The final report of the Leitch Review of Skills, Prosperity for all in the global economy - world class skills, was published on 5th December 2006. It set out a vision for the UK, not least in terms of how all levels of skills needed to be raised. Put simply, the UK needs to double attainment at most levels of skill.

Understandably, the responsibility for achieving such targets is shared by a number of stakeholders. But small and medium size enterprises (SMEs) play a central role in this. In fact, one of the main planks of the strategy is to train eligible employees up to level 2 standards (the equivalent of five good GCSEs).  The context for this is simple: every day, 1.3 million people go to work without the skills they need to do their jobs well.

As part of the support package for businesses, the Train to Gain programme was launched. It provides employers with impartial, independent advice on training needs. The Train to Gain programme is marketed as a joint investment - between employers and the Government working together - to enhance business performance by improving the skills of staff. More especially, it aims to: provide essential skills to boost business performance; improve business efficiency and increase profits; and help staff grow in motivation and confidence. Through the programme a business meets a skills broker, college or training provider to receive skills advice. Crucially, this sign-posting service is free.

The aims and methodology appear to be appropriate for meeting the UK’s skills needs. But some people remain sceptical about the programme. For instance, during the early part of the programme it was down by 70% of its targets of engaging with employees and employers. The fact this target was missed was recognised and increased investment has been channelled into delivering them.

Moreover, some concerns have been expressed that there is not one point of contact; that is, despite the national branding there are different and diffuse providers offering information and advice, and there remains a danger of a lack of consistency in the quality of the information being provided. In fact, some critics of the programme suggest that the ‘one-stop shop’ idea has yet to materialise.

Additionally, it is unclear how the programme impacts on different size businesses – in an obvious sense the needs of a micro business employing less than 5 people are going to be different to a company with 100 employees. The point here is that smaller businesses often have to be more flexible with their training and workforce development needs as they may be less able to allow employees to undertake ‘off the job training’.

Then there is the debate over who should shoulder this responsibility; for instance, businesses may be more interested in spending money on training deemed more relevant to their own needs. Thus although the target to raise the level of employees with level 2 qualification is seen as a national priority the onus still remains on employers to pay – something they may be reluctant to do.

There is also the wider issue of how many skills bodies exist – the Learning and Skills Council (LSC), Business Links, and FE sector all play a part in working with employers to up-skill staff. But there is some sense that SMEs remain unclear about these bodies’ respective roles. In parallel there are other initiatives that cross-cut the work of the Train to Gain programme. For instance, the Investors in People (IiP) standard is a framework to ensure businesses improve the way they work. IiP recognises that organisations use different means to achieve success through their people, and it does not prescribe any one method; instead, it provides a framework to help businesses find the most suitable means for achieving success through people. But this method is still premised on the need for workforce development practice and, by extension, continuous improvement and training. For the SME, what may be unclear is how IiP and Train to Gain work together.

Finally, there are some gaps in Leitch’s report itself. For example, where does migration fit into the up-skilling of the UK workforce and are qualifications the only measure of a skill? Moreover, there is some assumption that all employees will fit into the model of support being offered.

That noted, ultimately Leitch is correct in his analysis; namely, that we need to up-skill the workforce and a range of stakeholders – government, employers and individuals - must contribute to paying for increasing adult skills. Here, then, SMEs must realise that government will only partially support them in developing their workforce; put differently, companies need to think now about how to contribute to up-skilling their employees before they are compelled to do so.

---

Click here to add this page to your social bookmarking site...