Among all the education funding pressures experienced in recent years, the biggest loser has been adult learning. The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) calculated that since 2010 funding for adult education has fallen by 45 per cent in real terms. In light of these dramatic reductions, it is no surprise to see that some politicians realise there is a strong case for intervention to undo some, if not all, of the cuts seen in the past decade.

First out of the blocks are the Liberal Democrats, who have promised to give every adult in England a £10,000 grant into a skills wallet that they can spend on approved courses. The first £4,000 will arrive in each learner’s skills wallet at the age of 25, with another £3,000 at 40 and a final £3,000 at the age of 55.

News: Lib Dems pledge £10k adult education ‘skills wallet’

Need to know: GCSE resits and funding: the Lib Dems’ election pledges

Opinion: 5 ways to improve lifelong learning

This well-intentioned policy seeks to push lifelong learning back on to the agenda. The cost of the wallets was put at £6.6 billion a year by the independent commission that originally designed the proposal. Given this additional investment, coupled with the goal of boosting adult learning, do these skills wallets deserve your support? The notion of individual learning accounts is powerful and long overdue. That said, I am not convinced the Liberal Democrat proposal is the right way forward for several reasons.

Adult education and HE

First and foremost, there is no mention of how it fits alongside the higher education (HE) funding system of student loans. For example, we already have loans available for master’s degrees and even doctorates, so what value are the skills wallets planning to add? Do they replace these loans or duplicate them? It is not clear why switching from loans (where the taxpayer and the learner share the cost) to cash grants into skills wallets (where the taxpayer bears the whole cost) is the best possible approach.

In addition, there is no mention of the skills wallets providing maintenance support for learners. One of the most glaring imbalances between HE and FE is that you cannot access maintenance loans for FE courses and apprenticeships, whereas HE provision comes with up to £30,000 of support for living costs in addition to tuition loans. This omission will do little to tackle the perception that FE is less important and less deserving of support than HE.

Not only does maintenance support get overlooked, the Liberal Democrats have also opted to only allow these skills wallets to be spent on courses accredited by the Office for Students (OfS), which regulates the HE sector. However, this would exclude all Ofsted-regulated provision including apprenticeships, basic skills training and huge numbers of level 2 and level 3 programmes. This is surely an oversight and can be easily remedied, but it does not inspire confidence in these proposals.

Value for money and social mobility

The value-for-money of the skills wallets is another area of concern. The wallets will apparently be given to every single adult in England - even the richest ones. If the total cost of the proposals is £6.6 billion, this might result in around £1 billion to £2 billion being handed out each year to wealthy and successful professionals. Is this really an effective use of precious government money?

Earlier this year, we published a report at the EDSK think tank that set out a new vision for post-18 education. It recommended that all 18-year-olds should given an individual education budget (IEB) into which the government places up to £20,000, and this money can be spent on either a university degree, college course or apprenticeship. By bringing HE, FE and apprenticeships together, it would create a level playing field between them - something that the proposed skills wallets do not achieve.

Furthermore, our report recommended that all learners would have access to the same student loan system after they have used up their initial IEB grants, and learners would also be given access to the same level of tuition and maintenance support. This would ensure there is one funding system for all courses and providers - another missing element of the Liberal Democrat proposals.

What’s more, our proposals allowed the financial support from government (IEB grants followed by student loans) to be spent on any approved qualification at a regulated provider - covering courses regulated by either OfS or Ofsted.

Crucially, we weighted our financial support towards disadvantaged learners, as the most deprived students would receive £20,000 in their IEB whereas the most affluent students receive £1,000 to £2,000 instead. This avoids the trap that the skills wallets appear to have fallen into with their universal approach, which is unlikely to improve social mobility.

In summary, it is encouraging to see a political party throw its weight behind lifelong learning and seek to invest in this underfunded part of our education system. Nevertheless, there are better ways of designing and delivering the kind of proposal that the Liberal Democrats have put forward.

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