Examination of Witnesses (Questions 600
- 619)
TUESDAY 6 MARCH 2007
DFES
Q600 Mr Bone: I agree with you, Minister,
that employers want to train their people because, despite the
public image sometimes, employers rely totally on their employees.
That is the company. However, if you are a small or medium sized
manufacturing company I ran one of those for many years we wanted
to do the training but we could not because we were not up to
doing the academic training. We could give very good on-the-job
training and we could be very flexible, so our commitment in cash
terms was to allow our employees to go away to do academic training.
I wonder whether in all these discussions we overlook the very
important small and medium sized enterprise.
Bill Rammell: I do not think we
do. If you look, for example, at the Train to Gain initiative
which is the most substantially funded in-work training programme
that we have developed, there is a very clear focus upon the hard
to reach employers. Through the independent brokerage service,
their first responsibility is to seek out those small employers
who by and large have not historically engaged with Government
training. I am not going to say to you that we are getting this
100% right but, in terms of understanding the imperative to really
target the employers who most need it, that is central to our
thinking.
Q601 Rob Marris: On the figures that
you have kindly offered to Roger Berry, I wondered on a kind of
training pays approach for business if you could give us figures
on that very issue, the size of the employer, because one has
the impression, which may be totally false, that big employers
train and small employers do not and big employers may gain from
it and small employers do not. If you have any figures that would
shed light on that, it would be helpful.
Bill Rammell: We will happily
try to give you a map of that.
Q602 Miss Kirkbride: You mentioned
Train to Gain. Recent studies of Train to Gain have suggested
that there is quite a dead weight cost to it all. I wonder if
you could tell the Committee how concerned you are about it and
how you see that panning out?
Bill Rammell: Within any work
based learning programme there will be an element of dead weight.
The dead weight that was identified through the employer training
pilot suggested an additionality of about 10 to 15%, which of
itself is significant in that employers who had not previously
considered training were doing so. When you evaluate the statistics
in more detail, you find that something like almost a third of
the hard to reach employers would not have trained without the
training pilot, which is significant. Also, it is not just whether
you train or not. Just under 40% would have trained fewer employees.
There certainly is an element of dead weight. We have tried to
take that into account as we have rolled out the Train to Gain
programme nationally, being far more focused on the hard to reach
employers. I believe and hope that, as we roll this forward, the
element of dead weight will reduce, but I cannot say to you that
you will completely exclude dead weight because I am not aware
of any such initiative anywhere in the world where that is not
a factor that is involved.
Q603 Miss Kirkbride: What about the
Individual Learning Accounts? Are you going to bring these back?
They were withdrawn before because of an issue with fraud. How
is that going to be dealt with in the future?
Bill Rammell: We are going to
put them in carefully which I think is the right thing to do.
There were the various Public Accounts Committee investigations.
There was also a separate study that the then Secretary of State
and the Permanent Secretary commissioned in 2002 to really learn
the lessons of what went wrong with individual learning accounts.
However, everywhere I have gone in the last two years, holding
this ministerial post, people have said to me without exception
throughout the sector that there were design flaws in ILAs but,
in terms of what they unleashed in learner commitment to committing
to and investing in your own future, they were very successful
and significant. Even if you strip out the fraud that took place,
the volume of increased commitment to learning through that approach
I think was very substantial. When we bear in mind that in order
to face up to that Leitch challenge, yes, government needs to
do more; yes, the employer needs to do more, but there needs to
be a cultural change in terms of attitudes and aspirations. I
think it is an element of our armoury that we have to explore
further and that is why we are now going to be trialling learner
accounts at Level 3. If we get the design of that right and they
can be successful, I think they can really help us.
Q604 Miss Kirkbride: What are you
doing specifically to iron out the fraud issues that came up before
in the trial?
Bill Rammell: For example, if
you go back to the history of the ILAs, there was no central checking
of provider viability or quality. There was encouragement of the
widest possible range of providers and the determination of eligibility
of courses for funding was decided by the providers themselves.
The way that the learning accounts that we are looking at now
will be delivered is through the Learning and Skills Council where,
by contrast, the provision will be with quality assured providers.
Crudely, the checking takes place before the delivery of the provision
in a way that did not happen with the ILAs.
Q605 Miss Kirkbride: The Train to
Gain programme that you have is based on basic skills and Level
2, the funding of it and the viability of it for the employer
and the employee, but manufacturers want people trained up to
Level 3 in terms of their skills nowadays. What are you doing
about making sure that people can train up to Level 3?
Bill Rammell: I will come on to
the fact that we are doing quite a bit at Level 3 but I am not
going to apologise for the fact that our focus is on Level 2.
There is a very strong degree of evidence that Level 2 is the
minimum platform that you need for sustainability within the employment
market. The returns to the employer or the individual are fewer
at Level 2 than they are at levels three, four and five. Therefore,
as you go up the qualification chain, the responsibility on the
individual and the employer to contribute is greater. The statistic
for me that really rams this home is that workers with Level 2
are three times more likely to receive further training than those
without a Level 2 qualification. If the state guarantees to get
you to Level 2, your chances of progression beyond that are very
significant. That is the defence of the Level 2 commitment. However,
on Level 3, it is by no means the case that we are not doing anything
there. We have two Level 3 Train to Gain pilots that are taking
place for small and medium sized enterprises of fewer than 250
people. We have a Train to Gain Level 3 women's pilot in London.
I think this is a very significant development: we have announced
the extension of an entitlement to a free Level 3 qualification
from the age of 19 to 25. I will be frank. I drove that change
because I became convinced by the number of times around the country
I was told about people from less advantaged backgrounds and communities
who dropped out of the system at the age of 16 or 18, came back
at the age of 21 or 22 and then hit a funding brick wall. Arguably,
we would like to go further than the age of 25 but that extension
of the free entitlement to 25 is a significant development, as
is the trial of learner accounts at Level 3. Level 2 is absolutely
the first and the right priority, but we are doing quite a bit
more up to Level 3.
Q606 Miss Kirkbride: What is the
offer of the pilot programme, given that you have also given a
justification as to why there should not be free Level 3 training
in the majority of cases?
Bill Rammell: In an ideal world,
I would love to be delivering both free Level 2 and free Level
3 but we have to fund it. What we have therefore said is that
the free entitlement is to Level 2. However, at Level 3, there
is a problem in terms of slower progression and some people who
really need that support do not get it because they progress at
a slower rate and that is why we have extended from 19 to 25.
Arguably you should extend beyond 25 but with the resources that
we have available we have made that a priority.
Q607 Miss Kirkbride: That is the
pilot programme then?
Bill Rammell: No. That is being
rolled out—
Q608 Miss Kirkbride: What is the
pilot programme for the Level 3 qualification?
Bill Rammell: The pilot is for
learner accounts. That is not funded but it is the approach to
deliver and develop the learner account. In terms of changing
behaviour and motivating people, quite apart from the financing,
I think that can be significant.
Q609 Miss Kirkbride: It is not Train
to Gain, Level 3; it is learner accounts?
Bill Rammell: No. There are two
Level 3 Train to Gain pilots conducted on a regional basis as
well.
Q610 Miss Kirkbride: Their offer
is what?
Bill Rammell: That offer is that
you will get that free of charge.
Q611 Miss Kirkbride: It is free?
Bill Rammell: Yes.
Q612 Miss Kirkbride: For whom?
Bill Rammell: For people who can
benefit from it within those regions.
Q613 Miss Kirkbride: Decided by whom?
Bill Rammell: Decided by the provider
in conjunction with the employer. It is based on your prior qualifications.
Chairman: Perhaps you could give us a
note on these Train to Gain Level 3 pilots.
Q614 Judy Mallaber: I was also wondering
about the age of 25.
Bill Rammell: That is a national
scheme. You will now be able to access a Level 3 qualification
up to the age of 25.
Q615 Judy Mallaber: That is for everybody?
Bill Rammell: Yes.
Q616 Chairman: I am told that now
there are only seven locations in the country running courses
in printing. I trained at the London College of Printing which
has now been renamed the London College of Communications, I think,
and my father was a master printer so this caused me some concern.
Is not the issue that training for many traditional manufacturing
industries has been in decline? There is now some revival and
demand for it. How do you meet that without taking skilled people
out of the workforce?
Bill Rammell: It is a significant
challenge. Apprenticeships are a key part of the way forward.
What we have to ensure is that that is demand driven from the
employer and not supply driven because otherwise you run the risk
of people getting on to an apprenticeship and then getting to
the end of that programme, not being able to access a job. Whilst
Bologna process there are challenges, if you look at the apprenticeship
figures across the board, about a third of the apprenticeships
are within manufacturing. I am sure there are particular challenges
in particular areas but in terms of the stimulation that we have
given to the system and the way that the number of apprenticeships
have been increased I am not complacent. I think we are beginning
to move in the right direction.
Q617 Mark Hunter: The second Skills
White Paper stated that everybody should be clear what training
they are entitled to and which pathways to follow to get it. I
am tempted to ask you, in view of your answer to Julie's question,
do you think that it is the case that everybody is clear about
the training they are entitled to and the pathways they need to
follow in order to get it?
Bill Rammell: I am not going to
say to you in any sense that everybody is yet sufficiently aware
of what the offer is that exists. However, if you look at where
we are coming from and where we are going to, there have been
significant improvements. The Train to Gain programme and that
very clear establishment of the Level 2 entitlement message is
beginning to get across to adult learners. It is beginning to
get across to people within the workplace but undoubtedly we need
to do more to promote that message.
Q618 Mark Hunter: What is being done
to promote training opportunities to young people and to the employers
themselves? As you said before, it is not just a government thing;
it needs private sector involvement also.
Bill Rammell: There are initiatives
that we take as a department nationally. For example, we are just
about to launch a major communications campaign highlighting the
importance of individuals investing in their own education and
training. Key with regard to employers is the brokerage process
where brokers are ringing up, cold calling, contacting employers,
explaining the Train to Gain programme. Interestingly, the evaluation
of Train to Gain on the part of employers is that they greatly
value that independent brokerage because they feel, "I am
being given it straight here. I am not being talked to by someone
who has a vested interest in directing me towards a particular
college or a particular course." Also, the evaluation from
people who have gone through the programme as learners has been
very positive, with something like 89% saying they are either
satisfied or very satisfied.
Q619 Mark Hunter: If there are other
examples of specifics that the Government is using to promote
training, we would be interested to have a note about that as
well. In view of your previous answers, are you saying that as
a Minister you accept that the current situation is too complex
and that it does need further attention, or do you think that
you have now got to a stage where sufficient progress has been
made?
Bill Rammell: Too complex in respect
of what particularly?
Mark Hunter: In terms of the opportunities.
| 
