on road transport of the ndustrial Training Act

23rd September 1966, Page 151

23rd September 1966

Page 151

Page 152

Page 153

Page 151, 23rd September 1966 — on road transport of the ndustrial Training Act

Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

BY SIR JOHN HUNTER, CBE BS

chairman of the Central Training Council

['RAINING consultant was recently called in by a firm which was concerned at the prospect of having to pay bstantial training levy to its industrial training board was wondering in what directions it ought to expand its log effort. After careful examination of the firm's Ltions, the consultant concluded, and advised, that there ad to be a very strong case for instituting a training ne for the firm's lorry drivers and vehicle maintenance The reason he gave for this conclusion was that distriin costs formed a very significant proportion of the total operational costs but that, despite this, the firm tended to take for granted the quality of its drivers transport management.

hat is true of that firm is true also of the country. The I, efficiency and reliability of our road transport services Lbsolutely vital to our economic well-being. Of course, qualities depend on a number of factors—a good road m, for example—and not just on having well trained Ts and mechanics. Nevertheless, this is one of the Ttant conditions for a successful transport service. And plains why the Minister of Labour has been anxious to dish an industrial training board for the road transport ;try at this time. I am personally delighted that he has so, since it was the Central Training Council which urged the need for a board for this industry.

believe it is one purpose of this Conference to examine implications for the industry of the establishment of a ing board. I am sure you will take this opportunity to ider what special problems deserve early and urgent con ation by the board. My contribution to such discussions Le technical level will, I fear, be a limited one since my experience has largely been with sea, rather than la] transport.

What I propose to do, therefore, is to talk about the mai tasks which any training board has to face up to, and abc the steps which a board will usually expect firms in industry to take to put training on a sound basis. I ho that my remarks will serve, at once, to define for this Cc ference the powers and functions of a training board and give some idea of the way one hopes the board for the ro transport industry may go about its business.

Most of you will by now have some familiarity with t main provisions of the Industrial Training Act. Its purpc is, of course, to enable the Minister of Labour to establi industrial training boards for such industries as he considt appropriate. It is the Minister's job, too, to determine t scope and extent of the industry covered by a board: thou he does this after very extensive discussions with interest organizations.

The Act also defines the duties of each training boa These are: to ensure that sufficient training is provided all types and levels of staff (non-manual as well as manu let it be added); and to make recommendations about t nature, content, method and length of training for differ( occupations. These duties are carried out through the one: tion of the levy-and-grant system. That is to say, the boa decides how large an incentive it is necessary to offer fir in its industry to encourage them to train to the stands recommended. It determines its grant policy in the light • this and then deduces the rate of levy which firms in industry must pay. The principle is simple. All employers will be expeci o make their contribution to the industry's training effort. hose who so decide may elect merely to pay the levy. Others in time, let us hope, the great majority—will decide to am, and will qualify thereby for grants from the board hich will offset part or all of the levy they have paid. Indeed, those firms doing very much more training than the average may expect to receive back in grants more than they pay in levy. This is because, generally speaking, grants will depend On both the amount and quality of training. To put it another way, they will reflect the costs incurred by an employer who is providing an approved standard of training.

All this will be familiar ground to most of you. But perhaps may add two points which, though obvious enough, are often overlooked or misunderstood. The first is this: a training board is a servant of its industry. Its members come from the industry; and the levy which the board raises is wholly expended in developing training in the industry. It not a Government tax, though the board's levy proposals require the Minister of Labour's approval. The board should therefore be fully in touch with the problems faced by employers operating in its industry. Similarly, the board will :be successful only to the extent that it has the confidence of those employers.

The second point to note is that a board should not have to assume the burden of providing training, at least to any considerable extent. The whole purpose of the Act is to encourage employers to train and develop their own staff. Indeed, this is generally the only possible way of seeing that employees can do what the employer expects of them; and • that training meets firms' requirements. It is a basic assumption behind the Act that effective training is a worthwhile and profitable investment by an employer as well as being essential from the national point of view. The board's job is to encourage—and guide—this investment rather than itself to provide extensive training.

First major task This brings me to the first major task a board has to undertake. Briefly, this is to convince the management—top management—of firms in its industry that: training is a matter of good business; if it does not "pay off" it is either irrelevant to the firm's needs or ineffective—or both; and the whole purpose of the board is to give employers every possible assistance and advice in working out training programmes which meet the firm's requirements.

If the board can convince top management of these truths— and only if then—the machinery established by the Industrial Training Act can, I believe, bring about a revolution in the • way we develop and deploy our manpower; a revolution with the happiest results.

But I have begged a vital question. Who is going to help firms help themselves? Where are these advisers and consultants, these training " wizards " coming from? Surely the more expert staff the board recruits, the fewer left behind in firms to look after the day-to-day work of organizing training. Where do you find the necessary people?

Each training board has itself to build up, and replenish, the all-too-scarce resources of expertise on which both it and the industry will have to draw. Training advisers and training officers have to be trained. The Central Training Council has published a booklet outlining the kind of introductory training course which would-be training officers and advisers should undergo before—or as soon as possible after— appointment. The course we recommend lasts a minimum of six weeks. Ideally we would prefer very much longer. This course can only be a beginning of the process of training a training officer. But it will at least give training staff an • appreciation of their most essential functions and of some of the skills they need.

I hope, therefore, that among the first decisions the board for the road transport industry will take will be to give top priority to the training of more training specialists both for the industry in general and for its own staff. I also urge those delegates to the Conference who are managers in firms within the scope of the road transport board to consider whether members of their staff ought not to have the o tunity of attending one or other of the various course training officers now available in a number of colleges.

We cannot expect firms to improve their training grammes and methods without the assistance of those have been taught to analyse job and training requiremen apply new systems of instruction, and to evaluate the st of what is done. It is no exaggeration to say that the gn need is for people of this kind. Because of the importai attaches to this problem, the Ministry of Labour makes not only to boards in respect of their expenditure on cc for training officers but also to firms outside the scope c board who send staff on these courses.

A special problem

However, not all firms can justify the appointment full-time member of staff to be concerned solely with acb on its training problems. In the small firm, indeed, no ber of management may even be engaged part-time on ing development work—far less equipped by training 1 so. Such firms present a special problem to the board it may be unrealistic to expect that many of them will properly trained trainers for some years to come. They look largely to their board for expert help.

I believe it is right that the board should devote a deal of time to helping them overcome their difficulties. may involve encouraging small firms to combine togeth form a "training group" with its own training advis, instructor—perhaps even with its own training centre. I probably also involve the boards' staff in advising these firms about the simplest and most effective ways of ii menting the board's recommendations. That is why it is to regard the board's field staff as consultants rather th. inspectors; even though they will, of course, be cone' also with inspection. Since to many small firms the lev. seem particularly burdensome, the board will be wi; recognize a special obligation to help them.

Discussions inevitably return again and again to the How much will it be? When will we have to pay? Wi be able to dodge it? Is there any appeal? As I explain the outset, the rate of the levy is determined afresh for industry by its board. The amount raised depends la on the amount and standard of training required. most boards so far have decided to base levy on a ce percentage of a firm's payroll, there have been conside variations between them in the percentage amount ch The Engineering Industry Training Board decided earl that the levy on its employers should reflect, as near possible, the total cost of training in the industry: 1pei of payroll was thought to be of the right order of magni Most other boards have made a more cautious beginnin several cases the levy proposed stands at or about 1 pei of payroll.

Different approaches As the Conference will appreciate, much depends ot policy or philosophy or system of priorities which un the board's proposals, as well as on the degree of required. Most boards have thought it wiser to " grantcertain forms of training or certain items of cost consi( to be of special importance than to attempt to work c comprehensive grant system covering all training. Thu! example, several boards in their first year made gran respect of: courses for training officers and instruc "sandwich" courses for technological students; day-re courses; off-the-job training in special centres or school expenses incurred by an employer in having a training st carried out in his firm.

Each board will adopt, initially, a slightly diff approach. They may accord priority to different tra objectives. They may progress at different speeds. But probable that in the long-term all boards will have sch covering all the major occupational groups and recogniz. variety of different forms or types of training: in a v comprehensive schemes. It is equally certain that granti each occupational group there will be a series of tendations which will involve employers in certain ; costs. Generally, these costs will attract grant. , therefore, a board's ideas as to the nature and d of training required will determine the amount of ayable, and the amount of levy raised. These recomions may vary in character as well as detail from one Lion to another. In one case, the board may feel it to set out in considerable detail the training to be in others, it may be able to do no more than establish guide lines and basic principles. I think it likely, a., that for most occupations a board will think the ng to be essential to sound and systematic training:— aint plan a planned programme, providing for induction, initial nstruction and guided experience. This programme be derived from a thorough and careful analysis of the .ments of the job or occupation and the skills and :dge it involves.

ndly, adequate supervision of training. This means at ry least that someone senior in the company must be responsible for seeing that the training given is ite, and that the trainee's mentor (be he instructor, isor or manager) is competent to supervise the g.

dly, release to attend an appropriate college course. ost younger trainees, whom we should be training for er in industry as well as for a particular job, it is illy important that training on the job is complemented .hnical or commercial education which can broaden :nowledge about the industry, the relevant technology, isiness methods.

rthly, continuous and full records of trainees' progress ;hout the course. I believe that there are advantages, ver, in encouraging trainees to keep their own personal s in work books or journals in addition to the objective s it will be essential for the firm to maintain.

illy, an evaluation of the training given to determine has been successful. Such an evaluation may be aided follow-up of former trainees to establish the progress they have made since completion of training. In th the firm will learn whether it has got value for mone spent on training. This five-point plan for training and education has remarkable or startling about it. It really asks no nu firm than the application of common sense and a rea system of controls. But at various stages skilled ht initially be required: for example, in analysing the training the instructor or supervisor; in evaluating the programmes; in deciding what external courses may br At these points a firm may well ask the board's lend a hand, or it may think it sensible to call in an i dent training consultant to carry out a special stud} firm's training needs. A number of boards encour latter practice by offering to meet a proportion of charged by a consultant for services of this kind.

Let me return, in conclusion, to the theme of the ence—transport. As you know, there will be a single board covering the three main sectors of the road t industry—passenger transport, haulage, and vehicle I am glad to see this happen because I believe it ( to avoid so far as possible the division of industries f ing purposes into a large number of relatively small s Challenging tasks The different interests brought together under th will have many training problems in common and with them jointly will have economic and other ads At the same time, the board will also have to cater specialist needs of different sectors of road transp tasks will be both challenging and worth while. Fo first board to operate so widely in both the service at bution sectors, it will face different problems from boards and will have in many ways to break new g

It will be lucky, therefore, to have as its chairr Kenneth Turner, a man who is very well known knowledgeable about the industry through his e) until earlier this year as president of the Traders Roa port Association and of the International Road 1 Union (of which he is still president). Under his I am sure the board will prosper, and that it will full confidence of the industry. As I said early o paper such confidence is the first and major factor in success.