Examination of Witnesses (Questions 500-519)
MS DINAH
CAINE, MS
LINDA FLORANCE
AND MR
BRIAN WISDOM
14 MAY 2007
Q500 Chairman: You know that in some
areas there will be 100 people wanting to get into a profession
and no planning will change that?
Ms Caine: That is true, but there
are also definite ways in which one can help to focus and nurture
the best talent by bringing together the best partnerships between
industry and those institutions.
Q501 Mr Carswell: I am sure that
many of the justifications for state planning were used in East
Germany before the wall came down. What do you think about the
targets set by Leitch bearing in mind the comments made about
central planning? How do you think some of your member firms will
react to the challenge they set?
Mr Wisdom: I think they are incredibly
demanding in an industry like hospitality and tourism. I think
that the challenge to uprate those skills levels is one that employers
will look at from two perspectives. The first is that today we
probably have the most highly skilled workforce at the front end
of hospitality and tourism that we have ever enjoyed as a result
of the accession of states. The second is that this is probably
not a sustainable position unless we do something about the skills
of our indigenous workforce. The challenge for us is that we know
what the cost is in addressing the Leitch targets in our industry;
it is £700 million. We know that £600 million is being
expended every year to help those skills.
Q502 Mr Carswell: Are you saying
that in your sector it is working and you have the skills you
need but without the intervention of your organisation it may
not work much longer in future?
Mr Wisdom: I think our industry
will say that in the long term it is not sustainable as it is
now.
Q503 Mr Carswell: Without your intervention?
Mr Wisdom: Without some intervention.
Q504 Mr Carswell: Ms Caine, what
do you think of the targets set by Leitch and how do you think
your member firms will react to the challenge that they set?
Ms Caine: In relation to the Leitch
targets I was very pleased to see that they were across the piece.
Quite often in terms of skills debate one tends to focus on the
lower level skills area. Therefore, one welcomes the fact that
there was an agenda round high-level skills, which is very important.
Our industry is composed largely of graduates and therefore that
is the area in which we are most interested. I believe that we
have a role to play with the other Sector Skills Councils in terms
of helping to advance those targets, but inevitably there are
things that industries do which make sense in terms of their businesses
which will probably not be linked to measurement via full-fat
qualifications and therefore will not apparently and necessarily
appear to deliver immediately to those numeric targets. We can
demonstrate where we are helping. I think that they are useful
in terms of focusing an ambition, but I believe it is very important
that they are not the be all and end all in identifying (a) what
needs to be done and (b) what is being delivered.
Ms Florance: My sector shares
some initial concern about the targets which have been set. Their
principal concern is that it is based very much on outputs of
numbers of qualifications, throughputs of numbers of learners
and no real aim at ensuring that what we deliver are skills that
are economically valuable. Therefore, in hitting some of the targets
we may just miss the point. Their point is that we should be looking
at some of the measures; in other words, the outcomes that those
targets achieve. Are we improving productivity across all industries
through the achievement of these targets? Are we improving the
face of the market in terms of job shortages and skill gaps? Are
we increasing the number of learning opportunities for individuals?
It is about overlaying that onto a system. At the same time, my
employers endorse the fact that in particular we need to address
the issue of basic skills, but they see that very often as being
driven by more emphasis placed on intermediate and higher skills
and pulling the rest through on that basis. My industry is changing
every day to a higher value skill equilibrium. In setting a target
that may be interpreted into a universal pledge that every sector
signs up to the same thing flies in the face of the fact that
sectors are different and will respond in different ways to that
gauntlet being thrown down.
Q505 Mr Carswell: Do employers in
your sector value qualifications? To what extent does the tying
of public funding to qualification-bearing courses limit uptake
of training opportunities?
Mr Wisdom: Employers do value
some qualifications when they understand what they mean. What
they value more than anything is skills. The closer you can link
those skills to the qualifications the better. In the example
of the chefs to which I referred by re-establishing an industry
standard employers will gratefully receive that and give it the
kudos it deserves. Similarly, with basic food hygiene standards
although it is a skill that people have to learn there are 19
basic food hygiene qualifications at work. Employers are confused
and someone must take the responsibility for rationalising those
qualifications to a level that employers naturally understand.
I now know what skill level this provides and what occupation
it supports. I believe this is a vital role for Sector Skills
Councils because I do not see another body with that ability to
look at it in that incisive way.
Q506 Mr Carswell: I was going to
ask how you persuade employers that training pays, but I disagree
with the whole premise of the question and will leave it there.
Mr Wisdom: 30% of small to medium
size enterprises in our sector that did not train over a six-year
period ceased to exist in that period, as opposed to 3% of small
to medium size enterprises that did train which went out of business
in the same period.
Q507 Mr Carswell: The presumption
is that it is for a planning organisation that exists through
taxpayer funding to tell businesses how to run them and you can
do it more effectively than they can.
Mr Wisdom: Not to tell them how
to run their business but to advise them of the importance to
their own business survival of participating in training. They
are likely to listen only to another employer organisation.
Ms Caine: You are confusing central
planning and state bodies. We are not state bodies; we are employer-led
bodies. Our boards are made up of the employers from our industry.
Q508 Mr Carswell: You are state funded?
Ms Caine: We are partly state
funded, but there is a difference between regarding those employers
who make up our boards as organisations who are planning, and
therefore applying that planning to businesses that are, as it
were, in no way related to them. They are of those businesses.
Therefore, I believe you can be confident that as a result the
issues which they address and the recommended actions which they
make are borne out of a fundamental understanding of their own
businesses which are businesses operating within those sectors.
Therefore, they would not be giving their time, energy, effort
or resource to an organisation that they regarded as interfering
or being, frankly, a waste of time. We know that businesses hate
bureaucracy, waste and inefficiency. The fact that they are engaged
with us and are working through us is I believe a sign of ultimate
confidence that we are the right bodies to help them with that
planning, not the wrong ones.
Mr Wisdom: You could leave all
of it to the supply side, which is probably where it has been
in the past, and look at the performance of the UK in terms of
skills during that period. I believe that in its own right that
suggests more balance is needed.
Q509 Chairman: The thrust of Leitch
is that all this should be employer-led, but employers in this
country have a dreadful record on training. Surely, it is an enormous
leap of faith suddenly to say, as does Leitch, that it should
all be demand-led and that it should be for the employers. I was
shadow minister for training years ago and it was the same problem.
Employers were short-sighted, did not see the value of training
and did not train or invest in it. What has happened now so that
with Leitch there is faith that employers will not only train
but think of anything other than today or the day after tomorrow?
Mr Wisdom: That is quite a generalisation,
with due respect. The reality is that there are employers who
do not train and many go out of business, as I have just suggested,
which is the ultimate sanction. There are also some who do not
train and survive. In my own sector we know that 30% of them do
not train and of that 25% say that nothing would ever induce them
to train, but they are a tiny minority of employers. The responsible
ones want to do something about that. Within our national strategy
responsible employers are now beginning to talk about whether
they should be putting in codes of practice which ensure, certainly
where there is a public health interest in commercial kitchens,
that minimum standards of training should be carried out within
the industry. I believe that is an example of how responsible
employers can be brought together around Sector Skills Agreements
to look at how they can raise standards of training across the
whole industry.
Q510 Chairman: To take Mr Carswell's
point, can you give an international comparison where there are
no state bureaucracies involved and they do far better, or, to
take my point, is there an international comparator where employers
who care about training lead from the front and show the way we
should do it in Britain? Can you give either of those international
comparisons?
Mr Wisdom: If I take the example
of Canada as a leading example of the perception of international
welcome, in that country there is a very strong sectoral model
of employers. They have a reputation of having the best customer
service.
Mr Carswell: The Internet would
not have started without the sector skills training required?
I just do not buy it.
Q511 Mr Pelling: We have the ability
to show that there are different strands in Conservative thinking.
Ms Caine: Let us hope it all comes
together in one.
Q512 Mr Pelling: Do you think there
are differences in terms of the performance of different sectors
which would justify different degrees of intervention? To put
it another way without irritating people, in the past sometimes
the experience of the hospitality industry has been mixed and
has been of poor calibre because of lack of training. Do you think
it would be better for Government to concentrate on the provision
of funding for particular sectors over others, bearing in mind
the degree of interest in training? It strikes me that there has
been a tremendous market failure when it comes to the hospitality
business, in that there has been a tremendous lack of investment
in training such that we have to import a huge number of staff
from overseas?
Mr Wisdom: I believe there are
other factors which have caused the import of staff from overseas,
although they have always had an important role in hospitality.
But the real issue that now drives the numbers of people who join
the hospitality industry is that the young population is in decline.
The hospitality and tourism industry has always relied on the
under-25 population as key. That population is in decline, and
the industry has a very high turnover of staff. The gap is being
filled by accession state workers where there is a ready supply,
Therefore a slightly different issue drives that. As to your question
about whether you should treat sectors differently, one of the
great facts about sectors is that they are all different and there
are different drivers. Clearly, there will be sectors in decline.
That is not necessarily to do with skills; it may be more to do
with global economic factors or whatever. There will be sectors
in growth. Clearly, within the economy you would want to support
those sectors that are growing and help them maximise the opportunities
to improve their productivity and to compete globally. One would
want to minimise the issues that are being caused by sectors in
decline. I strongly believe that one of the values of Sector Skills
Councils is that there is such flexibility and difference of view
and application to those industries.
Ms Caine: I believe that the notion
of blanket solutions is problematic, as I think is the notion
of talking about employers as a homogenous whole doing this or
doing that is problematic. To analyse by sector makes every sense
in terms of the actions that need to be taken within the economic
context with regional variation. As you rightly say, there is
then absolute difference in terms of the urgent priorities and
whether or not people have been investing, but critically through
the Sector Skills Agreements I think that it will give you and
all of us a tool by which we can see whether or not sectors have
moved in terms of those agendas for action. In my view, if they
have not that becomes a fair, sensible and analysed way to look
at the future and what may need to happen potentially in terms
of those sectors.
Q513 Mr Chaytor: I should like to
ask Ms Florance about qualifications reform. Is it realistic to
assume that all vocational qualifications should be determined
by the Sector Skills Councils and only those that are employer
approved should be eligible for state funding?
Ms Florance: Looking solely at
my sector, there are about 600 vocational qualifications. That
is a huge number for the size of the sector. Leitch mentions that
there are over 22,000 across the nation and all the sectors. Some
work is to be done on treading a path with qualifications reform
which determines the kinds of skills that employers want to achieve
by accrediting someone with that particular qualification. My
employers are keen to see a system that is driven much more by
a credits framework, that is, to put it colloquially, in bite
size chunks of learning. Former qualifications—full-fat
qualifications as people describe them—do not always meet
the needs of today and tomorrow. First, the learner needs to track
a path that may be different for the occupational area that he
or she wishes to enter; second, new technologies come along so
quickly that one needs to be able to bolt on additional pieces
of learning that can quickly meet a need for competitiveness.
As to whether it is realistic, I think that a huge job is to be
done here in terms of qualification reform.
Q514 Mr Chaytor: What is the timescale?
Ms Florance: We are now engaging
in this sector. As the only one based in Yorkshire, I am also
part of the pilot for the UK reform on qualifications. We are
quite well advanced in terms of determining what needs to be done
and having some initial work done on some of the qualifications
framework. We need to develop further our infrastructure as a
Sector Skills Council to ensure that we employer-proof any accreditation
system, because it must be absolutely transparent in terms of
a formal system. We are trying to do that within a framework of
reform which was established pre-Leitch, and we would look to
your support in considering the way in which that process is managed
in future by the Department for Education and Skills and perhaps
consider some reform in terms of the governance for that. I think
we can work rapidly not only in terms of rationalising qualifications
but in generating new ones in some sectors that are fit for purpose.
Q515 Mr Chaytor: Would that increase
the total number?
Ms Florance: I do not think it
would increase the number, but through a mix and match system
one would have core and options in qualifications. It would not
increase the number, because some of them are qualifications that
people think are out there but do not exist any more. Some of
them need tweaking and others need an absolute revolution to make
them fit for purpose.
Q516 Mr Chaytor: Do you believe that
the employees in your respective sectors are fully convinced of
the value of qualifications in terms of increasing wage rates,
or is there more work to be done there and are you doing anything
to raise the link between qualifications and earnings?
Mr Wisdom: While employers do
not have confidence in the qualifications it is very unlikely
that employees will have confidence in them either. In my sector
one certainly must start from a perspective which says that employers
must be given real confidence. I am not sure that I share Ms Caine's
confidence in the speed at which we can make those qualification
changes happen. My experience of the one qualification on which
we have worked, albeit a very important one to do with chefs,
has taken us two and a half years and we are not there yet. That
is simply far too long to correct the endemic faults that are
there in the number of qualifications and to start to build that
confidence that both employees and employers need to have around
that qualification system and framework. There will always be
new ones. We have just completed writing the national occupation
standards for the gambling industry where there were none before.
Clearly, that is an industry where employers treat those standards
with great respect because they help them in terms of self-regulation
and social responsibility issues right now. We would seek to develop
qualifications in that arena to make sure that as that industry
grows people are properly qualified to provide the service that
they require. On the one hand, there is the issue of reducing
the number; on the other, it is a matter of making sure that we
are reacting to changes in society and the economy and delivering
new qualifications where appropriate.
Ms Florance: The point you raise
is a very important one for my sector, particularly an area which
overall has a workforce where most are not qualified up to Level
3 and yet at the same time graduates are being recruited. I have
an ageing workforce which prides itself on its skills and does
not necessarily see the advantage in having those skills qualified
and accredited. Even where employers have wanted to do that and
have the skills accredited there has been some reluctance among
employees. For that reason we have been working quite actively
with Unionlearn to try to encourage that kind of driver from the
workforce. I have to say that we have had some limited success
to that end, but there is a big issue with the existing workforce,
particularly those over 50, in terms of looking forward to accreditation
when they do not see the correlation between that and the improvement
in wage rates.
Mr Wisdom: Someone has to give
the employees the advice and guidance around which qualifications
are meaningful. Today, Sector Skills Councils are best placed
to do that. We are about to launch our information and guidance
system before the end of May and that will provide employees with
the information that says which skills are relevant to which jobs
and which ones are industry admired qualifications. We are able
to do that from a level and uninfluenced point of view. I cannot
see where else that will come from if it does not come from Sector
Skills Councils.
Q517 Mr Chaytor: Leitch argued for
a substantial increase in the number of apprenticeships to 500,000.
Ms Caine, is that relevant to your Sector Skills Council, or do
you think that is a realistic total across the board?
Ms Caine: To go back to what I
said earlier, the good thing about targets is that they encapsulate
an ambition. I said earlier that in our industry 65% across the
piece were graduate entrants. That is partly because we suffer
from an oversupply of people who want to enter the industry, which
brings us problems. One of them is that sometimes we do not necessarily
think very carefully about the way in which we recruit; in other
words, to deal also with issues of diversity, there are definitely
craft roles—camera and sound—which are apprenticeship
roles. To go back to points raised earlier, it is not that we
do not do on-the-job training; it is that we do not necessarily
package that in a way that links to full-fat qualifications that
would be recognised in terms of apprenticeship targets. Our industry
sees that there is a gap and is eager to address it. Certainly,
in terms of looking at the Leitch recommendations and our work
as a Sector Skills Councils that would be the area where we feel
we need to do most to become Leitch-ready and support the delivery
of those targets.
Q518 Mr Chaytor: Your message is
that your employers are positive about the potential flexibility?
Ms Caine: They recognise that
it is a challenge and want to play their part in terms of helping
to deliver that target, albeit the numbers will not be huge in
the industry. That is the power of the network, because in terms
of that overall target there will be other sectors that train
much more through apprenticeships. I think that between us we
are committed to seeing what the aggregate looks like and how
we can help drive towards that number and figure.
Q519 Mr Chaytor: Does the figure
of 500,000 seem realistic to you? Is your sector up for a big
increase in apprenticeships?
Mr Wisdom: The real issue is to
increase the completion rates significantly among the apprentices
we have. In our sector there are some 20,000 apprenticeships in
the framework at any time. Only 40% of those apprentices complete
it. As an example of how the skills system is not really linked
up, we have no knowledge of who is starting their apprenticeships.
We see the numbers only when we certificate them and they leave.
There is no system by which one can see what is going on with
those apprentices and measuring the wastage that goes on today
and why it is happening as people leave the system before they
complete their training. I believe that is a real worry. We would
like to see a doubling of the number of apprentices who complete
within the sector rather than have the current wasteful system.
Ms Florance: My sector will not
create vast numbers of apprentices but it is very focused on craft
and intermediate areas. It is particularly interested in seeing
the expansion of apprenticeships to cover the over-25s, which
is quite critical. In addition, it wants to see many more apprenticeships
tailored to meet clusters of employers. To give an example that
has happened quite recently, there was not an apprenticeship for
leather production. You may think that leather production is quite
small. It is quite small and it is a niche and quite high added
value market. In the south west of England centred around Mulberry
is a cluster of manufacturers who in the main produce high added
value goods. With greater flexibility from the learning and skills
council and a very flexible approach from Bridgewater College
we have managed to develop a new apprenticeship for that sector
in a technical area in which the college formerly had no expertise.
By using the equipment and expertise in the company, the accreditation
facilities of the college and flexibility of the learning and
skills council in developing it we now have the potential which
did not exist before of 50 apprentices a year in that region going
through that apprenticeship. Bridgewater College is doing business
with companies that it has never dealt with before. That is a
success story. It is one of the examples of local and regional
resource on the ground to pull it together, but now we have that
model it is something we can share with other companies in other
parts of the country.
| 
