No love lost for RTITB
Page 27
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
by Derek Moses
• A hail of criticism was hurled at Mr K. C. Turner, chairman of the Road Transport Industry Training Board, following his presentation of the paper "Industrial training in the road passenger transport industry" to the conference of the Public
Road Transport Association (CM last week). The reaction was summed up by one
delegate who said: "I have never been to a conference before where everyone on the floor disagreed with the speaker."
The discussion, in fact, set the tone for what must have been one of the best psv conferences' for a long time. On Thursday, the paper "Single or double?", by Mr R.
Bailey, general manager of Lancashire United Transport Ltd (reported at length last week), brought the lively discussion anticipated, although the question asked by the author was not, in fact, resolved.
At last Wednesday's business session, Mr Turner took the criticism quite coolly, and in his reply refuted a number of allegations made against the Board, though I doubt if many of the delegates were really convinced by his reassurances.
The feeling of the delegates was reflected by the last speaker, Mr Cl. G, Hilditch
(Halifax) who asked Mr Turner several leading questions: "Are you really doing any good? Why are you not generally liked in the psv industry and what have you done wrong? Why should other sectors of the industry not pay as well?" Mr Hilditch referred to remarks he had made at a conference before the Board was established, when he said, in respect of the proposals: "I am very sceptical indeed. We will not get a fair return for our money." He was sorry to say that his scepticism had proved to be right.
The ball was set rolling by Mr W. Leese (Ribble), who said he had a great deal of
criticism. There should be greater flexibility, he thought, and higher grants for training. The training of fitters was oriented to car fitters, and bodybuilders, turners and panel beaters were excluded. Surely the criterion should be "Does the course fit the need?" and therefore qualify for a grant, he said.
Mr Leese was very concerned about the proposed Block Training Grants system, and the fact that the grant from the Board to Ribble would be down to £25,000 next year for the training of drivers, conductors, fitters and trainees, Last year the cost of training 650 conductors alone had been £18,000. He recognized the need for the RTITB to balance its books, but the industry needed more grant aid.
No significant change in the quality or quantity of trainees in the first three years of the Board's existence was the charge made
by Mr J. Rostron (Huddersfield), who reminded Mr Turner that the industry were
leaders in apprentice training and who claimed ihat the levy and grant scheme involved them in too much paperwork.
However Mr G. Brook (Ribble) went further and stated that "financial justice" was what the psv industry needed more than any other industry. Mr Brook claimed that only 350 out of the first 5000 trainees to pass through Motec were psv men—a mere 7 per cent. The Block Grant proposals would hit the very companies they should help. What the psv industry was doing was providing help to the bottom end of the scale—small retail garage fitters who used to be the industry's customers.
Mr E. W. A. Butcher (Bristol) said that the industry had suffered from the mixing of road haulage, psv and retail garages under one Board. He could not say that his group of companies had received any real benefit from the RTITB. Mr G. Carruthers (United Welsh) claimed that the short course of management training proposed was very .much overrated. A good point raised by Mr Carruthers was the need to employ part-time instructors. These men had to be usefully employed at other times and they needed grant recognition.
Next to open fire was Mr J. M. Birch (Past chairman of the Council of the Association) who said that they had been told that the Board would comprise three sub-sectors—one for' psv. This had not happened so the levy went to the motor retail industry. Furthermore, the policy committee would have only one member from the psv industry. The Board was very good at spending other people's money.
Aid W. Alker (Conoco Ltd and former chairman, Bury transport committee) added oil to the fire with his accusation that the RTITB was not tackling things in the right way and talking to men in the industry. "The Board sits in its ivory tower, does not want to know about the psv industry, but wants to tell them what to do," he said.
Finally, before Mr Hilditch asked his searching questions, Mr D. W. Glassboro
(City of Oxford) claimed that the Board had created unanimous opposition from the busmen. Mr Turner had not explained why they could not have a federal structure with a separate Board for psv. "There has been a major failure of communication," he said.
Turner's defence
In his reply, Mr Turner, quite unruffled by the onslaught, claimed that the notion that the industry was paying more than its fair share was quite wrong. They had paid out £1 4m in levies and received £12m in the way of grants could not continue.
It was just not true that the psv industry supported retail garages, he continued. With regard to bodybuilders, control of their training had just been handed over from the Engineering Board. The RTITB would continue the programme it had inherited.
On the subject of Block Grants, Mr Turner said that the Board now had more control on grants and must keep its finger on the pulse. It thought it had simplified the paperwork, which should not take more than two minutes a week.
Everybody wanted the money, he continued, but no one wanted an increase in the levy. Not one single psv training scheme in line with the RTITB proposals had been started in the country, he declared. The operator associations had been consulted and asked for comments before the proposals were effected.
As for the questions from Mr Hilditch, Mr Turner promised to put these to the next meeting of the Board.