After spending so many years in the shadows, it is heartening to see adult education enjoying some time in the spotlight. Yesterday the Liberal Democrats announced plans for £10,000 “skills wallets” for every adult in England. Today it was the turn of the Labour Party, which is equally keen to invest in this area.

Labour’s decision to offer free A levels and other level 3 courses to adults with lower-level qualifications is certainly a step up from the existing funding entitlements. It also matches the recommendation in the Augar review of post-18 education, which called for fully-funded training at level 3 for learners of all ages. This additional support will no doubt be welcomed by the FE sector, particularly as adult learner loans have struggled for traction in political and educational terms.

News: Labour pledges six years of free study for adults

Election 2019: Why the Lib Dems’ £10k ‘skills wallets’ won’t work

Opinion: 5 ways to improve lifelong learning

Election 2019: Labour’s plans for adult education

The commitment to funding six years of university-level study is a major statement of intent, but in policy terms it is arguably a weakness as much as a strength. There are around 18.5 million adults in England qualified below degree level. If Labour wants to fund all these learners to attend university or college for free at the same time as offering all existing graduates the option of a second degree at zero cost to them, then the Treasury might be in for a few sleepless nights.

Moreover, the benefit to learners of such generosity is debatable. Providing at least two free HE and FE courses will surely dampen learners’ interest in choosing the most relevant and valuable programmes when they know from the outset that another, fully-funded course is already waiting for them. Is this the sort of mindset that we want to encourage among millions of adults, especially when taxpayers are footing the bill?

The mere fact that someone has a degree-level qualification does not necessarily make them more productive or employable - something that Labour do not seem to acknowledge. Both the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development and the Office for National Statistics have shown that around 30 per cent of UK graduates are already in jobs that do not require a degree, which is double the international average. It is hard to envisage this situation improving under Labour’s plans, and sub-degree level qualifications that might be more useful for employers could get crowded out by the lure of a couple of free undergraduate degrees.

Government cash

It is also worth pondering the behaviour of universities and colleges in such a funding environment. Labour’s policy will create a multi-billion-pound honeypot that will be placed in front of every HE and FE provider. Considering Labour’s uncomfortable experiences with previous schemes that relied on a first-come-first-served pot of government cash (think individual learning accounts in the early 2000s), one might have expected them to be a little more cautious.

High-quality courses with the greatest returns for learners could easily get trampled in the provider stampede for the extra funding generated by “bums on seats” for the most lucrative programmes (think low cost, high volume). Shadow education secretary Angela Rayner has suggested that the party’s new policies will “ensure we have the skills we need to allow our economy to rise to the opportunities of the future”, yet there is a risk that they might have the opposite effect if universities and colleges are encouraged to prioritise their own financial gains over those of the learners they are supposed to be educating.

Leaving aside questions of affordability and efficacy, Labour’s plans cover maintenance support as well as tuition costs (unlike the Liberal Democrats yesterday) as they will provide grants for low-income adults on FE courses to complement the reintroduction of maintenance grants in HE. This could help some disadvantaged learners access college courses, but we do not know how generous the grants will be or whether FE learners who do not qualify for the grants will be expected to use maintenance loans instead.

On the subject of Labour’s proposed “national careers advice service”, it is not as though this hasn’t been tried before. Although the Careers and Enterprise Company has evidently not won over its critics since it launched in 2015 and the existing National Careers Service has flown somewhat under the radar, it is not clear whether Labour is planning a simple rebranding exercise or significant new investment. What is certain, though, is that trying to turn back the clock to a non-existent “golden age” of high-quality careers advice may consume a lot of time and effort without leading to any material improvements.

After a lengthy wait, the FE sector is finally witnessing the National Education Service make the transition from hypothetical goal to tangible product. The main commitments are bold and generous, costing over £3 billion a year. While there are no great surprises in Labour’s raft of announcements, the party are understandably keen to draw firm dividing lines between themselves and the government. Whether these dividing lines will deliver better outcomes for learners and employers is another matter.

Tom Richmond is founder and director of the EDSK think tank, and a former government adviser on skills