Education Committee hears from Qualifications bodies and industry groups
23-May-2007
Summary
Implementation of the Leitch Report into skills would lead to increases in bureaucracy in the sector, MPs were warned today.
Present at the meeting of the Education Committee's investigation into 'Post 16 skills training' were the following witnesses:
Chris Humphries CBE, Chief Executive, City and Guilds;
Isabel Sutcliffe, Director of Qualifications and Accreditation, Edexcel; and
Greg Watson, Chief Executive, OCR.
John McNamara, Chief Executive, British Institute of Innkeeping; and
Alan Stevenson OBE, President, Food and Drink Qualifications.
Opening the proceedings, Labour chair Barry Sheerman asked where the proposals in the Leitch Report on training and skills, were at present.
Mr Humphries asserted that responsiveness of the system and flexibility of provision was a concern to employers. Bureaucracy in the system could be extended by the reforms, he warned.
Responding, Mr Watson stated that a watershed existed in training. He mirrored concerns over growing bureaucracy, adding that employers now needed a greater number of different skills.
Ms Sutcliffe added that investment in technology was needed to enable users to maximise their skills. Edexcel 'tapped into' what happened elsewhere throughout the world, she stressed. It was important to be mindful over a merely economic view of training and skills, she argued, adding that the need to look at the motivation of individuals was crucial.
The National Institute of Adult Continuing Education (NIACE) found that 500,000 adult learners had left the system after cuts in funding, Ms Sutcliffe went on to state. Awarding bodies were at the end of the change, despite being assessed by policy makers as the first issue to be addressed when looking into skills.
Mr McNamara asserted that the British Institute of Innkeeping had 30,000 members, primarily small businesses. Some of the detailed issues raised by Leitch were now coming out, he added.
Many employers would look at how the reforms would affect them, he maintained, adding that if the wrong route was chosen, the skills agenda could move backwards. Sector Skills Councils (SSCs) and sector skill bodies were worked with on the issue, he added.
Alan Stevenson of Food and Drink Qualifications, stressed that the bulk of training in the industry took place inside the larger organisations. Many in the sector relied on non-British workers, he stressed, expressing worry that the future of the sector was not being secured. This had to be tackled and train to gain and other initiatives would be used, he added.
Labour MP Fiona MacTaggart asserted that SSCs were ineffective, as the witnesses had implied.
Responding, Mr Humphries stated that SSCs had a huge remit and limited resources. It was not possible for the group to understand all sectors in the economy, he argued.
It was good in parts, Mr McNamara insisted, adding that qualifications were tested prior to rolling them out, working with SSCs on them.
Ms MacTaggart stated that bureaucracy, through SSCs, was introduced in order to simplify the system through greater rationality and expertise.
Responding, Mr Watson stated that he could not find an SSC for languages or marketing, amongst others. Product based industries were over represented by such bodies, he added.
Elsewhere, Ms Sutcliffe asserted that SSCs had a huge remit, including looking at qualifications. She added that inconsistencies were worked on, adding that a standard SSC/awarding body relationship was not in existence.
Ms MacTaggart asked if SSCs were created to address the needs of small businesses.
In reply, Mr Humphries stated that the system was bureaucratic, offering less choice for employers.
Mr Stevenson added that the 'jury was still out' on the issue. The major experience in the food industry was with the trade associations and this knowledge was not used, he argued. The meat industry now had a confusing set of qualifications in their sector, he maintained.
Traditional vocational qualifications were being 'messed about with', Ms MacTaggart asserted, asking whether any good points existed in the new structure and whether qualifications in fields that had none in the past, were being created.
Mr Humphries asserted that he had supported SSCs. The level of the detail was worrying, however. Skillset was working well, he conceded, highlighting ad hoc training in the sector. Capacity was 'overwhelmed' at many levels, the witness maintained.
Moreover, Mr McNamara added that all witnesses supported the SSC network. Lack of funding meant that many were undertaking greater duties to secure funding for research and other activities.
Mr Watson asserted that new qualifications planned in 2005 in business, failed as sector bodies did not support the changes.
Responding to the question, Ms Sutcliffe asserted that local and regional needs should be addressed, assessing the needs of an individual locality. Good practice could often be removed due to centralisation, she warned.
The chair asked for further information regarding the bureaucratic process.
In reply, Mr Humphries stated that a thirteen stage process to continue a qualification was used at present, including a regulatory consultation and reviews. It was assumed that qualifications needed to be introduced in six months, to meet current business needs. This was at threat due to this bureaucracy, he argued.
Mr Sheerman asked where the SSC's additional powers had come from.
This went back to the national qualification framework, Mr Watson asserted, adding that this came in during 2001.
'Sign off' was originally light touch, Mr Humphries asserted, adding that the increasing of the process through the sector skills councils, as a result of the Leitch report, was problematic. QCA could only sign off courses following SSC approval, he maintained, adding that the system would be more constraining than ever before.
Liberal Democrat Paul Holmes asked about prices of courses, adding that fees had increased by 36 per cent in three years.
Courses had not increased by that level in the vocational sector, Mr Humphries replied, adding that his organisation had kept increases close to inflation. Bureaucracy would increase fees further and the proposed changes would add to bureaucracy, a major worry, he added.
Mr Watson added that greater management had increased costs. The Leitch Report did not count the number of qualifications, he added.
Responding, Ms Sutcliffe stated that the points made were endorsed by her organisation. She added that the vagaries of 'policy diktat' increased costs.
Prices had been frozen for the past three years in the Innkeeping sector, Mr McNamara replied, whilst Mr Stevenson stated that the Food and Drink Qualifications' prices had declined in recent years.
Mr Humphries added that funding had generally increased until cuts last year. Changes to general education requirement did put up fees during the last few years when funding was at its highest.
The witness stated that he would like to see independent work on increases in fees.
Over that period, 'uncredited' learning had moved to 'credited' courses, as assessed by the Learning and Skills Council (LSC) to secure funding.
Greater use of managers was a big cost, Mr Watson added. There was a risk in SSCs playing too big a role, he argued.
Mr Holmes asked whether A-Level moderation fees would decrease and the use of student registrations and marking undertaken on-line, would add to this decline in costs.
Responding, Mr Watson stated that savings were absorbed by large capital outlays at the start.
QCA asserted that fees for new diplomas should be capped, Mr Holmes asserted.
In reply, Mr Watson stated that he would discuss how the system would be streamlined with bodies such as the QCA.
Mr Holmes moved on to modulisation, asking what shifts had been made.
They had been slow, Mr Humphries asserted, adding flexibility, leading to partial qualifications, was needed. It was not clear whether enough choice would be created by the national occupational standard. He questioned how the funding regime would support this as only full qualifications were funded at present.
Mr Humphries added that big issues were yet to be resolved. Freedom of choice was not being created as the system had proclaimed when it was created.
The Vocational Qualifications Reform Programme board was seeking to review the issues, the witness added, stressing that 'shared commitment' was evident in the sector.
Mr Watson highlighted poor collection of data regarding the numbers of students enrolled on courses.
Labour MP Jeff Ennis raised the 2020 targets in the Leitch Report, including the doubling of apprenticeships and planned increases in literacy.
Ms Sutcliffe asserted that targets could be 'blunt instruments' and a merely economic response could be too narrow. Regarding moves towards level two qualifications, she argued that a single definition was not apparent.
Some individuals did not need a level two due to skills gained in the work place, she added, stressing the need for such skills to be taken into account. Level four skills targets were welcome, she added, stressing the need for high level qualifications. She questioned whether such skill levels would lead to a positive impact on the economy.
On whether employers welcomed the targets, Mr McNamara asserted that small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) would not know what level two qualifications were, adding that many of them trained their workforce anyway.
Train to gain was beginning to change the culture of the food industry, Mr Stevenson added, stressing that the targets were 'extremely ambitious' and question marks remained over the security of the funding for the qualifications.
Mr Ennis asked what made a good SSC.
John McNamara stated that working with other bodies and using a strategic view of the sector made a good SSC.
On the expanding powers of the SSCs and a reduced role for awarding bodies, Mr Watson asserted that he did not seek to protect his own sector, as set out at present. Tight prescription by industry was needed and good practice should be allowed to flourish, including that provided by businesses, he insisted.
The Leitch Report should be taken through in one sector, allowing it to be assessed with other methods, the witness insisted.
Mr Humphries asserted that his organisation had kept pace with business needs, exemplified by its 128 years of existence. He argued that a system that gave employers and people what they needed, should be created.
The witness stated that the views of employers and learners should be listened to more. They had personal and individualised needs that the system needed to respond to, he argued.
Over the last ten years, 'remarkable' successes were evident, in particular regarding the numbers of those undertaking courses and modern apprenticeships, together with the increase in employer-led courses, Mr Humphries stated.
Liberal Democrat Stephen Williams asked whether the sector was demand-led at present.
Responding, Mr McNamara stated that it was unusual in the sector for workers to be released for training one or two days a week, apparent in larger businesses only. He argued that it was difficult to get employers in hospitality engaged.
Stephen Williams asked if a tension existed between what the Treasury wanted and whether the system would be demand-led.
There was a question over whose demand was being met, Mr Humphries stated. Demand-led could lead to command-led, he asserted, adding that modulisation was essential for flexibility. There was nothing wrong with the policy, he argued, stressing that there was in the way it was being led.
Ms Sutcliffe asserted that a regulatory body system was needed to bring the changes forward.
On training in hospitality and increases in the training age to 18, Mr McNamara asserted that Government support for such courses had not existed in the sector in the past.
He added that companies already spent a large amount of money on training.
The chair asserted that a need for chefs in hospitality was evident at present.
It was a competitive business, Mr McNamara replied, adding that pubs were introducing a new qualification for chefs working in the sector, accrediting training undertaken.
Mr Humphries stated that it was not unacceptable for the state to pay some of the costs in the sector.
Clait was the most heavily used qualification, Mr Watson asserted, adding that was because the course was reassuring and often provided a way back into work for those re-entering the job market. Courses that involved people in learning needed to be retained, he argued.
Labour MP Gordon Marsden asked how light touch the system should be to boost employer engagement.
Responding, Ms Sutcliffe stated that the needs of those within a strong vocational sector, needed to be assessed. Edexel had a more 'mature' relationship with its regulator, she highlighted, adding that, in meeting an employer's demand, it worked well.
Employers were diverse, making a simple solution difficult, she conceded.
Mr Marsden asked if qualifications needed to be reformed because they did not address employer needs.
In reply, Mr Humphries stated that the vast majority of cases were reviewed every two to three years, compared with every five or six years as in the past. The gap between need and delivery was increasing, he argued.
Asked on the rate of turnover of courses, Mr Watson stated that turnover was on an annual basis as 'stasis' gripped the sector in the light of the Leitch recommendations.
Moving on, Mr Watson asserted that 75 per cent of courses introduced were successful whilst only 10 or 15 per cent of those introduced by the SSC were.
Mr Humphries added that SSCs did not want to remove low take up courses from the market as they wanted them to be taken up by the industry.
Elsewhere, Mr Watson stated that he thought that courses failed because they were mandatory and a strict licence to practice was not welcomed in the industry.
Mr Marsden asked if some qualifications should have a sunset clause, to help create confidence in the system.
Arguing against this, Ms Sutcliffe asserted that the current system worked well.
Mr McNamara stressed that sunset clauses were already built in, adding that courses were withdrawn if they failed to become accepted.
Asked on whether employer-led courses should be accredited, the witness asserted that they should be if appropriate.
The Meat Training Council's training was often family orientated, Mr Stevenson asserted, highlighting courses that had been introduced in-house, such as knife skills.
Tesco, Orange and London Underground training schemes were being accredited, Mr Humphries asserted. Tesco had changed training and reporting and assessment procedures in order to meet the qualification framework, in line with what workers wanted, he added.
It was essential to make such changes easier, he argued. Maintaining quality was also important, he stressed.
