Examination of Witnesses (Questions 1220
- 1239)
MONDAY 14 JUNE 2004
MR DIGBY
JONES AND
MS SUSAN
ANDERSON
Q1220 Mr Chaytor: Was there a golden
age prior to 25 years ago when we had equivalent levels of technical
skill to the French and Germans?
Mr Jones: There was not a golden
age. We all look back with fondness to when we ignored other parts
of the same environment but the good, old fashioned technical
college did produce quite a few good, skilled people in Britain.
Q1221 Mr Chaytor: Surely some of
your member companies and you argued against the old system of
training with the industrial training organisations and the levies
and so on, and collaborated in the dismantling of the old training
system. Now you are saying it was delivering—
Mr Jones: I just said technical
colleges were good. I did not say the whole system was good.
Q1222 Mr Chaytor: That is true, but
by implication—
Mr Jones: This country has had
the most enormous wake-up call over the last ten years in many
areas and one of them is globalisation. It will be so beneficial
for this country because we are exposed to competition in ways
that, with our complacency in the past, if we were complacent
today, we would never cope with. I am very hopeful, by the way,
that there are other countries who are so complacent today that
they are going to have an enormous wake-up call in 10 or 15 years'
time. We are better equipped for it than we have ever been. Part
of that is a completely different suite of skills, training and
investment than we have ever had before. Some of it is going back
to what we used to have before. What is a modern apprenticeship
if it is not what we had before? Some of it is brand new, the
pilots on LSCs on basic skill training in the workplace. I am
quite pleased that we have all this coming together. I could show
you five things that were quite good 20 years ago. I can show
you five things 20 years ago that were awful.
Q1223 Mr Chaytor: Looking back over
the last 20-25 years, if your argument is that British companies
have invested as heavily as their French and German counterparts—
Mr Jones: It is not, because we
did not. Do you mean in people? I thought you meant in kit.
Q1224 Mr Chaytor: In people and training.
What has the impact been and where has it gone?
Ms Anderson: You can get too obsessed
by qualifications. What we should be interested in is the competence
of our people. It has to be said that our qualifications system
has not always been as good as it could be which is why we have
the Tomlinson Committee looking at the issue. Vocational qualifications
we have been addressing but if you look at qualifications rather
than competence part of the problem for employers is that they
are interested in having competent individuals, not qualifications.
They recognise the value of qualifications for individuals. One
of the things that we have proposed in the past is that employers
want to be able to be helped with that last bit of the training
that involves a qualification, because that is very helpful in
terms of the improved performance that we are all talking about.
Sometimes qualifications are not what we should be looking at.
We should be looking at competence. Admittedly, it is much harder
to measure that. It is much easier to say, "Let's compare
qualifications in the UK levels and qualifications in France or
Germany", for example. Certainly we do not do so well, particularly
when it comes to vocational qualifications, but we look at the
abilities of our young people. They are just as able but we have
not been focusing on, for example, vocational qualifications.
We have had so many people turned off the whole system of skilling
and training because they have had a poor experience in the education
system, it is probably not surprising that many individuals are
not interested in going on and getting qualifications when they
enter the workforce. When we meet our members and their employees,
the people who have inadequate numeracy and literacy, when they
get their diploma for numeracy and literacy, that is the first
piece of paper, the first qualification, they have. That is really
inspiring for them. I think we can get too obsessed with looking
at qualifications because what we want is competence.
Q1225 Mr Chaytor: If we do not compare
with other Western Europeans in terms of qualifications and we
do not compare with them in terms of competence, where have we
gone wrong?
Mr Jones: I think we are saying
today, in many areas, we do compare. In the past, we did not and
we should not be complacent because they are getting on with it
too. A good example would be the big retailers. At least two of
them have their own in-house training and skills and they take
their young people forward in their own programme because they
know what they want. They are good at delivering skilled, competent
people. They are not accredited. They will not be in the stats.
That will not be a national accreditation which will appear in
the stats, whereas in Germany, if you have a retailer where it
is included in the stats that would be one trained person in Germany.
They will be the same sort of person as a retailer here has—I
am talking of the big chains—but they will not in Britain
have thought of training that person because they are not in the
national stats. You are asking me to compare apples with pears
in the 21st century and it is not possible. My comment was that
in the past it is true to say that in kit we did not invest enough
quantum and in training a lot of it was misdirected. Today, I
am more confident that business is doing better at this than it
has ever done but, by the way, as you rightly said, could we do
better? You bet your life we could.
Q1226 Mr Chaytor: Going back to the
discussion about the minimum wage differential issue, if your
prediction that in five to seven years there will be no jobs for
unskilled people is true, the problem will be solved surely because
nobody will be on the minimum wage by the end of the decade?
Mr Jones: Why?
Q1227 Mr Chaytor: Unless you are
going to pay skilled people at the minimum wage.
Mr Jones: There are two sorts
of people who are lower paid, are there not? One is because they
do not have a sufficient skill to be appealing to their employer
enough to be paid more and the other is because they are in a
market sector where the economics of the sector, both law of supply
and demand and number of people available and, secondly, the nature
of the profitability of the task engaged, do not pay enough to
pay any more. That is why you have very skilled people in certain
areas who are not paid very well at all. It is because you can
get a lot of them or because there is not the money around in
the activity to pay them any more and they are prepared to do
it. I have always been a supporter of the minimum wage. When the
CBI's opposition happened, it was not on my watch, guv'nor, and
I have always seen it as a safety net. I have always seen it as
something that gives aspiration to everybody and everybody has
a dignity in what they do and should not be abused, but it is
not there as an agent, to force up wages of everybody in the workforce
through differential erosion and it is not there to say, "You
are only going to get this level of pay or around this level of
pay if you are unskilled or young." If you want care homes
in Britain, if you want our tourism and leisure industry to be
a success—it put £75 billion into the economy last
year—a lot of people are not paid that much to do it. At
the end of the day, if we want those contributors to wealth in
the country, we have to get used to the fact that there will be
quite a few people who are on lower pay. What I want to make sure
is that they are not on such low pay that they lose their self-respect
and dignity and cannot better themselves. That is what a minimum
wage should do. It should not be used as an inflationary tool
for better wages for everybody in Britain, as the unions think
it should.
Q1228 Helen Jones: You said in your
earlier evidence that the problems in the workforce with those
who had poor literacy and numeracy skills were typically for those
around 35—in other words, the people who had been through
the existing secondary system. That is correct, is it not? Why
is it that the CBI, commenting on the Tomlinson proposals, said
that the upheaval of bringing in a new diploma would damage young
people's education? Surely, if we are to turn around the problem
that you have identified, it is going to necessitate changes in
the secondary curriculum, is it not?
Ms Anderson: There are issues
around numeracy and literacy in terms of our young people. You
know the statistics. Only 48% of 16-year-olds are gaining a C
and just 56% are achieving English. The other worrying statistic
is that the 25% who fail to make the grade at 11 fail to make
the grade at 16. Obviously there are issues that need to be dealt
with in our secondary schools in order to improve attainment in
those key issues of numeracy and literacy. Level C for maths and
English is a good, rough proxy for what we should be expecting
from our 16-year-olds, but there is an issue that those who do
not achieve at 11 are not turned around by our secondary schools.
That is one of the key issues that we need to address in our education
system. It is rightly something that Tomlinson recognised and
said we had to move on. It is about improving attainment. Whether
a qualification will do that—
Q1229 Helen Jones: That was exactly
my point. What changes would you like to see? If you accept that
the current system is not delivering for a substantial number
of young people, what changes would you like to see, because I
do not think it is sufficient to say that we should all get a
grade C in English. We may need to teach young people differently
and we may need to do things a different way. Could you tell the
Committee what changes that you as an organisation would like
to see?
Mr Jones: Do you think it is not
right that every child should leave school with a grade C in English?
Q1230 Helen Jones: No. What I said
was we may need to do it in a different way. We all accept as
a Committee that we want to see young people leaving school who
are literate and numerate but that may have to be taught in a
different way. The Committee has had a lot of evidence on different
ways of teaching young people so that they achieve the requisite
levels of literacy and numeracy. I would say to you that to simply
quote back the grade C is probably not taking us any further.
What changes would you like to see in the secondary curriculum?
Mr Jones: That is a bit different.
For instance, if 12, 13 and 14-year-olds were taught economic
competence, if they were taught to understand what a bank account
is, if they were taught to understand how important an interview
is, if they were taught about attitude—all the things that
are unfashionable, all the things which by and large teachers
do not really believe they are there to teach. An employer, at
the end of the day, will graft on the skills he or she needs to
somebody. What he cannot graft on to them are the attitudinal
and self-confident life skills which are the schools' responsibility.
That is one thing I would change. I am not going to sit here and
be an educational specialist and say to you, "This is how
I would get kids to grade C who at the moment are not getting
grade C." That is why I pay my taxes, but I think business
has every right to demand an education system that will deliver
grade C or equivalent in maths and English. The average 35-year-old
male, white adult is fine for looking at the 3.5 million who are
going to work today but every year the education system is pushing
out more of these people, although not as many as there used to
be. Now you see the 10-year-old statistic and far fewer are going
forward. That is uplifting and encouraging but I am not going
to sit here and start telling you how teachers should get a kid
to grade C English. I think business has every right in the world
to say that that is an essential prerequisite for a competitive,
global economy in the 21st century.
Q1231 Helen Jones: But the CBI did
comment on the Tomlinson report so presumably you have a view
about the direction that we ought to be taking. Perhaps you could
elaborate on what that view is and, in particular, could you elaborate
on the comment you made about business wanting young people who
deliver and make a difference with at least numeracy and literacy
and the right attitude. What do you believe is the right attitude,
and how should that be inculcated in schools?
Mr Jones: As far as the context
in which I had said it, it is about the part of Tomlinson where
we have a problem because we like where Tomlinson said he wants
to try and get to and we definitely fully support what he has
said about vocational training and skills and, at the end of the
day, we are not sitting here implacably against a diploma, but
what we are saying is "Please do not take your eye off the
ball and in this initiative to change these identifiable currencies,
GCSE and A-level, do not take your eye off the ball in making
sure that above all else we have young people who can read, write
and count". Our worry is that the education system may be
so keen on the transformation to a diploma that it will leave
behind the focus that we hope has gradually and by and large been
brought in on making sure we have children who can read write
and count. So when we talk about damage education it is about
changing the focus at a time when we think all the focus should
be on ensuring that these people who come through can read write
and count. But how do you get the attitude? We really do need
the teachers who are getting better by the day. I have seen a
change in the teaching community in the last four years all for
the better—far more business achieved, far more engaged
with business in the local communities. In fact, business could
do more to get involved in many schools as well but, nevertheless,
there are certain disciplines, certain competitive elements that
are going to be brought into teaching. We do need to understand
that there are winners in life and there are losers in life and
you have to be equipped to become a winner, and it is a rather
nasty brutal world out there called "competitiveness",
and there is nothing wrong in coming first, and nothing wrong
in dishing out prizes for coming first, and nothing wrong in saying
to somebody "You came last, I am going to help you and equip
you and work with you to make sure you do not come last again
but you did come last". That happens in business every day
in the world all over the place, and schools in Britain have to
understand that applies to them too.
Q1232 Helen Jones: That is interesting,
although I am not convinced about your assessment of schools not
giving out prizes and not being clear about people who come last.
That is based on a very outdated view of what happens in schools,
if I may say so, but if you want—
Mr Jones: Why do you not have
sports days with prizes in many schools then?
Q1233 Helen Jones: They do in most
of the schools I know, Mr Jones. Have you got the statistics to
prove the majority do not? If you want more vocational education
in schools and more understanding of business in schools, does
that not also place an obligation on business to work with the
schools to achieve that?
Mr Jones: Definitely.
Q1234 Helen Jones: Frankly, if we
want young people equipped to come out into the world of work
we have to recognise that that world of work changes very rapidly,
and therefore it needs much more of an interchange between schools
and business to keep up-to-date. Now, what is the CBI doing with
its members to ensure that we achieve that?
Mr Jones: We are a third part
of and one of the major drivers on an organisation called Enterprise
Insight which was specifically formed four years ago, and I was
one of the founders and am proud to be so. It was specifically
designed to bring the understanding of the world of enterprise
and what you need to have to be equipped to succeed in an enterprising
economy, all of which we have just been talking about, into schools.
The CBI puts a lot of time, money and effort into that. We also
spend a lot of time getting smaller businesses to get engaged
with a local school. We do not do enough, businesses do not do
enough, and we can all do more, but I am in violent agreement
with you that we have to do far more on both sides if we are going
to make this work.
Q1235 Helen Jones: Can I come back
to attracting young people into work, say, at technician level?
You quoted past examples of teachers taking people round factories
and saying you will end up here if you do not work hard, for example.
Is that not because, in those days, quite often if you ended up
on the machines in a factory that is where you stayed and there
was no opportunity to progress. How can you demonstrate and how
can your members demonstrate and put into place systems which
ensure that young people, if they do go into work at that level,
are motivated to upskill to technician level but also see that
there is the possibility of progression and that their employers
will assist them in that progression? That it is not putting a
cap on their aspirations but they can achieve from there on? What
changes do you think we need amongst our employers to do that?
Mr Jones: Do you think that still
happens?
Q1236 Helen Jones: In certain areas,
yes.
Mr Jones: Very rarely indeed.
You are absolutely right in saying that is where it all used to
be years ago but if you follow what I said in my introductory
remarks about how everybody has restructured the economy, there
is not room for an employer to remain competitive if he or she
does not ensure that every single employee has the ability to
recognise their aspirations. You do not add your value to your
bottom line if what you are going to do with somebody is keep
them there, pay that, in that boring unproductive job. You do
not succeed in a globalised economy. Capitalism won and the one
thing it did when it won is it made sure that that never again
was going to be able to happen in a developed economy. It will
happen in a developing economy but in a developed economy it cannot
happen because the market will find you out and you have constantly
to upskill and reskill. I was thrilled to bits to find the other
day that the average age of a manager at a Costa coffee, the coffee
shop chain, is 26 years, he or she is getting a turnover of about
half a million pounds a year and employing ten people and they
are 26-years-old. So if you went in at 16 or 17 or 18 and learned,
firstly by wiping the tables and serving the coffee, presumably
you would be looking and thinking "I want to be one of the
shift managers" and then "I want to run my own one",
and that is aspiration. Now, at the start of that you are probably
on the minimum wage, and there is nothing wrong with that as long
as you can aspire, and the employer should have an obligation—which
they do because otherwise they are not going to get added value
out of their employee—to train them up and equip them to
manage. So that is how you do it, and you do it all over the private
sector because this globalised world finds you out if you do not.
Q1237 Helen Jones: But does that
not also require that the training that people get from their
employers not only meets the requirement of the employer but is
also transferable, and I think from the evidence Susan Anderson
was giving to us there is a lot of training going on which is
not necessarily transferable and does not need to lead to a recognised
qualification, and you quoted two of the big retail firms.
Ms Anderson: Just because it does
not lead to a recognised qualification does not mean it is not
transferable. The sort of skills that Digby is talking about,
the supervisory skills or the ICT skills should be, and they are
indeed transferable. Sometimes the problem is that the qualification
system does not allow you to put together lots of bite-sized bits
and say "Right, I have achieved this level" but many
of the skills our members are training their staff in are immensely
transferable. If you are into rocket science maybe not, but supervisory
skills or management, there is not too much difference in running
that Costa coffee as running one of their key competitors.
Mr Jones: Also the market works.
We have very little unemployment in Britain. In fact, in many
areas of Britain we have full employment. At the end of the day,
if you have the chance to go and work for an employer who is going
to say, "I am only going to skill you. You are going to get
paid that much an hour, and by the way, we have a training programme,
here it is, and it is only good for us," and there is one
down the road who is probably paying the same because that is
the market, but at the end of the day he says "I have a training
programme and involved in that are two or three areas which will
skill you for what everybody will be doing in five years' time",
which one would you go to? There are not enough people in Britain
to fill the jobs we have, so the market itself will force employers
into providing better quality training every day. Of course, I
could show you employers who do not do that, I am sure you have
legions, but by and large the market is making sure that employers
are providing more globally relevant training programmes.
Q1238 Valerie Davey: I want to take
you on to 19-plus, where clearly it is almost a matter of history
whether, for a particular vocation, you stay on and go to university
or go out into the world of work. Those two I think are now merging,
and almost overlapping. In the 19-plus area, how do we ensure
that colleges, employers, and higher education as well as further
give those opportunities to young people, and where does the onus
lie? Is it with the employer or the college or university?
Mr Jones: When you say give the
opportunities to young people, do you mean the opportunities for—
Q1239 Valerie Davey: For developing
their skills and potential in whatever way they wish to. It has
always been traditional, if you are going into teaching or the
law or whatever, that you go into higher education. If you are
going to run your own business then by and large you avoid university
and you do something else, and those two are now overlapping.
The need for both skills that we have been talking about today
are beginning to merge. What we are really saying is if you want
your added value work in this country then you need greater skills.
Mr Jones: I am not too sure what
you are asking me.
|
