Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Slimming course urged for RTITB

17th April 1982, Page 3
17th April 1982
Page 3
Page 3, 17th April 1982 — Slimming course urged for RTITB
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

SLIMMER and fitter Road Transport Industry Training Board ould be created to meet the industry's needs, and should charge a ry of less than the present one per cent, the Road Haulage Assoition has told the Manpower Services Commission.

n a submission on the future the RTITB, the RHA has urged MSC to defer any decision the future of the Board until independent audit has been mpleted, and it believes that ts in RTITB staff and activities ould be reflected by a reduc n in the present one per cent The guiding light, according to RHA, should be: "A slimmer, :er board to provide adequate lining, standards acceptable to dustry, research and delopment, and advisory and nsultative services."

More specifically, it accepts at the ideal solution of splitting a board into separate organitions for road haulage and the rage trade may be too expenre, as the haulage sector is not epared to fund a new board id meet the considerable costs volved in winding up the "ITB.

It believes that the group lining associations hold the y to the industry's future, her with one or two training )ards, and it suggests that any "sacred cows" be slaughred in the process.

Although the RTITB's sugges)n that its Multi-Occupational aining and Education Centre at vingston might be closed has armed several organisations Id many individuals, the RHA goes to the other extreme and says there is no room for either the Livingston or the High Ercall MOTEC.

It believes that the industries cannot afford the E2m bill for the two MOTECs, and suggests that most of their work can be carried out adequately by GTAs and company training centres.

Where GTAs cannot provide special expertise, such as in certificating potential instructors, the RHA says these skills could be bought in as required.

The RHA is equally opposed to the RTITB developing its spare capacity to provide a commercial service to out-of-scope companies, largely because it fears that the Board would be tempted to use its subscribers' funds to provide services below cost.

Instead, it argues that GTAs and commercial firms should meet this risk sector, and the surplus RTITB capacity should be closed down if it is not required. For instance, it argues that outside bodies could provide exhibition services and training production services, and computer, printing, and other electronic office equipment should be updated only where staff savings can be made, and not as a means of developing services.

The general RHA message that the Board should provide a basic service to the industry is backed up by such damning statements as: "Very little importance is attached to the Board's political, economic and social forecasts as they are often inaccurate and are rarely useful to industry."

Instead, it suggests that the industry should depend upon MSC statistics, and "the Board should concentrate on providing information on technical changes which will assist companies to become more productive, profitable and competitive."

The RHA wants the Board to reduce the frequency of its field visits to operators to take account of its reduced sphere of activity, and is particularly dismissive of training audits which it sees as "mainly unnecessary bureaucratic exercises."

The proposed reduction in the RTITB's administration centres is endorsed in principle, but the RHA does add the caveat that, the Board should match its administrative structure to the needs of the transport industry, and not just to those of the MSC.

comments powered by Disqus