Examination of Witnesses (Questions 420-425)
MR MARTIN
DUNFORD AND
MR GRAHAM
HOYLE
9 JANUARY 2006
Q420 Stephen Williams: Some final
questions on the role of Government as a whole as a champion of
skills and FE. One of the ideas that Foster suggested was a biannual
conference where the permanent secretary of the Department would
meet with the various skills providers. Presumably you think that
is a worthwhile initiative?
Mr Dunford: Absolutely, yes.
Q421 Stephen Williams: I will repeat
the question I have asked all witnesses who have come before us
on this particular inquiry about the Government, and I will caveat
it in the same way. It is in no way a comment on the current post
holder. Do you think FE and skills are championed enough by Government
and in order for it to be championed enough it needs its own internal
champion as a minister? The current post holder, Bill Rammell,
covers FE, skills and HE. Do you think there would be merit in
there being a single government minister for further education?
Mr Dunford: Certainly having worked
in this activity for 15 years, I would say the championing and
promotion of skills has never been greater; whether that is enough,
I do not know. I would hate to see the title "Minister for
FE" because people misinterpret it as colleges. We do have
a Minister for Skills and I would stick with that title. Certainly
having meetings with Phil Hope and hearing him talk and so on,
I think we are championing skills and I am sure we could do even
more.
Mr Hoyle: Again, my answer is
exactly the same. Whether we want a specific focus I am not sure,
we certainly do not want FE. I agree, I have never known skills—I
know that is not quite what your question was—so far up
the political agenda and I have been in this game for quite a
lot of decades and I welcome that. I am sure a greater focus would
always be welcome, so we look for it. I do not think we ought
to minimise the rise up the political ladder which skills has
done in the last few years.
Q422 Mr Chaytor: Can I come back
to the question of apprenticeships and the problem of non-completion.
Is not the real solution, rather than putting more money in to
create more places for people not to complete, to change the structure
of the apprenticeships so they are more portable? Have you made
any proposals along those lines?
Mr Dunford: I was on the End to
End Review of modern apprenticeships, I think it was 2003, and
portability is really a very important issue. This is when a pure
employer focus does not work. You have staff turnover in all industries
in a healthy economy and if you are a young person who is halfway
through an apprenticeship and you leave, unless the provider follows
you, is there when you leave, finds out where you are going and
it is in the same industry, you are lost. We do need to look at
portability and we need to look at a clearing house for applicants
for apprenticeships because one of our members turns down about
eight in every 10 applicants because they have such a demand—that
is in electrical installation—because those people obviously
are interested in apprenticeship and learning at work and maybe
they can be referred somewhere else. Certainly we need a mechanism
for when people do move, so that you can follow them if at all
possible.
Q423 Mr Chaytor: Are you aware of
any detailed work that is being done to look at this?
Mr Dunford: I am aware that recommendation
of the End to End Review is being picked up, and I was given an
update on what is going on but I cannot find it at the moment.
Portability is a big issue. This whole issue of staff turnover
has never been looked at, it is sort of ignored. It is sort of
a 40% completion rate and you are learning at work and people
change jobs. It is quite difficult when you are selling to the
employer and the individual at the beginning, to come up with,
"If you move job this is your moving pack, this is what you
can take with you, this is the number you ring" and so on
and so forth.
Mr Hoyle: Can I provocatively
add one little bit to that, and it is a shame the earlier group
have gone, they would not like it. I think there is a danger.
What I generally support is putting employers much more in the
driving seat in terms of design. Overall, that is the right general
direction but there is a danger in going too far. It almost comes
back to the point you were making about employers used to do it
all themselves anyway. One of the weaknesses of the traditional
apprenticeship scheme was only in some sectors and it was very
much geared up for the particular need not just of the sector
but often the particular employer. Very good apprenticeships were
good for employees. We have Rolls-Royce where I live and Rolls-Royce
employees were not as transferable as people would have had them
believe. We have got to be very careful with the SSCs and the
employer-led, which I generally support, that they do not start
playing around with frameworks too much because I have heard some
of them, for instance, are now talking about dropping technical
certificates, and I can understand an individual employer saying
that. Someone else mentioned diplomas. If they start taking out,
if you like, the knowledge-based elements of it and then we start
positioning apprenticeships alongside the new diplomas as they
come online, we will completely devalue apprenticeships in the
future and do them inestimable damage. I think there are some
real tensions here about the correct oversight and direction which
should be given by employers, and the way they have got to be
positioned within the total educational framework of 16-19 and
beyond.
Q424 Mr Chaytor: Whose responsibility
should it be to take these ideas forward, considering the implications
of turnover and working on more portable apprenticeships? We have
now a huge number of agencies working in the skills field, who
should take the lead on this?
Mr Hoyle: It comes back to your
question about the relationship between DfES and the LSC, and
it can only be within a choice of two, in my view, it has got
to be within there. Again, you are back to the policy of delivery
discussion, which I alluded to earlier on, so I would not back
a particular horse at the moment, but that is where the answer
has got to come from. I think these things have got to be put
together and discussed as a whole and quite critical decisions
made.
Q425 Chairman: This has been a very
refreshing session because, in a sense, you are slightly outside
some of the evidence we have taken because you are in the independent
sector. You have heard what the last group of witnesses said and
we have had a good session with you. Is there anything you would
like to tell the Committee in terms of improvements that you would
like for the skills sector, that you think are the priorities,
because this is your opportunity, you are on television and it
is going to be all written down by our team here? This is your
moment.
Mr Dunford: We think contestability—which
is an awful word—competition or learner choice and demand-led,
implementing it is the most important issue. We would like to
see a suite of work-based learning programmes which address the
NEET group with a wider entry to employment right up to foundation
degree. We think that way the target of the Government for 50%
into HE can be better achieved and would be more realistic and,
from an economic point of view, would be better and a continued
focus on apprenticeships and work-based learning. We are concerned
about Sector Skills Councils losing that focus because of having
to generate income. We have had the experience of TECs being targeted
to generate income and become self-sufficient and so on. I am
concerned that when you read what the Sector Skills Councils are
supposed to do, then you look at RDAs and the regional LSC structure
and so on, they are not even properly knitted together. We have
got the situation in Greater London at the moment with the Mayor
and the LSC. I think there can be greater coherence and Foster
does talk about this. Certainly, from our point of view the direction
of travel is the right one. The Government is spending more money
on skills, it is higher up the agenda, and it is our job to make
sure the independent sector is higher up the policymakers' agenda
too because there is a lot more we can do. We do not want to stay
in this box of, "They do work-based learning work with employers",
for example adult apprenticeships, basic skills for adults and
many other things.
Mr Hoyle: You would not expect
me to attempt to upstage my chairman, so I shall not, but I will
make an offer, if I may, and this is seriously. If any Members
of the Committee at any stage want to have a look specifically
at work-based learning providers or if there is an element you
feel you are not fully up to speed with, we would be delighted
to lay on a visit or some kind of programme for you.
Chairman: That is a kind offer. Martin
Dunford, Graham Hoyle, we have learnt a lot, thank you.
|
