Examination of Witnesses (Questions 1040
- 1059)
MONDAY 10 MAY 2004
MR BRENDAN
BARBER, MR
IAIN MURRAY
AND MS
CAROLINE SMITH
Q1040 Valerie Davey: Could you expand
that? I agree with you and I think you mentioned earlier that
there would be a need for the basic skills and evolving some of
these others. Which of the vocational skills which are on offer
for young people at the moment are the ones you would not want
to lose? What is good about the system as you are describing it,
that you feel must not be thrown out with the bath water?
Ms Smith: It is the vocational
element that is probably the aspect that needs the most work.
Q1041 Valerie Davey: Are there good
ones now or are you saying we need to further develop vocational
skills for the 14-19 age group?
Ms Smith: I do not feel I can
give specific examples. Anecdotally, there are some good examples
out there but in general one of the opportunities within Tomlinson
is to really develop that perspective and the vocational options.
Q1042 Valerie Davey: Is the TUC able
to do anything about keeping this parity of esteem, which is the
phrase that we keep using, between those good vocational courses
and the more academic, previously rather more valued courses?
How are we going to get young people, who are going to be the
50% who are not going to university, to have that quality and
recognition, as we heard earlier from the engineering group, that
will be valued in the workplace? Is the TUC able to contribute
to that?
Mr Barber: I think we can make
a contribution but I think employers are critical here. An awful
lot of this comes down to the judgment employers make and the
value they place on vocational qualifications as compared to academic.
Working through the new sector bodies, certainly the trade unions
could play their part in looking to ensure that vocational routes
are given proper recognition, do establish the kind of credibility
that makes them powerful in the labour market, as a well recognised,
well understood, high valued testimony to the skills and talents
that people have demonstrated.
Q1043 Valerie Davey: You mentioned
"well understood" and I think that is a key phrase.
Do you think we can make the diploma that Tomlinson is proposing
well understood?
Mr Barber: I would hope so.
Mr Murray: One of the key aspects
of Tomlinson is addressing the fact that the UK has one of the
worst drop out rates amongst all the OECD countries. Only Mexico,
Greece and one other country have a worse drop out rate. We are
all right about getting the young people who do GCSEs and A-levels
to university, we are absolutely abysmal at the other 50%. One
of the key reasons the TUC supports a radical shake-up is that
this sector of the school curriculum needs a radical shake-up
if we are losing that number of young people from the education
and training system every year. One of the other key elements
of Tomlinson is it is going to be a foundation that all young
people will be following. At the moment, we do have a bit of the
sheep and goat: people doing GCSEs and A-levels. Other people
are doing some vocational qualifications. They do not have the
status out there amongst employers. We have young people who are
able to progress through the different levels of the diploma,
selecting what is appropriate for their role. Some may pick and
choose vocational elements here and there. It is a way of bonding
together young people. They are all working through that diploma.
There will be different elements and approaches to that but it
does mean it will unify young people in schools.
Q1044 Valerie Davey: I welcome that
response. Given the range of achievements that potentially these
young people can come out of school with, there is still that
nagging doubt that somehow we are not producing young people who
have sufficient numeracy, literacy, communication skills and IT
base. Can you verify that? Is that true? We had the questioning
earlier asking is it just anecdotal or are the demands that are
being placed on young people higher and therefore we simply have
to encourage young people to get those higher educational qualifications
as well as the vocational ones?
Mr Murray: 20 years ago, ICT was
not on the radar screen in schools. Now ICT skills are obligatory
if you are going to enter the world of work at whatever level.
That is a key element of Tomlinson. We hear a lot about young
people coming out of schools without the appropriate literacy
and numeracy skills. I think Tomlinson does address that. There
are some central skills that all young people should have whether
they are going to enter the world of work or progress into higher
or further education.
Q1045 Helen Jones: We have taken
a lot of evidence on whether or not people should be doing vocational
courses at the age of 14 or whether we should be concentrating
more on basic skills. From your point of view at the TUC, is it
possible—I say this as somebody who is unhappy with the
term "vocational" because I do not think it really describes
what we are doing—to be training young people for particular
jobs from the age of 14 on? Is it possible to predict the labour
market that far in advance or do you believe that what we should
be doing is perhaps giving them a range of practical skills and
improving their basic skills through the practical work? Is the
term "vocational" the right one in that context?
Mr Murray: I think you can probably
do both. The TUC would not be supporting the idea of putting young
people at the age of 14 into occupational training and saying
to them, "You have made a decision at the age of 14; you
are going to have to stick with it now." As far as we see,
that is not what Tomlinson is about and that is not what the government
strategy is about. With Tomlinson you can address the fact that
some young people want work experience from the age of 14 onwards,
at the same time using that experience and their experience across
the school curriculum to address key skills that are required
as well.
Q1046 Chairman: Do we get carried
away with always looking at the hard skills? For those of us who
have been to the United States recently and looked at their education
system, the one area they seem to be much better at is the soft
skills. Perhaps they are under-valued. The self-assurance and
self-esteem they seem to have in many young people in the United
States—does this all get missed out by always looking at
examinations being passed? Do we miss on the quality of the overall
education? Are not soft skills more and more important in a consumer
driven society?
Ms Smith: That is one element
of Tomlinson that we support, the common skills aspect of that,
where the idea is that the curriculum will cover the softer skills
as well.
Q1047 Mr Gibb: Do you think that
over the last 20 years there has been a decline in literacy and
numeracy amongst people coming out of school and going into the
workplace?
Mr Barber: I do not think the
evidence suggests that there has been, although there has been
this persistent anecdotal view from the employer community that
there are still major problems with young people coming out of
the school system in these areas. Whether that is objectively
justifiable, I would have thought, is rather doubtful.
Mr Murray: Maybe even 20 or 30
years ago it was not such a major problem if you had what we now
call basic skills needs because the workplace was a very different
place 20-30 years ago. Most of the report highlighted the extent
of basic skills in the workplace and the key point is in a modern
economy you cannot get away with a workforce where you have about
a third that do not have level two. 20 or 30 years ago you could
get away with it. Just because of the development of ICT skills
and other necessary skills you no longer can.
Q1048 Mr Chaytor: When the Committee
visited Denmark and Germany recently, we saw some very high quality
work based training. By contrast, in Britain, the last report
of the Adult Learning Inspectorate as I recall was extremely damning
of the quality of work based training in the United Kingdom. What
is your general assessment of quality? Where are the biggest weaknesses,
either sectors or types of company, and what is needed most of
all to improve the quality across the board?
Mr Barber: I think we would have
significant concerns that there are still significant quality
questions. In quite a number of areas—this goes back to
the core issue about commitment to employer investment—there
are significant problems, particularly in smaller companies. I
think there is a major tail of under performance and lack of investment
in the small company area and that is a drag on performance in
quite a number of sectors.
Mr Murray: The inspectors' report
was referring to the quality of training providers and the figure
was about 40% where they were still inadequate, which is completely
unacceptable. There has been quite a big improvement and the LSC
has also undertaken a review of all the training providers running
their programmes. The Government and bodies like the LSC have
to get tough with training providers. They are not really delivering
the goods and if the inspectors are saying they are not adequate
they should be given a certain period of time to shape up or to
ship out.
Q1049 Mr Chaytor: The issue is with
the LSC being too lax in giving contracts to inadequate providers?
Mr Murray: I would not say that
because the LSC has to work with the training provider infrastructure
that is out there. There are some very good training providers.
The LSC deals with the infrastructure that is out there at the
moment but the Learning Inspectorate itself has come up with some
pretty damning reports on the quality of a lot of the training
delivered by training providers, especially around modern apprenticeships.
Q1050 Mr Chaytor: Your solution though
is for the LSCs to be more rigorous in deciding who they contract
with?
Mr Murray: We would highly recommend
that the LSC use the highest quality training providers but there
is a special capacity issue around there. The LSC cannot say,
"We are going to drop 40%" because they have to deliver
their programmes.
Q1051 Mr Chaytor: I missed the relaunch
this morning. How was the new relaunch to modern apprenticeships
different from the old, un-relaunched modern apprenticeships?
Were you consulted about the relaunch and did you make any recommendations
for the relaunch?
Ms Smith: On the issue of consultation,
Frances O'Grady, the TUC Deputy General Secretary, is on the modern
apprenticeships task force so representation by Frances and some
of the Task Force's work is fed into some of the relaunch elements
today. A stronger responsibility for the Sector Skills Councils
is something that we welcome. We are looking towards that positively.
We are supporting the idea of greater responsibility at the sectoral
level for the development of apprenticeship frameworks. Portability
of apprenticeship status is new and something that we welcome
very much. If an apprentice is in a situation where, for whatever
reason, their job no longer holds, their status can go with them
elsewhere. That is something that is very beneficial. Adult apprenticeships
are also very welcome. The TUC called for these in its submission
to the skills strategy and adult apprenticeships were flagged
up in the skills strategy. We are pleased that that is going forward.
Q1052 Mr Chaytor: Does the TUC see
that there should be an age limit on the adult apprenticeships,
because there was an age limit in the skills strategy?
Mr Murray: That was just on an
initial level, while they were implementing it. Initially, they
were going to extend young people apprenticeships up to the age
of 25 but I do not think that was a limit on—
Q1053 Mr Chaytor: A limit at which
you could start an apprenticeship?
Mr Murray: I do not think they
give an age limit for the adult apprenticeships. That age limit
pertained to one of the first reforms to young apprenticeships.
Instead of saying people had to finish by 25, they said immediately
that young people would be able to enter the programme up to the
age of 25.
Q1054 Chairman: Is there any sense
in having an age limit for modern apprenticeships?
Mr Murray: I do not think there
is. There are lots of regions of the United Kingdom where we have
older men who are now on a range of benefits because they were
thrown out of manufacturing either in the recession in the early
1980s or in the early 1990s, but there are now different types
of manufacturing in many of these regions from those which they
were originally employed in. If adequate training opportunities
were made available through adult apprenticeships, some of these
people would be welcomed back into the labour market.
Q1055 Mr Chaytor: When the chairman
of the Tomlinson Committee was before our Committee, we asked
why the proposal for junior apprenticeships was not included in
his report when he learned about it. He said he learned about
it in The Guardian the morning before, or words to that
effect. He was not consulted about the launch of the junior apprenticeships
concept. Was the TUC consulted about this and did you have a view
on this? Now that it is a fait accomplish, what is your
view on this?
Mr Murray: We did know about it
beforehand. Ivan Lewis had a breakfast meeting two or three weeks
ago at the end of March with a number of the stakeholders. It
was not a closed meeting. The TUC was one of up to about 30 different
organisations represented there. Ivan Lewis set out in effect
the main principles of what was going to be announced this morning.
There was a fairly open discussion about it. We had been consulted,
but just in the same way that other major stakeholders had been
consulted.
Q1056 Mr Chaytor: What are the main
problems you see with this idea of 14-year-olds having two days
in the workplace?
Mr Murray: There are some issues
trade unions are always concerned about around health and safety,
child protection and a number of issues that have to be addressed.
We also have to look at the positive side. This is being piloted
at the moment and it is showing, in some of these regions, they
are allowing young people with certain controls to go into the
workplace at the age of 14 onwards. It does appear to be having
some impact on retention rates. That is not to say this is the
only way of addressing drop out rate but the idea of engaging
some young people in quality work experience whilst also ensuring
that they receive a full range of other curriculum subjects in
principle we are not against.
Q1057 Mr Chaytor: Do you think there
should be a full evaluation of the pilot before a decision is
taken to extend it nationwide?
Mr Murray: Absolutely.
Ms Smith: That is certainly a
key element. Another aspect of this particular programme as well
is that it is being aimed at middle range ability students. I
guess it comes back to the idea of stereotyping. We do not want
to see that because of a young person's background, gender, race
or whatever, they are immediately steered one way or the other.
Q1058 Chairman: Did you hear some
of the Engineering Employers' Federation evidence? It was very
good evidence but they are bemoaning the fact they are not getting
enough talented people coming in. There are hardly any women coming
into engineering, let alone ethnic minorities. That is a serious
problem for training in our country, is it not? Some jobs still
seem to be flagged up as not open or attractive to women and ethnic
minorities. Do you have campaigns on that?
Mr Barber: There was a major report
from the EOC very recently that highlighted this issue very strongly.
We very much supported the thrust of their concerns.
Q1059 Chairman: I am conscious that
we have had a good session with you so far but the one thing that
has not been articulated at all, either in the questioning or
the way you have answered us, is a vital sector in all this. That
is the FE sector, the colleges. A lot of your members work in
that sector. How do you rate that contribution? Are they part
of the consultation procedure? Are they fully engaged? Is the
Government in a sense leading too heavily on Learning and Skills
Councils and other quangos and not on what has been the mainstay
of vocational education, which is our college system, especially
FE?
Mr Barber: I think there are major
issues about resourcing. There are strong pressures to fund the
schools more generously. There are the very strong pressures that
we have seen made evident to support higher education and so on,
but the FE sector has long been recognised by an awful lot of
people as having been under-funded over a very long period. If
we are serious about asserting the importance of vocational routes
and so on, recognising that in the support that is given to FE
seems to me to be critical. If at any stage NATFE do appear before
you, they will make some of these points more eloquently than
I can, but there are major issues. We have talked about parity
of esteem but there are major issues about the esteem given to
the people who deliver through our FE system. There is a whole
set of issues about the pay and employment conditions, contracts
and casualisation of lecturing services in FE and so on that is
an important constraint on what their fee system can deliver.
| 
