What does the cabinet reshuffle mean for NCUB stakeholders?

Last Friday afternoon, following the resignation of the Deputy Prime Minister, the government announced a major reshuffle.

The changes reach beyond the Cabinet, reshaping a wide range of government positions with important policy implications. 

For NCUB stakeholders, a key development is Peter Kyle’s move from the Department of Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT) to the Department for Business and Trade (DBT), where he replaces Jonathan Reynolds. Leadership of DSIT has now been taken up by Liz Kendall who has moved from the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) in what some commentators are describing as a demotion, citing challenges with implementing welfare reforms. 

Beyond a new Secretary of State, there are wider ministerial changes at DSIT. Sir Chris Bryant, Feryal Clark and Baroness Maggie Jones have all left – replaced by Ian Murray and Kanishka Narayan. Narayan is an interesting appointment for NCUB stakeholders, having a background in tech-orientated venture capital. While remaining as Science Minister, Patrick Vallance has now taken on additional responsibility as a minister of state in the Department of Energy Security and Net Zero. This is a more senior role and risks splitting his time. It also means that both ministerial roles in DSIT are now split between departments, as Murray’s portfolio is shared with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS). At the same time DSIT is also seeing change at the Director General level within the civil service, with two interim directors for digital technologies appointed in August.  

This level of churn could be problematic for the sector – especially in the context of a secretary of state that will need to get quickly up to speed with a rapidly changing science and technology portfolio. You can find a digest of these changes and what they mean for research and innovation on NCUB’s website. 

The Department for Education (DfE) has also seen significant change. While the department currently remains under Bridget Phillipson (one of the two main candidates touted for the Deputy Party Leader role), responsibility for skills is now to be shared. Jacqui Smith has maintained her position as skills minister, but her portfolio has been split between DfE and DWP. It is expected that the remits for further and higher education will remain strongly linked to DfE but that key elements of skills strategy (and funding) such as life-long learning and management of skills transitions will move to DWP. 

The new remit for DWP, which is popularly now being referred to as a “Super Ministry”, is linked to the government’s focus on workforce productivity and growth.  It is being cautiously welcomed by the FE sector as a way of better foregrounding skills demand rather than supply.  

By bringing skills policy closer to labour market reform and welfare, the government is seeking to improve employment outcomes. But there is a risk that these benefits will be short term and detract attention and resources from interventions designed to deliver higher skills – which are another essential ingredient for achieving growth. 

The result of these changes for universities, who could play a significant role in delivering higher skills, is less positive. Leaving aside the fact that DfE’s budget will be further impacted, the changes ultimately further distance the skills portfolio from higher education. The potential challenges for universities of skills policy being split between DfE and DSIT has been previously recognised. While we await the forthcoming white paper on post-16 skills (rumoured for mid-October), it is difficult to see how this further division will not exacerbate the problem.  

A further challenge is related to this change representing yet more policy churn on an important topic. There is a risk that this increasingly split portfolio will continue to confuse businesses stakeholders, many of whom don’t have the dedicated resources required to continually engage with all the changes. This is particularly the case for small businesses. This is challenging at a time when private sector investment in skills continues to fall.   

There are also likely to be some interesting questions arising from the fact that, in contrast to DfE, DWP currently has a UK-wide remit. This could add further layers of confusion – or it may in fact provide an opportunity for better coordination across devolved nations. NCUB will continue to keep an eye on developments on this front.  

In summary, while NCUB welcomes a dynamic government that continually strives to find the optimal structure through which to deliver its aims, the changes present risks. To succeed, building upon experience, keeping longer-term objectives in view, and taking a wider holistic approach that avoids siloed approaches is important. And the changes we’ve seen will need to be managed well if the risks outlined here are to be avoided.