New route for training
Page 41
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
-IOW should training be orgalised in the future in the road laulage industry? For a start, we io not need Motecs (Multi Occu)ational Training and Education :entres) which were established )y the Road Transport Industry rraining Board that is the view of Ken Rogers, immediate test chairman of the Road iaulage Association.
Association members have )een wondering what is happenng over RHA negotiations with he Government on training and (en was putting the record &eight.
What has happened in broad erms is that the Government Molded that where possible all ndustry Training Boards (ITBs) ihould be run on a voluntary bads rather than statutory, and hat the Exchequer should put to more money into training where this can be provided by tm plovers.
From April 1 this year all adIninistration costs for the RTITB lave had to be met out of levy, whereas formerly this proporion was paid for by the Governnent via the Manpower Services :ommission.
This meant, he explained, that it the stroke of a pen, RTITB noney in the kitty has to be used :o pay for the staff and any .:hanges that may occur. "The 3overnment's policy has been :o reduce the number of civil ser,ren t s and to encourage averyone to take steps to help his change take place." -lowever, he explained, in negoliations together with the Motor 4gents' Association and the Bus Ind Coach Council with the Gov3rnment about taking over total responsibilities from the RTITB, it was discovered that "the kitty is not large enough to pay for all the staff redundancies that we wished."
However. the Bus and Coach Council had said it could form its own training organisation on a voluntary basis.
"That left the MAA and us," he said, "and we told the Government that road haulage is such a diverse industry with so many small operators that it is just not practical to go to a voluntary basis; we need a carrot and stick ,argument in order to make people train.
"The Ministry accepted this and is now considering whether to leave the existing RTITB or split it with two Boards. The RHA and MAA elected to split because our interests are not completely compatible.
"We told the Minister that we would be happy to set up a statutory Board. However, he said there is no more money beyond what is in the kitty and 'any extra expenditure is down to you'. We think that that is a bit much, to say the least. We have gone along with Government plans to reduce bureaucracy and are now told: 'You pay for if!
"We, the RHA, for the industry (the Freight Transport Association does not come into this) said we would be prepared to find up to £800,000 out of future levy for residual costs the MAA up to Elm."
The MSC, he said, set up an inquiry by independent assessors to look at the RTITB's books. This confirmed the shortfall. "The Minister then said that he is happy with what the RHA is saying about assuming responsibility for training, but also said that if the inquiry figures turn out to be inaccurate it is 'down to us'.
"The two Motecs have been valued," said Ken. "But who wants to buy them? Who wants an ex airfield?
"What rankles is that the RTITB staff are on 'Rolls-Royce' conditions and terms of employment with golden contracts given by previous governments and set up by a Tory government originally. So it is quite unfair if we are expected to pick up the tab. I doubt if there are any similar contracts anywhere in the UK, unless they are government ones, I don't know. They have a six-monthly index-related adjustment scheme and periods of notice not found in industry. Good luck to them. In the meantime, the RHA and all hauliers' revenue is down.
"We have set up training groups (GTAs) and feel they are capable of coping with all training. I am absolutely convinced we can cope.
"The Minister argues that ae employers we have been on the Training Board since its inception and that these agreements were reached with the concurrence of the board of management. But the board has nine representatives of employers, nine trade unionists and six educationists, and of these three parties only the employers, who can be out-voted, pay levy."
Ken Rogers added: "Tell the industry what is being done on its behalf."
And as a personal opinion, he asked: "Does all this prove the case for having a condition attached to an 0-licence that the operator should belong to a trade association?"
Ken Rogers is also chairman of the Vehicle Operators Advisory Council which consists of members of the Department of Transport, RHA, ETA and Bus and Coach Council. This was formed in the spring as a result of the Government's intention to privatise test stations, to which the Association is opposed but has decided "to make the best of it". The panel is looking after operators' interests in this changeover, and wants test sta tions to be open at night and weekends in order to reduce vehicle downtime and so save operators expense.
"Virtually all operators are now proud of the way their vehicles are maintained and hgv have the best safety standards. We don't want commercial vehicle testing to go the way car testing has gone, where one garage will pass a vehicle and another will not.
"Our safety record has not had the publicity it deserves it is another area where the RHA is looking after the industry's interests.
"We want to make the association so attractive that everyone who runs a lorry must feet that they should belong. One way is through offering tangible benefits, through such aspects as: vehicle traffic information; approved garages; breakdown services; insurance
scheme; and bulk buying, though-this is not easy; large
companies do 'squeeze' suppliers on rebates for volume. Our members are mostly entrepreneurs and like to do their own deals."
Ken added: -The new-look RHA must provide services and
attract members; our biggest problem is getting these advantages across to the industry at large."
• by John Durant