Examination of Witnesses (Questions 240-245)
CHRIS HUMPHRIES,
TERESA SAYERS,
TOM BEWICK
AND FRANK
LORD
25 JUNE 2008
Q240 Mr Cawsey: I want to move on
to Train to Gain, which obviously you will be very well aware
of, and we have had written submissions about the difficulties
with that scheme. What do you think are the key difficulties of
Train to Gain, are they repairable or is that yet another one
where we need to go back to the drawing board and think again?
Frank Lord: There just seems to
be a little bit of a fuzz between brokers and providers around
Train to Gain where you will have some providers that maybe have
got targets to meet, so they are going very, very specifically
to look at what outputs they need to meet, and you have got brokers
that are going in to signpost employers to where they should go
for the training and then those follow-ups from that provider
can be quite patchy and selective, and I think there are issues
around that.
Chris Humphries: I think Train
to Gain was an idea designed to try and address some of the demand-led
issues which are still actually getting better. I think the new
sector compacts, as they are described, do provide a more responsive
package of opportunities, but, if you were going to ask me, I
would think there is yet more to be done in the extent to which
Train to Gain actually responds to a coherent training plan from
the organisation and offers a tailored response rather than operating
on very rigid rules about qualification levels which just too
often do not align with what the employers' real strategic, long-term
needs are. I do not think it is a bad idea in concept, but I think
we actually could do a lot more to develop its effectiveness and
its value and return.
Q241 Mr Cawsey: We have already had
some evidence that compacts are just going to be another thing
that is going to make no difference and end up being put on the
shelf. Is that a fear that you have and, I suppose from that,
what difference do you think they are going to make?
Chris Humphries: I think the concept
behind sector compacts is to try and give employers a better choice,
a better way in which to link their strategic needs with their
training requirements with the system. I think the weakness at
the moment is that it still does not try to start from the needs
of the business in relation to strategy and skills and, if it
did and what we designed was a response that met their needs,
but tariffed in such a way that it gave meaning to Brian's suggestion
earlier about getting employers to pay for those higher-level
skills that they get most return from, in other words, if you
had a tariff and a tripartite responsibility built into the funding
regime around a training plan from the company, you could create
something that still sticks to many of the concerns about basic
skills and moving up the higher-level skills ladder, but does
it in a way that is responsive to it and, therefore, produces
a better impact on the business.
Q242 Chairman: Is this the honest
truth, that you cannot give away money, as far as Train to Gain
is concerned, that you cannot give it away, and that sector compacts
is just another idea of trying to get rid of the money?
Chris Humphries: No, I think it
is a slightly bigger and different problem. I think we have designed
a system with too many rules, that the employer experience starts
with the broker who is incentivised on getting to the next stage,
so could exaggerate what is on offer and the employer then finds
from the provider that actually what is on offer does not quite
meet the employer's needs, and we do not have a system that offers
an all-through service.
Q243 Mr Cawsey: So what would be
the measure of the effectiveness of the compacts? How are you
going to be able to show in the future that they actually made
a difference?
Chris Humphries: As long as the
operation of the compact is based around responding to a strategic
plan and looking at the skillsets, you can actually look at it
both in terms of the achievement of the individual and you could
even relate it, over time, to the return to the business of that
activity. You cannot do that with Train to Gain in its current
form, but you can do it in a system that is designed to buy a
training plan and fund on the basis of a shared responsibility
between the State, the individual and the employer, and I think
you could create a much more effective system.
Tom Bewick: You asked the question
about the measure and, obviously knowing that the Committee is
taking an interest in Train to Gain, it is worth saying that 30%
of our workforce currently are below Level 2, and it was very
difficult actually getting information from the system about our
sector and where we were in terms of broker referrals and actually
numbers of people who benefited from Train to Gain. I was astonished
at the figure across the broader creative industry, and I should
qualify that, not just those covered by creative and cultural
skills, but it would include media and publishing, there are currently
only 100 people who have benefited from Train to Gain across those
broad industries, which represent, by the way, 8% of our economy.
Therefore, I think if you have got 30% already under-qualified
below Level 2 and there is an ambitious Leitch target around Level
2, then we have got a serious issue here which we need to address,
so I am looking forward to the discussions with the Learning and
Skills Council about the sector compact because one of the things
I will want to say to them is, "How do we go from 100 people
to a figure that is far more representative of the scale of the
challenge for Level 2 within our sector?"
Q244 Mr Cawsey: This is to Tom and
Teresa really, the Alliance of Sector Skills Councils has expressed
particular concerns about programme-led apprenticeships. What
are those concerns and what should be the priorities for changes
in the apprenticeship scheme?
Tom Bewick: My short response
to that is that they should not exist really. They do not in Germany
and other countries. The whole point of an apprenticeship is that
it is an employer and an employee, albeit an employee who is at
the start of their career, who is going to learn on the job or
partly off the job in a particular occupation or area. The idea
of putting people into sort of cold storage for 12 or 24 months
and calling that an apprenticeship, I do not see the sense in
that, personally.
Teresa Sayers: I would absolutely
agree with that. I think the value that an apprenticeship scheme
can bring is taking the technical knowledge and applying that
in a workplace context, and that cannot be done unless the individual
is actually in that workplace context.
Chris Humphries: I would say that
any apprenticeship is good, so I would not draw the distinction
against programme-led. What we need to integrate within them are
personal learning skills, thinking and creative skills and self-management
skills, and we need to include them in the new qualifications
and credit framework, particularly on the 14 to 19 Diploma to
count and vice versa so that they are integrated, and, as far
as HE is concerned, accredited for UCAS points. They are the things
I would say.
Q245 Mr Marsden: Chris, with hundreds
of thousands of fewer young people in the next ten to 15 years
and an emphasis on reskilling of the adult workforce, have we
yet reflected that in the priorities for the National Apprenticeship
Service and, if we have not, what is your Commission going to
be able to do about it?
Chris Humphries: We are undertaking
some work looking at apprenticeships as part of our year one work
programme. You are right, I think that there are some real issues
around the demographics challenge over the next 10 years. It does
not mean that we should reduce opportunities for UK apprenticeships,
but what it does mean, I think, is that we have to recognise that
we are going to be more dependent than ever before on drawing
adults of working age not currently in work into the workforce,
and we do not yet have a coherent offer to service that group
of people who will need significant updating in modern work skills
and requirements and, equally, traditionally have a poorer learning
record and academic success record and, therefore, are harder
to train. My big concern is that this big decline starts in two
years' time and runs for the whole of the next decade, if the
ONS is right, and we do not have yet policies that really seek
to address that directly.
Chairman: Thank you very much indeed.
Chris Humphries, Teresa Sayers, Tom Bewick and Frank Lord, you
have been a splendid panel this morning. Sorry we have overrun
on your section, but thank you very, very much indeed.
|
