Funding
55. On a broad estimate the United Kingdom has in recent years invested some 2.5 per cent of GOP in vocational education and training. Roughly half was direct expenditure by firms, the biggest single item being trainees' wages. Most of the rest was expenditure by local education authorities, channelled through the Exchequer or the local rating system, the main items being teachers' and instructors' salaries, buildings and equipment. Manpower Services Commission programmes are a smaller but increasing element.
56. In the current recession individual firms have cut back on their contribution. In particular the number of apprentices and other long-term trainees taken on by firms fell from around 100,000 a year in the late 1970s to 90,000 in 1980-81 with another sharp fall expected in the current year, despite larger numbers in the relevant age groups.
57. In these circumstances the Government has stepped up the contribution channelled through public funds. Substantial additional sums have already been allocated to increase the numbers continuing in full-time education and to support apprentice training, vocational preparation schemes and, especially, the Youth Opportunities Programme. When the proposals in this White Paper are fully implemented in 1984-85 public expenditure on Manpower Services Commission training programmes alone will be close on £1.5 billion. This will include more than £1 billion for the new Youth Training Scheme, some £280 million for the Training Opportunities Scheme and £100 million for apprentices and vocational preparation for those in jobs. In addition, some £4 billion will be spent on post-16 year olds through the education system, including about £1 billion on non-advanced further education, a considerable proportion of which will be of a vocational nature.
58. For the immediate future the Government sees an increase of public expenditure on this scale as the only way of plugging the gap in the training provision required if we are to be ready to meet the skill needs of the economy as trading conditions improve and to offer adequate opportunities to the current generation of young people. It is applying these extra resources to help secure longer term reforms in the quality of training and bring about a change in the attitudes of young people to the value of training and acceptance of relatively lower wages for trainees.
59. Nevertheless, this does nothing to alter fundamentally the present somewhat haphazard and often illogical apportioning of costs between the public and private sectors, and between individual undertakings. In occupations as diverse as medicine and hairdressing virtually the whole cost is borne by the tax and rate payer (with some contribution by the trainee). In others, particularly the heavier manual skills, virtually the whole cost is borne by the individual
[page 14]
firm. Yet the individual firm has absolutely no guarantee of a return on this investment since the trainee is under no legal obligation to stay once his training is complete. Attempts to even out costs between employers in particular industries through the Industrial Training Board's levy/grant system foundered under the weight of bureaucracy involved and its inability to deal with the problem in respect of cross-sector skills where much or the difficulty lies.
60. In the longer term the responsibility for training must lie mainly with employers, as it does in most other major industrial countries. It is only in this way that we can ensure that training meets industry's real needs. A remissible tax on the lines of the French system has been suggested as one possibility for influencing positively employers' calculations about the relative costs and returns of investing in training. Another would be a system of training grants to firms financed out of general taxation. Either would involve some measure of bureaucratic intervention. Yet a large-scale expansion of public provision for training, parallel to the public education system, seems even more objectionable. There are many issues here, which will need to be examined. The Manpower Services Commission has proposed to establish, in co-operation with the Government, a general study of the funding of industrial training as a whole. The Government will give further consideration to the matter in the light of that study.
Conclusion
61. For many years now our system of training bas failed to produce the numbers of skilled people required by a modern competitive economy. This paper sets out a framework within which employers, employees, unions, educationists and Government can more clearly see what they need to do for the system to work. Not all the questions are resolved and the Government and the Manpower Services Commission are setting further work in hand. But lines of needed advance are clear and the Government invites everyone concerned to play their part.