Legal proceedings between the University and College Union (UCU) and the Institute for Learning (IfL) have been discontinued.

The move comes after the individual claimant in the case, who is a member of  the UCU, which has been supporting the action, took on a new job in higher education (HE), where membership to the IfL is not required.

However, it is not the end of  the saga, which began in the summer when the union’s members voted to boycott the IfL over plans to introduce a £38-a-year membership fee.

While the IfL has welcomed the news, the UCU say the court action could be resurrected – with the government’s review into regulating and facilitating professionalism of  FE and skills workforce pivotal to future action.

IfL believes in peaceable ways forward, working in partnership with unions and employers, rather than through the courts, in the interests of  teachers and trainers, their learners and our sector as a whole”

The UCU, which announced a suspension of  the legal threat when the review was announced by the government in September, said the discontinuation of  the case took place earlier this month when the claimant’s move to HE was confirmed.

The UCU’s general secretary, Sally Hunt, said: “The prompt for discontinuance was the claimant moving to higher education. If  that had not happened we expect the action would have stayed in the court until the review had been completed.”

Although unaware of  any members’ employment being under threat by not paying the membership, she added: “In the unlikely event a change of  situation occurs we can swiftly reapply using another UCU member working in further education as the claimant.”

Meanwhile, IfL chief  executive, Toni Fazaeli, said: “IfL welcomes the discontinuation of  the High Court proceedings brought against IfL by a University and College Union member with UCU’s support. IfL believes in peaceable ways forward, working in partnership with unions and employers, rather than through the courts, in the interests of  teachers and trainers, their learners and our sector as a whole.”

However, while the UCU has claimed that both sides have acknowledged the issues can still be taken before court, the IfL feels it would be a matter for the court to decide. Meanwhile, a spokesperson for the Department of  Business, Innovation and Skills said the review, which is due to last three months, will soon get underway.

As well as professionalism, the review will also take account of  the “broader context” of  the strategy of  Skills for Sustainable Growth and the belief  that building status of  workforce is “central to building and promoting the reputation” of  the sector.

The spokesperson said: “A preliminary planning meeting for the review took place last week. We will announce the start of  the review and full details shortly. It will be for the independent review itself  to determine who is invited and what other evidence and views need to be gathered.”

Mrs Hunt added: “We anticipate that the review will address the issues in contention. UCU members will not however, pay for any professional body that is not perceived to have added value or bring benefits to its members.”

Mrs Fazaeli added: “We look forward to contributing to the independent review of  professionalism in the further education and skills sector. This review and our work with the Learning and Skills Improvement Service (LSIS) to support an independent commission on adult education and vocational pedagogy will be key priorities for IfL in the coming weeks, as we continue working to promote the status and professional interests of  teachers and trainers.”

The UK Commission for Employment and Skills (UKCES) has confirmed its most recent report was drawn up using no new data or research.

Proposals made in the Employer Ownership of  Skills report were suggested by the 23  UKCES commissioners, of  which three represent both further and higher education, and three represent small and medium-sized employers.

The UKCES says the proposals, which include increasing the amount of  public funding given directly to employers for apprenticeships and training, address some of  the issues highlighted in The Youth Inquiry and the Employer Perspectives Survey 2010.

“The solutions we’re proposing – one of  which is to route some public funding for employer facing skills through employers in return for greater private investment – isn’t contained within these reports,” a spokesperson for UKCES said.

“That’s because they (quite genuinely) came directly from our commissioners, who are a mix of  large and small employers, representatives from FE and HE, Unions, third sector, etc.”

She also added: “The documents set out some of  the problems – the two different skills systems, the comparative lack of  employer interest and investment in the publicly-funded skills system and so on. So we know for definite that the issues are real.”

It is not clear whether all SMEs want this reform.”

The UKCES report suggests funding employers directly for apprenticeships through the tax system, as well as reviewing the effects of  current policy and infrastructure on employer ownership.

It states: “We propose that Government Invite employers to step up to the challenge of  bringing more young people (16-24) into the productive workforce by funding employers directly for apprenticeships, for example through the tax system (e.g. via National Insurance rebates) and incentivising work experience.”

The report says an increased amount of  public funding would help create “a more responsive training provider network” and encourage employers to contribute more to vocational training. Other benefits include allowing colleges and training providers to compete based on quality and innovation, rather than volumes and government priorities.

The 157 Group, however, says it is “not clear” whether all small and medium sized employers (SMEs) are supportive of  the reforms.

“Many strongly value the role of  colleges and other training providers in sorting out the administration and reporting that has to be associated with spending public money,” said Lynne Sedgmore CBE, executive director of  the 157 Group. “It is not clear whether all SMEs want this reform.”

The Association of  Employment and Learning Providers (AELP) says the UKCES proposals will only be successful if  they manage to persuade employers to contribute more of  their own money towards training.

“The move to reposition apprenticeship and skills development as an employer responsibility is enthusiastically supported, but we must watch out for dead-weight,” said Graham Hoyle, chief executive of  the AELP.

“The aim and the ultimate success of  the new proposals must be to persuade more employers of  the economic benefit of  increasing their investment in their skills agenda, leaving the government to continue supporting the many individuals who are wanting to get onto the first step of  the ladder in order to start confidently moving upwards.”

Sean Taggart, UKCES commissioner and chief  executive of  The Albatross Group, supports the proposals and said direct funding would not simply be used as a “giveaway” for businesses.

He said: “This public investment will be used to leverage greater private investment in skills development. Colleges, schools and learners have been asking for improved access to employers and this is a real opportunity for that to happen, with benefits for all concerned. It’s important to remember that this is not a giveaway.”

The government is proceeding with plans to reduce the national funding rate for 16 to 18 apprenticeships by another two per cent next year, despite under-spending by £15m in 2010/11.

The rate reduction comes as youth unemployment continues to break records, which for 16 and 24 year-olds increased by 52,000 during the three months ending in November 2011, hitting a staggering 1.04 million.

We regret this proposed reduction and it probably needs to be looked at again in the context of  the recent announcement about a minimum one-year duration for 16-18 apprentices,”

A spokesperson for the Skills Funding Agency (SFA) said: “The YPLA announced in its 16-19 Funding Statement in December 2011 that the national funding rate for 16-18 Apprenticeships will be reduced by two per cent in 2012/13. At the end of  March, the Agency will publish the Funding Rules for 2012/13, which will include the national funding rates.”

The Association of  Employment and Learning Providers (AELP) said the reduction would cause a “tension” between quality and volume.

“We regret this proposed reduction and it probably needs to be looked at again in the context of  the recent announcement about a minimum one-year duration for 16-18 apprentices,” an AELP spokesman said. “There is universal agreement that young people should be receiving quality training on an apprenticeship and quality provision comes at a cost. Therefore when the government is trying to grow the number of  young people starting apprenticeships, a rate cut could create a tension between increasing volumes and maintaining quality.”

The national funding rate for apprenticeships aged between 19 and 24, as well as 25 and over, will remain unchanged in 2012/13. The SFA has also revealed “the under spend on the 2010/11 financial year for 16-18 apprenticeships was £15 million, which represented less than two per cent of  the budget.”

Gordon Marsden MP, shadow minister for FE, has called on the government to increase the number of  apprenticeships for young people at small and medium sized businesses.

He said: “Apprenticeships have a key role in play in providing new opportunities for young people and boosting growth across the regions. For all the government’s rhetoric on apprenticeships, they are still failing to create enough places for young people, while many smaller sized businesses feel unable to take part.”

Proposals by Labour include redirecting money from the Growth and Innovation Fund into a new ‘Apprenticeships Innovation and Collaboration Fund’, designed to encourage smaller firms to take on a young apprentice.

John Hayes MP, minister for further education, skills and lifelong learning, has said he will “focus” on improving apprenticeships for people aged 16 to 24. Mr Hayes, speaking at an apprenticeships debate in the House of  Commons last month, said: “It is important that we focus apprenticeships on where they are of  most value, and there is more evidence to suggest that they are of  most value to young people between the ages of  16 and 24; and, secondly, it is important that we are relentless in our drive for quality.”