbers because those are funded separately. The cost per learner relates only to Central Govt funding; income from TUC Education and Other Income are both almost entirely earmarked for specific purposes and their inclusion would skew the calculation. The 2006 figure includes £13.5M which was the ULF funding then managed by the LSC. Learner figures for 2014 and 2015 are estimates. See discussion below.

The initial funding in 2006 did not include the Union Learning Fund (ULF). That was administered by the LSC and only transferred into Unionlearn in 2007. The ULF had originally been set up in 1998 with relatively modest funding of some £3m but had grown to £14.4M by 2007. Wales set up a ULF in 1999, funded by the Welsh Assembly Government (WAG). Due to this separate WAG funding the TUC decided that Unionlearn in Wales should retain a separate identity, though Wales TUC Education falls within overall TUC Education. The Scottish ULF was set up in 2000, it is run by the Scottish TUC which is an independent organisation, though it should be noted that TUC Education in Scotland also falls under the overall UK wide TUC Education. The Irish ULF was set up in 2001.

There have always been three major components of Unionlearn funding: TUC Education; ULF and everything else.

TUC Education is very largely funded by the £1.1M from the TUC itself which covers the bulk of staffing costs. Delivery is funded by FE Colleges which in turn draw down funding via fee remission, though this is due to cease from August 2016.

ULF funding is slightly more than the sum actually distributed to unions. For example in 2007 it was £14.4M of which £13.1M was distributed. The difference (of £1.3M in 2007) covers the costs of administering the fund. This includes drafting the Prospectus, inviting the unions to bid, running the bid evaluation process, awarding contracts to winners and then managing those contracts. After 2007 those costs were absorbed in general Unionlearn costs.

“Everything else” covers a wide range of activity including:

• Unionlearn staff in the 6 TUC regional offices • Running conferences, publicity and media • IT, publications, training • Finance, Personnel, Office accommodation etc • Research and policy development

Total Income jumped in 2007 when the ULF was transferred in from the LSC. It peaked in 2010 at £23.5M but was not immediately cut by the incoming Conservative/Lib Dem Government. For the first three years after 2010 the then skills Minister, John Hayes, agreed a three year funding regime of £21.5M per year, which was largely adhered to, though it dropped to £21.0M by 2012. After his departure in 2013 the new Skills Minister, Matthew Hancock, followed by Nick Boles in 2014, imposed substantial cuts. Overall, government funding fell by 35% from 2010 to 2015; slightly less than the total 42% cut to the adult skills budget.

TUC Income remained stable at around £1.1M, a signal of continued strong TUC support despite the overall decline in TUC funding as union membership (and hence union subscriptions to the TUC) fell over the period.

Other income fell and then rose. Initially it included substantial funding from quasi governmental bodies such as RDAs, HEFCE, LSC, UFI or Equal (ESF funding from the EU). After 2010 the incoming coalition government scrapped the RDAs, cut the LSC and then transformed it into the Skills Funding Agency, and privatised the UFI. All those sources of “other” (i.e. not mainstream BIS grant to unionlearn) income disappeared, save for very small amounts of European Social Fund funding e.g. to Cornwall. In 2011 the Unionlearn Board decided to pursue a vigorous search for other sources of income and by 2015 this had grown to £1.5M from a wide range of alternative funders including the NHS (to boost well-being at work), the Gatsby Foundation (to boost Technicians), NIACE (to support mid-life career reviews), the UFI Charitable Trust (to support e-learning) and the EU (to support research on apprenticeships). In 2006 other funding had mainly been generated by the regions. By 2015 it was almost all generated nationally.

Turning to expenditure, this began at £9.4M in 2006 but then jumped as the ULF was transferred in. In 2010 it peaked at £23.3M and fell to £16.3M in 2015. Within that total, the proportion of spending on ULF contracts has been much less volatile. In 2007 it was just over £13M and it remained at that figure until 2012 when it began to fall, as government income fell. Even so, it has fallen very much less than total income, only £2.2M or 16%. In effect the Unionlearn Board decided to prioritise funding to unions; staffing and activities elsewhere within Unionlearn

were therefore cut back by much more than ULF. Total Unionlearn staffing fell from a peak of 147 to 69. It is estimated that current ULF funding of £11.2M supports some 250 jobs in unions, down from a peak of some 300 in 2010.

Cost per learner is a very crude indicator of both “efficiency” and the extent to which support activities were cut back, particularly from 2012 onwards. Management of the ULF and other support to learners was overhauled and reorganised, particularly from 2013 onwards. For example there was greater use of ICT. However support was also cut back, for example publication of the “Learner Rep” magazine moved from print to online and from 4 to 3 issues per year.

3 Activity

Unionlearn is involved in such a wide range of learning activities it is difficult to single out key indicators. Moreover some activities are hard to define precisely and/or change over time. However table 2, below, sets out some figures which are often used as guides to activity:

Table 2 Key indicators of Unionlearn activity 2006 – 2015

Year TOTAL LEARNERS

Of which: Skills for life

CPD IACL ICT HE Apprentices

TUC Educ courses

TUC Educ students

ULRs trained

Total ULRs

Learning Agreements

Learning Centres

ULF contracts

No of unions

2006 150000 25000 15000 x 733 115 x 3850 49112 3572 18000

236 120 52 19

2007 206000 31552 15000 x 4548

1735

x 4209 52630 3200 20000

270 81 31 13

2008 199000 26000 17000 x 4075

2391

38 4305 57657 3100 21500

470 99 31 22

2009 220,000 24445 23000 x 18258

2779

2337 4983 58321 1980 23000

123 83 51 10

2010 233,000 32200 24000 838 16408

3137

2400 4386 57163 1941 25000

285 102 40 36

2011 250,000 17526 23000 34200

22000

4878

2500 3622 47947 1674 26500

234 74 7 7

2012 230,000 42000 30000 30000

44000

3000

3000 4018 52198 1500 28000

100 115 42 35

2013 221,000 22000 38000 50000

25000

2000

4773 3378 43756 1895 28800

126 115 42 39

2014 219,000 24000 45000 47000

39000

1964

5971 3000 35,000 3636 32500

106 68 44 38

2015 220,000 16896 35546 35245

27101

799 6561 3000 30,000 3100 34000

144 70 34 34

Sources: TUC General Council Reports to Congress 2006 - 2014, Unionlearn Annual Reports 2009 – 2015 and internal Unionlearn papers.

X – Figures not collected

Notes

1. Some figures are estimates, where numbers were not collected or not available. Some categories overlap and are interpreted slightly differently by unions within the guidance provided by Unionlearn

2. Skills for life is a broad category covering entry and level 1, basic skills or functional skills, Maths, English and ICT 3. CPD Continual Professional Development which covers non qualification bearing med level courses 4. IACL Informal Adult and Continuing Education which covers both informal and non-formal entry level learning, often for those

with few or no qualifications; it is a very important means of rebuilding enjoyment and confidence in learning. Typically around half IACL learners will go on to take formal courses leading to qualifications.

5. ICT Information and Communication Technology. 6. HE Higher Education. This is mainly at University, typically the Open University or Birckbeck College 7. Apprentices This includes where employers have been persuaded to create apprenticeships, or improve existing

apprenticeships, e.g. raising them from level 2 to level 3 8. TUC Education courses This includes both short courses (typically 2 or 3 days), the standard 5 or 10 day programme, and longer

e.g. Diploma courses. 9. TUC Students This is the total number of students on all courses

10. ULR figures include Initial and follow on training for 2006 - 2008; thereafter just initial training; 2014 and 2015 figures include both stand alone and the new generic course

11. Total ULR numbers are the cumulative total of all ULRs, this figure includes just those on initial courses to avoid double counting 12. Learning Agreements These are formal written agreements with an employer about learning 13. Learning Centres These are physical spaces where learning takes place, often a room in an office or factory but can include e.g.

mobile buses 14. ULF Contracts The number of formal contracts between Unionlearn and individual unions or other organisations working with

unions. After 2014 all contracts were with unions. Before then there were some contracts with e.g. community organisations supported by unions.

15. No of Unions The total number of unions receiving ULF funding, some may have more than one contract for different activities e.g. at different workplaces or with different regions of the union

4. Discussion

A success story

Overall, Unionlearn plainly achieved a great deal: over 2M learners and 34,000 Learning Reps. TUC Education has trained almost half a million reps, the foundation of the Trade union movement. Unionlearn has become an established part of the skills landscape. An Independent 2010 assessment concluded that: “The evaluation of the ULF and Unionlearn was positive. Union learning has largely met its stated objectives and has delivered demonstrable benefits for learners, employers and unions.”1

A 2013 follow up survey2 from Leeds University found that:

1 Evaluation of the ULF rounds 8 to 11 (2005/6 to 2008/9 incl): final report; Mark Stuart, Jo Cutter, Hugh Cook and Jonathan Winterton; CERIC, Leeds University Business School, 2010. Para 38, conclusion. 2 Union Learning impact report, Mark Stuart, Jo Cutter, Hugh Cook and Stephen Mustchin, CERIC, Leeds University Business School, June 2013

• Employers with a ULF project were more likely to be engaged in learning • The level of employer contribution has held up very well between 2010 and 2013 • Although very few employers conducted a cost benefit analysis, 74% felt they got a positive return on their investment in union

learning • Two thirds of employers reported increased demand from employees, especially from those with little history of involvement in

learning • As with the 2010 survey, employers reported that staff morale, staff turnover and (albeit to a lesser extent) levels of trust have

increased • “Particularly, ULRs and union earning project workers are seen as highly valuable as a means of raising awareness of and demand for

skills” • Union Learning engages learners from all backgrounds though participation and achievement (in terms of qualification gain) appears

more likely to be achieved by those with lower prior levels of qualification. • The degree of employer engagement depended on 4 factors:

o Involvement in ULF o The extent to which employers valued ULRs o The extent to which employers valued ULF o The apparatus that had been established to support union learning activity

And more recently, a May 2015 report3 from Leeds University, based on the 2011 Workplace Employee Relations Survey and annual Labour Force Surveys from 2001 to 2013 said:

• “The research shows that over the period 2001 – 2013 union members were a third more likely to have received training than non-unionised employees.” This was after stripping out all other variables such as age, gender, occupation, sector etc.

3 Skills and Training: the union advantage; Mark Stuart, Danart Valizade and Ioulia Bessa, Leeds University Business School, Unionlearn Research paper 21, May 2015, p7 – 8.

• .”.The union “mark-up” for training was its strongest in 2013, peaking at 16%. This is explained by 38.9% of union members saying that they had accessed job-related training in that particular year compared to 22.9% of non unionised employees saying likewise.”

• Union learning dipped in the 2008 recession, as did all workplace training, but bounced back much more quickly than in non-union workplaces

• Non-union members benefit from being in a unionised learning environment: 38% report a recent training period compared to 25% in workplaces where unions do not have negotiating rights.

• Three aspects of union presence – union recognition, union negotiation/consultation over training, and the existence of ULRs - are all associated with higher levels of training being received by employees, i.e. more than 5 days per year.

A Unionlearn learner survey conducted by Exeter university4 covering over 2,000 learners across 59% of projects found that 56% gained qualifications, 82% said they were more confident of their abilities, 40% felt they could do their jobs better and 72% said their union was extremely/very important in supporting their learning. It also found that Unionlearn generated an additional £10 for every £1 invested, split almost equally between employer and learner.

In 2009 Ofsted conducted a review of Unionlearn’s U-Net5 which awarded an overall Grade 2 (i.e. good) and rated ULR support as “outstanding”.

Unionlearn conducts bi-annual surveys asking unions and other stakeholders for feedback and these are always positive, with over 80% of both unions and others (such as Colleges or SSCs) rating Unionlearn support as very or extremely valuable.

There is a fairly extensive literature on Union Learning and Unionlearn, exploring particular issues such as Learning Agreements, Disadvantaged Learners, Collective Learning Agreements and Women Learners; almost all of the findings (which are mainly from independent academic organisations, with some internal union research papers) are highly positive6.

4 Unionlearn Survey of Learners, Marchmont Observatory, 2015 5U-Net was the name given to Unionlearn’s network of workplace Learning Centres which were supported by the University for Industry and delivered e-learning on site, mainly skills for life. 6 See for example the series of 21 Unionlearn Research Papers which summarise both internal and external research, available on the Unionlearn website: WWW.Unionlearn.org.uk

However, notwithstanding this overall positive picture, there remain many questions: The next section explores some of the issues that have arisen over the decade.

5. Some Questions and Reflections

5.1 Has accepting government funding compromised Unionlearn?

It is argued that Unionlearn has been a failure. For example John McIlroy and Richard Croucher argue that: “Training continues to be determined by employers, and strategy by the state. Unions have retreated to EDAP.7 How that contributes.......to national training strategy.......remains questionable. There is inadequate evidence that an initiative launched in 1998 has meaningfully influenced revitalisation.”8 They go on to question whether it makes sense to fund training which should be done by employers when public funding for education is being cut, which adds value to capital but is of questionable value for working people and which benefits union members who are on average not the most disadvantaged. Above all, they challenge the idea that learning has helped revitalise union organisation. These are fair questions to Trade Unions9. However they do not stand up to scrutiny.

Training is not determined by employers. The ULF Prospectus, which invites unions to bid for ULF funding, sets out what kinds of training are being funded. In every funding round there has, for example, been a very strong emphasis on disadvantaged workers and equality. The Prospectus is drafted jointly by officials from BIS and Unionlearn before being approved by the Unionlearn Board. It includes much job-related training such as ICT or Apprenticeships but this is because union members want those training opportunities, they are not imposed by government. Moreover almost all the Prospectus headings cover skills which are valuable for both job and personal development, such as skills for life, IACL or CPD. Over the ten years of the ULF, Unionlearn has suggested several new areas for inclusion, for example Green skills, learning and well-being, skill utilisation or community learning; none have been rejected by BIS. Equally, BIS has at various times sought to include new 7 The Employee Development Assistance Programme, famously developed by Ford at Dagenham in the eighties, in response to pressure from the Transport and General Workers Union for investment in workers’ learning. Put simply, it gave around £500 for any training requested. Ford found that it had an immensely positive effect on job-related training and improved employee relations. 8 British Trade Unions and Academics: The case of Unionlearn; Capital and Class; 2013 9 Although some criticisms in the article of Academic and Unionlearn Research are completely inaccurate.

ideas such as extending training to non-union workers or including support for Traineeships. Both have been accepted after discussion. In the case of Traineeships, Unionlearn persuaded the DWP to drop the conditionality requirement (i.e. the threat that not starting or continuing a Traineeship would have led to losing benefits) which was a longstanding TUC aim. Without that change, unions would not have supported Traineeships. In the case of non-union workers, unions have almost all offered them learning support in the workplace as a means of showing the benefits of trade unionism. The curriculum for Trade Union Education, which includes traditional trade union subjects such as bargaining, recruitment and organising, is determined entirely by the TUC. So it is simply not the case that the training offered or supported by Unionlearn is imposed by employers or the state. State support has not compromised unions’ independence. On the contrary, unions see state funding as a major achievement; a recognition of the important role that unions play in the economy and civic society.

5.2 How much influence does Unionlearn have over skills strategy?

It is true that skills strategy continues to be largely determined by the state but Unionlearn has, arguably, helped increase or at least maintain union influence over strategy. There continue to be union reps on the 20 Sector Skills Councils and the national UKCES. Those reps are all supported by Unionlearn.

There have been some union gains on policy. For example the Leitch Review of skills10 set two key targets: 90% of workers should have level 2 by 2020 and 68% level 3 by 2020. In July 2007 the Dept for Innovation Universities and Skills set intermediate targets: 84% Level 2 by 2011 and 57% Level 3 by 2011. By 2009 it was clear these were not going to be reached. DIUS consulted on an alternative approach: establishing a legal right to request time to train (T2T). Although there was much disquiet within unions about abandoning the Leitch targets, it was clear that they were not going to be reached. Moreover there was an increasing feeling that some of the Level 2 training (funded by the Train to Gain known as T2G programme) was of questionable value. Many unions felt it was simply ticking boxes, accrediting skills which learners already had. The new T2T was worth having because a similar right to request flexible working had proved valuable. In the end Unionlearn worked with DIUS to establish T2T and within 2 years BIS (the successor to DIUS) research showed it had helped over 1M learners access training. Unionlearn surveys of ULRs bore this out. Had the TUC/Unionlearn opposed T2T it is probable that it would not have been introduced since it was strongly opposed by the CBI and many other employer bodies.

10 Prosperity for all in the global economy – world class skills, Lord Leitch, December 2006.

Another example is that during the 2008/9 consultation on T2T, launched by the Secretary of State at Unionlearn’s annual conference on 18th June 2008, many employers groups argued strongly that employees should not be able to invoke this legal right where the employer had already conducted some kind of review. The TUC argued that in practice this would have fatally undermined T2T since employers could cite almost any example of doing some kind of review. DIUS agreed to drop the review exemption.

Another example is the consultations on the Specifications of Apprenticeship Standards for England (SASE) which formed part of the 2009 Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning (ASCL) Act. The TUC welcomed the Act which for the first time put apprenticeships on a legal basis; banning so called programme-led apprenticeships which contained no employment relationship, however there was much criticism of the SASE which specifies, for intermediate level apprenticeships, i.e. Level 2, only 280 guided learning hours of which 100 or 30% (whichever is the greater) should be off the job. That is far too low and the TUC argued for something much greater but DIUS original position was 25%.

Another example is the introduction of Apprentice pay rates. The TUC argued strongly for a minimum rate which was introduced (at £95 per week) in August 2009. Subsequently the TUC has lobbied the Low Pay Commission to raise the Apprenticeship minimum rate to the normal youth or other rates, with some success.

In the 2005/6 Employer Training Pilots (which later became the Train to Gain programme) the TUC argued successfully that a minimum amount (sadly, never specified) of time off to train in normal working hours should apply for all employers as a condition of joining the programme. Employers and government had initially strongly opposed this.

Other lobbying was less successful. The TUC and Unionlearn argued strongly to Lord Leitch for a Social Partnership model i.e. involving unions and employers much more strongly in the skills system. His final report did not go so far but did include, as TUC had sought, tough targets for employers, for example the right to Level 2 training by 2010 if the voluntary skills pledge he advocated did not work. In the event the Pledge did not work, despite unions lobbying employers and contributing to the estimated 2,500 who did sign up, and was quietly dropped.

The TUC argued strongly that the right to negotiate on training should be included in the list of areas which should be covered by legal awards of recognition rights; this was never achieved though it was included as a recommendation for employers to consider.

The Public Services Forum11 agreed a Compact in 2009 which urged all public sector employers to ensure their employees received training at least to level 2. This was the result of strong union lobbying but had only a limited effect in practice.

The TUC strongly supported Raising the Participation Age in the 2008 Education and Skills Act. There were concerns from some unions over possible criminalisation of young people but these were taken into account in the drafting of the Bill and subsequent guidance.

After the 2010 election the government became less responsive to union lobbying on skills but there continued to be some gains. For example the UKCES and SSCs (with union involvement) continued, despite the abolition of many other Labour inspired skills bodies. The government consulted on abolition of T2T but in the end continued with it, though did not extend it as originally planned, to cover employees with fewer than 250 employees. The Traineeship programme was amended so that those entering or continuing a Traineeship were not at risk of losing their benefits (which would have affected all their household benefits e.g. their families Housing Benefit) if they chose not to enter or discontinued.

Overall, it is a mixed picture. Certainly unions fell far short of their main aims, for example they did not achieve paid time off, a statutory right to bargain on training, or a right for all to free ESOL or level 2. However there were some hard won gains, albeit relatively small, but which have made a big difference to many workers lives. Reflecting on the decade’s experience it seems the existence of Unionlearn helped to lobby Ministers or Civil Servants in two main ways. First, through capacity to compile a strong case, including with evidence gained from unions’ direct workplace experience.12 This is something no other organisation can do. Second, because Unionlearn had become a significant organisation within the skills landscape, with strong employer and stakeholder support.13 Both factors gave Unionlearn/TUC arguments significant weight.

5.3 What can unions do to improve the quality and quantity of employer investment in skills?

11 A body set up in 2008 comprising government and the public Sector Trade unions 12 For example surveys of ULRs helped persuade government of the value of T2T. 13 For example a TUC Education survey in 2014 showed that 2,500 employers supported and valued the training of their union reps.

Much depends on the regulatory framework. There is a vast literature on employer engagement on skills and most assessments have concluded that strong collective measures are important, and that the strong participation of the Social Partners is also very helpful.14 Neither factor is strong in the UK. That means Unions need to pursue a twin track strategy. First, continue to press the case for a stronger regulatory framework, including Social Partnership. Second, work within the existing framework to make whatever gains are possible. So the question is how successful are unions on these two fronts and what has Unionlearn achieved?

On the improved regulatory framework front, In 2011 Unionlearn organised a visit for the Skills Minister John Hayes to Berlin, to see the German system at first hand. It included meetings with major employers such as Siemens, the German Chambers of Commerce, the BIBB (national tripartite skills body), and the DGB (German equivalent of the TUC). All argued the case for a levy system of compulsory payment (which in Germany is strongly supported by employers) and then importance of the Social Partners. In 2015 a repeat trip was organised, this time by the UKCES but with strong Unionlearn and union involvement; as well as from leading employers, SFA and others. It concluded that the German system was very impressive and, while systems cannot be transplanted, there were many features, including collective funding and Social Partnership, which worked well. Recently, there has been renewed interest in a Levy to fund apprenticeships 15 and continued support for the use of government procurement to support skills. Government have continued to support UKCES and SSCs (the latter with much reduced funding) which include union involvement, as do 8 out of 9 Industrial Partnerships, the latest evolution of the UKCES/BIS employer ownership programme. Overall, there is at least some progress towards a stronger framework, despite a weakening of such regulatory bodies and union involvement almost everywhere else. For that, Unionlearn and unions can take some credit.

On the other front, making whatever gains are possible within the existing regulatory framework, the evidence cited above from Independent surveys (e.g. Leeds) shows that union learning does make a very significant difference to the quality and quantity of employer training. The 2013 Unionlearn Annual Report includes a list of “testimonials” from many large and small employers in which they praise the impact of union learning on their training plans. In 2011 the Skills Minster, John Hayes, urged Unionlearn to extend the benefits of union learning to non-union

14 See, for example, BIS Research Paper no 116, International Evidence Review on C0-Funding for Training, July 2013; or Review of Collective Measures: Final Report; UKCES, November 2009. 15 See Time to pay up: securing stronger, shared wage growth; John Van Reenen, Alison Wolf, Jared Bernstein, Simon Wren-Lewis and others; Resolution Foundation, March 2015. Many of these writers have not been traditional left wing or trade union analysts, some have been associated with the Conservative party, including Alison Wolf who conducted a very influential review for DfES in 2012. She argues strongly for a levy to support skills. The Conservative Government’s Queens Speech in May 2015 promised to introduce a levy on the visa which employers need for some migrant workers, the proceeds of which would fund Apprenticeships.

employees.16 Of course much more could be done. The main constraints on unions’ ability to influence employers are the continual cuts in facility time17, continued job cuts (particularly in the public sector) which mean unions lose experienced reps and members, pressure on unions’ income as employers (particularly in central government) cut or threaten check-off18 and the immense pressure on union members from the other (non learning related) issues in members’ working lives such as redundancies, pay freezes, casualisation of employment contracts, work intensification or reorganisation. Unions could make far more gains on learning and persuade many more employers to improve their investment in training if there were less of a general climate of austerity and hostility/lack of support for unions. That requires a wholesale shift in government and employer attitudes. Expressions of support for Unionlearn, while welcome, will continue to have limited impact without support for other union work.

5.4 How much appetite is there among employees for more and better training?

When the ULF was first established in 1998, with only £3M, it was designed to test out union take up. Contracts were small (none larger than £80K) and somewhat experimental. However it was set up on the basis that good quality bids would be funded. It grew so rapidly, to £13M within 8 years, because there were so many good bids. It became evident that there was a strong appetite for learning. This has been strongest among the most disadvantaged, i.e. learners with little or no previous qualifications or engagement in learning. That reflects their previous exclusion from employer training. 19 It is also strong among mid career employees, as evidenced by the Unionlearn Mid Life Career review programme which began in 2013 and is growing strongly. Middle skill employees are also strongly attracted; witness the figures on CPD in table 2. There is less apparent appetite among HE level learners but this is almost entirely due to the introduction of higher fees in 2012/13, 16 The Unionlearn Board discussed and agreed this, with some reservations, on the grounds that union learning was a good showcase for the benefits of joining a union. Over the following two years there were many examples of union reps or Unionlearn staff working with previously non-union employers to persuade them of the benefits of working with unions to engage their staff. Many employers agreed and many unions increased their membership. From 2013 onwards this element of the ULF prospectus became much less prominent as new Ministers changed their view and cuts to funding meant unions needed to concentrate on support for existing members. 17 Facility time is the paid time off which union reps receive to undergo training and fulfil their duties. Despite this being a legal right, backed by an ACAS code of practice, it is limited in scope and difficult to enforce with a hostile or reluctant employer. 18 Check off is the system whereby union subscriptions are deducted at source by the employer under an agreement with the union. This has been much simpler and more efficient for unions but many are now switching to Direct Debit as less vulnerable to the risk that employers will disrupt their subscription income. 19 For example, Skills for Health, the SSC for health including the NHS, estimated in 2012 that the 40% of staff in bands 1-4 (the lowest grades) who delivered 80% of patient contact, received 4% of the NHS skills budget. There is now a drive by the unions, and to a lesser extent the NHS employers and government, to increase the 4%.

witness the drop in HE learners from then in table 2. Learners like IACL, as the figures show, because it is designed to be attractive and engaging. Typical IACL includes cookery, photography, dancing, or family history - all of which often include elements of literacy, numeracy and ICT. Employers quickly discover its value in engaging employees and raising their confidence. Over half IACL learners progress to formal courses.

The discovery of this appetite for learning is perhaps the most powerful impact of union learning on employers. The reason is simple. Learners are often reluctant to admit to a manager or employer that they lack certain skills or knowledge. But they will confide in “someone like them” who they trust i.e. their learning rep. That rep can then convey a broad sense of skill needs to the manager. They have a statutory right to conduct a skills survey. For managers and employers this is valuable. They need an objective assessment of employee skill needs. Moreover unions play a big role in then helping design training which suits employees. Many managers and employers have been surprised (see the testimonials cited above in the 2013 Unionlearn annual report) by the range and depth of the appetite for learning revealed by learning reps. Previous surveys or attempts to introduce training have often failed because employees are reluctant to engage or the training was badly designed. Those in charge of training often have degrees or other qualifications or experience and may not appreciate the impact of lack of confidence or an understandable reluctance (equally true among mid career or more highly skilled employees) to admit to skills or knowledge gaps. However an appetite for learning is not simple. Willingness to attend a course depends on many other factors including cost, time, convenience, content, whether friends and colleagues will also be attending, whether it will be properly accredited, what it will lead to and so forth. Unionlearn and union learning have done a great deal to explore those issues and demolish the myth that employees are not interested in learning.

5.5 Is there a distinctive union voice on skills?

There is a common view that unions are not very interested in education and skills, their main concerns are “bread and butter” pay and conditions issues. Not so. In the UK the history of union involvement in skills arguably begins with the mediaeval Guilds which collectively defended their occupations, largely by regulating apprenticeships. The early Unions of the Industrial age often had “Educate, Agitate, Organise” or similar slogans on their banners. The WEA, the Plebs League and the National Council of labour Colleges (all working closely with the TUC and various unions) took up the challenge of providing education for working people, winning government support from 1907. By

1943 the TUC had evolved a detailed plan for post war education (similar to the Beveridge plan for post war welfare, largely drafted with TUC support) which included calls to end fees for secondary schools, raise the leaving age to 14, introduce an allowance for attending secondary school and extend the provision of technical training. The 1944 Education Act and the Employment and Training Act of 1948 included many of these demands. The TUC supported the 1964 Industrial Training Act which introduced the Levy systems and Industry Training Boards, notably including employer and union representatives.20 Throughout the eighties and nineties the TUC and unions were heavily involved in the NVQ system, sought to defend Training Boards, and argued for paid time off, levies and stronger bargaining rights on training. There has been a long history of union engagement.

The union agenda does not spring fully formed, it develops through listening to members, engaging with the skills system and with employers. Where unions are excluded from engagement it is not surprisingly difficult for them to develop an informed view. It is partly unionlearn’s role to help unions understand the skills system and reflect union experience and demands. Unionlearn does that through seminars, conferences, briefing papers and organising meetings for unions with key players in the skills system.

So what do unions want? This is a short summary based on Unionlearn’s experience:

• Much more union involvement in the skills system: more seats on the UKCES, on SSCs, on Industrial Partnerships and LEPs; as well as greater rights for union reps, for example stronger rights to paid time off for skills and other union duties. These may seem only “process” issues but they are crucial in helping unions develop a detailed skills agenda, gain confidence and help argue the case within unions for giving greater priority to skills. Unionlearn’s experience is that unions find it difficult to develop the capacity to engage unless they are given real involvement.

• Much more emphasis on quality. For example a minimum of two years for all apprenticeships, Level 3 to become the norm, more time away from workstation, a broader and larger curriculum and stronger rights to progress to a job. All vocational courses should include a real and substantial element of work experience in line with the CAVTL recommendation that there be “a clear line of sight to work”21. The experience of Labour’s drive to meet targets was that unions found this often made little real difference in the workplace, too much funding was reliant on quantity.

20 The Act was drafted by the previous Conservative Government, although introduced by the 1964 elected Labour Government. 21 The 21013 Commission on Adult Vocational Teaching and Learning which included Unionlearn made many recommendations aimed at strengthening the skills system

• Substantially increased funding from both state and employers (via collective Levy) to ensure teaching and equipment is properly funded. Well paid and professional adult vocational teaching is essential.

• Despite exhortation to employers (e.g. to sign the skills pledge), and funding incentives such as the employer training pilots or T2G or the Employer Ownership programme; the Labour government drew back from serious collective regulation. Unionlearn’s experience is that this was a mistake; unions found that employers remained hard to convince. Without the kind of collective levy that is very widespread in most other developed economies (including the USA and Ireland) employers will find it difficult to invest in skills due to short term competitive pressures.

• An emphasis on collective learning, a shared and non-competitive ethos, a very strong practical (as opposed to academic or over theoretical) emphasis in pedagogy, treating learners as adults and respecting their existing work and life experience.

• Much better Careers Guidance at school and equal value attached to academic and vocational routes. • Priority being given to the most disadvantaged; for example migrants with ESOL needs, young people finding it hard to enter the labour

market, Older workers lacking confidence who have been denied training opportunities, the low paid and unskilled (not always the same thing), those with particular needs such as single parents, or learners with issues such as dyslexia. Disadvantaged learners are not homogeneous. Unionlearn has gained substantial experience of these learners, who are not well served by the skills system.

• A recognition that employers are very different and have different circumstances. Workplace and employer level negotiation will always be important, within a national and sectoral framework.

• Employers need to be organised and represented too; they also need to develop the capacity to engage in the skills system, particularly small and medium employers. Developing a Skills System based on social partnership will need to build the capacity among both partners.

In short, the period 2006 to 2015 was of initial ambition, but over-reliance on exhortation; followed by major cuts in funding and (so far) little sign of any change in employer reluctance to engage. Unionlearn’s experience is that exhortation is not enough22, not enough attention was paid to unions’ actual experience in the workplace of continuing low levels of employer engagement. For example a recent LLAKES paper23

22 Some unions reported that Employers who signed up to the 2008 Skills pledge then refused to do anything more on the grounds that taking the pledge was enough. 23 LLAKES research paper 43: What has been happening to the training of workers in Britain? Francis Green, Alan Felstead, Duncan Gallie, Hande Inanc and Nick Jewson; 2013

found that the average number of training days per worker had dropped since 1995 by between 50% and 83% (depending on the data source) and that this had been largely unnoticed by the academic community. Unions certainly noticed it.

5.6 Is the skills agenda changing unions?

Over the past 10 years there has been a major change in union engagement with skills. The great majority of unions now include ULRs in their rule books. Many unions have established learning committees at regional and/or national level. There are a growing number of motions about education, learning and skills to union conferences. For example 25% of all the motions and amendments to the 2014 TUC annual Congress were related in some way to education, many were about schools and apprenticeships. The ULF supports an estimated 250 jobs within unions, around 10% of all union employment. Many unions have found that learning attracts recruits and encourages members to take up the ULR role. It is often seen as less traditional/confrontational than the normal Union rep role. Reps engaged in learning are often younger and more likely to be women or BAME than other union reps – though many also go on to take up wider rep roles. For example ATL (a large teachers union) has found that almost all Branch Secretaries were previously ULRs. ATL runs a very large in-service CPD programme, partly ULF funded.

It is not just unions with relatively well qualified members who are changing. USDAW (the shop workers union) has a “check-out learning” project which has been very successful. Unite (a large general union) has developed a new ESOL package for migrant food workers. PCS (a union organising low paid civil servants) has found, like ATL, that learning greatly helps recruits new members. Unionlearn has tried to quantify and research the connection between Learning and Organising but it has proved difficult, beyond collecting case studies, since so many factors are in play. For example learning is often connected to other issues such as work reorganisation, and recruitment is often the result of personal relationships of trust, rather than particular issues. Large general unions like Unite and Unison have set up learning and organising depts., aiming to combine the two in day to day practice. This “mainstreaming” of learning within unions has been a steady development over the past decade. Many unions now run their own learning programmes, not funded by the ULF. It is estimated that these are at least equal in total size to ULF funded programmes. This would imply that around 20% of all union staff (and hence union activity) is on or around learning and education. That is substantially more than the level in 2006 or in 1998. Some of that change would have occurred anyway, driven by increasing demand from members and potential union members, driven in turn by changes in the labour market and economy placing a greater premium

on skills and lifelong learning. However it seems reasonable to believe that Unionlearn has helped to support and, to some extent, lead this change. Certainly many of the evaluations of Unionlearn (see section 4 above) found very positive union and learner attitudes towards Unionlearn. And of course many of the unions are directly involved as members of the Unionlearn Board or General Council.

5.7 Does involving unions make a difference?

The evidence above on Employer and Government support for Unionlearn shows that it does make a difference; it is seen as a significant part of the skills landscape. Employer support rests on the direct benefits of union learning, amply demonstrated by the Leeds University and other research.

Government support is more often questioned. There is a view that the Labour Government supported Unionlearn due to its close links with unions; as a way of showing support when other union demands were being resisted. That theory does not explain why Coalition and Conservative governments continued support, albeit with funding cuts. Again, there is a view that showing support for unions can be politically useful to non Labour Governments, to “balance” reductions in union rights elsewhere. Unionlearn’s experience is that such theories are implausible. It is true that Labour’s support in the early days was something of an act of faith, driven by sympathy with union values. That might explain the initial statutory support for ULRs and the initial £3M ULF. However it grew from 1998 onwards due entirely to union take up and the clear evidence of cost effective impact. Every year since 2009 there have been increasingly tough negotiations with BIS officials. The case for continued funding rests entirely on detailed evidence, not political calculation. The incoming coalition government cut the Union Modernisation Fund immediately in 2010. They could have done the same to the ULF either then or in 2015 without much political cost but have chosen not to. Successive Skills Ministers (all conservatives) have gone on the record in support of Unionlearn.

Support is not confined to government and employers. In the initial Unionlearn structure a “Partners Advisory Group” was set up comprising key skills bodies including Niace, the AoC, LSC, WEA, the Campaign for Learning and others. By 2010 it had fallen somewhat into abeyance since there was frequent contact and close working with all these bodies. There was no need for a specific meeting of the group to maintain contact, close working had become habitual. For example after the 2015 election a key group of skills bodies (AoC, AELP, Edge, 157 Group, WEA, Niace, SSCs, and Unionlearn) wrote a collective letter to the Secretary of State at BIS. Unionlearn was included as a matter of course and

all parties had no problem with the letter including strong support for Unionlearn’s work. Much of this support rests on recognition of unions’ support for skills, essential to improved productivity. That is why the Governor of the Bank of England, Mark Carney, praised Unionlearn in his speech to the 2014 TUC Congress, though he also mentioned its potential to transform lives. By contrast the 2014 BIS Select Committee report into adult numeracy and literacy singled Unionlearn out for praise due to its highly cost effective impact on improving access and progression to skills for life. It is widely recognised, albeit for different reasons by different stakeholders, that Unionlearn makes a difference.

5.8 How does Unionlearn’s experience compare with that of other unions around the world?

International comparisons paint a mixed picture. There is no other country which has a union body like Unionlearn, supported significantly by the state; although Singapore is currently considering a similar body and New Zealand and Norway have ULRs. However there are many countries where trade union influence on the skills system is much stronger than in the UK. In almost all of the EU, the USA, much of Canada, South Korea, Japan and elsewhere there are collective skills bodies and measures such as levies and strong union involvement in the skills system. Germany and the Nordic countries are the best known for this social partnership but the construction industry in the USA, for example, also has very strong union involvement in the content and management of the apprenticeship system. Our ULRs are widely admired but many other countries would say that their union reps include learning issues as a matter of course. In Germany, for example, there are strong national, regional and sectoral agreements or legal rights governing changes to occupations, apprenticeships and the curriculum; union reps would be involved in those rights alongside other rights.

On the other hand there is widespread recognition24 that unions’ role at the workplace is as important as formal involvement in committees at national or sector level. In this sense of supporting and encouraging learners at work the UK experience is fairly pioneering. Unionlearn has received delegations from (or been invited to visit) Germany, Denmark, Finland, Portugal, S Korea, Vietnam, Portugal and New Zealand. There

24 See for example the OECD Skills Outlook 2015 – Youth Skills and Employability, which cites two case studies of union support (Switzerland and the Netherlands), has two general recommendations supporting unions’ work on skills and cites an EU recommendation supporting social partnership on skills. The OECD has been thought of as somewhat sceptical about the value of supporting unions but this now seems to be changing. At a presentation of the 2014 OECD PIAAC study (which was very critical of the UK) in London in October 2014, Andreas Schleicher, head of the OECD Skills division, said that Unions’ work n skills was “crucially important.” Within the EU, social partnership on skills is strongly endorsed and unions are represented on many bodies, including ESCO, EQF, CEDEFOP and EQUAVET. For both the OECD and the EU, the union role on skills at the workplace is being seen as increasingly important.

have also been presentations to CEDEFOP, OECD, UNESCO and ICAE25 conferences. Overall however, unionlearn’s experience from these discussions with fellow unions and other skills bodies is that there is no substitute for a strong regulatory structure. Without that, Unionlearn does a good job championing union learning, particularly for disadvantaged workers whom the skills system does not normally reach. Within a strong regulatory framework Unionlearn could do far more.

6. Where next for Unionlearn?

In 2006 Unionlearn was widely seen as a Labour Government creation that would not survive a change of government. In fact, few other skills bodies of the time survived the Labour government; most of those that did were then abolished by the incoming 2010 coalition government26. Unionlearn is one of the few survivors today. This stability is to be prized in a climate of far too frequent change in skills organisations. It takes time to build a “brand” and Unionlearn has built widespread recognition. There seems little reason to change identity or structure.

Looking back over the decade, while there has been much to celebrate, several lessons emerge:

• In the early days, from 2006 to 2009, Unionlearn had a very complex structure with a large management team of 14 representing all six regions and many strands of activity. It inherited multiple projects and many carried on, albeit under the Unionlearn banner. It took time to develop a unified and more effective structure, from 2012 onwards, partly driven by the need to cut costs. In the challenging environment ahead, a smaller and more adaptable management structure will continue to be more effective.

• Support for TUC Education is the major and immediate priority. • More attention should be paid to Learning and Organising. For unions this is crucial to their support for union learning. Unionlearn risks

being seen as too focussed on a national skills agenda, out of touch with the union skills agenda. Many unions include both learning and organising in the same Dept, since they are mutually reinforcing. Within Unionlearn there has been some caution about this emphasis on organising, since it has been felt, particularly after 2010, that government would not be supportive. In fact, BIS have been

25 The International Council for Adult Education, e.g. Unionlearn presentation at the 2015 global conference in Montreal. 26 RDAs, the LSC, the Skills Alliance, the SSDA, LSIS, BECTA, UFI and many other bodies extant in 2006 have gone.

clear that they welcome the way learning is being mainstreamed and helps attract union members. Unionlearn is a skills body but it should, like unions, not be afraid to do more to help unions use learning to recruit and retain members.

• There has arguably been too much attention on numerical targets, such as qualifications, and not enough on quality and the practical outcomes of learning. This probably reflected the initial Labour stance (e.g. the Leitch and Treasury targets or the 2008-2010 T2G programme) but in the workplace unions’ experience was that learning mattered in different ways and for different reasons; qualifications are valued but so are pay rises, a change of scene, a better job or a new skill. Outcomes like these should be recognised and funded, as well as qualifications.

• Economic arguments will take centre stage, productivity will trump personal development. In fact the two often go hand in hand. Skills for life, ICT, IACL and CPD all benefit employees as much as employers. But the evidence supporting Unionlearn will need to reinforce the impact of learning on productivity.

• Unionlearn must not lose the central priority attached to supporting disadvantaged learners. That is a crucially important and distinctive element of union learning which is widely recognised and supported.

• Over the past decade Unionlearn supported many initiatives which had little lasting success such as the Skills pledge, Skills for Life Advocates, Community Learning Champions or Digital Champions. While these were all worthwhile, they were often inspired by government. In future, with scarce resources, there needs to be more careful evaluation of such initiatives to check they pass the test of: would these have an impact in the workplace? Will they attract union support?

• Particularly since 2012, Unionlearn has tightened up the management of the ULF. For example there is now clear and detailed guidance which must be followed consistently by all unions on what counts as eligible expenditure; payment is monthly and linked to monthly progress reports; the ULF bidding and approval process is more detailed and structured. Initially it was felt that unions might object to such tightening or even be deterred from bidding. In fact, on the whole, most unions have seen the need for the utmost care in management of public money and, in fact, found the added clarity and consistency helpful.

• This clarity and consistency may need to be extended to other areas such as the definition of a Learning Agreement and providing more comprehensive evidence of learner progression and impact – all of which will help support the case for continued funding.

• New technology is having a major impact. For example e-learning in workplace Learning Centres was initially supplied via CDs. Today’s ubiquitous ICT may well mean less need for physical Learning Centres and more need for e.g. MOOCs of the kind TUC Education is currently developing.

• Within Unionlearn, more use should be made of ICT; for example to improve data collection and provide more tailored support to individual learners.

• Although Unionlearn is well established it does not have a high profile among many union members or the public, despite investing substantial resources over the years in media work. This needs to remain a priority, using cost effective social media and jargon free case studies of learners.

• Engaging with Employers remains challenging and needs more support. • More evidence from individual learners is needed, as well as from employers and unions. • Unions will need help to mainstream learning within their normal activity; it takes time to replace ULF funding with unions own

funding. The ULF was never conceived as a permanent substitute for union learning; it has sometimes appeared so but should primarily be seen as a fund for innovation and capacity building. This mainstreaming (or sustainability) will need to be applied consistently to all unions to ensure fairness and free up resources for innovation.

• The content and aims of union learning need not change significantly; there will continue to be a focus on e.g. Apprenticeships, Skills for Life, IACL, CPD, and intermediate qualifications. However more will be needed to raise levels of HE and advanced (level 3) learning.

Overall, Unionlearn has been broadly successful. It seems likely to remain so over the next ten years.

Tom Wilson 26th June.