Time to train

I noted with disappointment the letter from the anonymous critic of the principle of a training fund (‘Funding farce’, EMC, Dec 2004/Jan 2005).

While I trust that the actual ratio of contributions against training subsidies will be provided by the ECITB, clearly I would not support, but would seek with fellow thinkers to hold to account, any organisation that distributed only 5% of receipts as alleged by that writer.

In fact for the latest published year (2003) the EICTB’s accounts show that it collected £10.5 million of levy and distributed £11.5 million. For every £1 of levy collected for the CITB, £1.69 is invested in training.

A new training fund, supported by a statutory training levy would of course have to have low operating costs, including a cost-effective and simple method of raising contributions.

In other words my own stance is a definite ‘Yes’, but strictly on an effective commercial basis. Unfortunately your writer cannot see the clear benefits of training costs for companies being reduced and the non-training companies contributing to that cost. As for ‘no additional training resulting’, the numbers from even the disappointing CITB levy days to our current non-levy position clearly show a huge decline in the training being undertaken.

Specifically, companies who would quite like to train but never get around to it become trainers when they see that money is going out of the door with no benefit coming back. They recognise the lower cost of training due to the subsidies received, therefore for commercial reasons change from indifference to active supporters of educating and training the next generation. This is not only clearly logical but was my own observation from when a levy was in place.

From my contacts, the overwhelming numbers of thinkers in our industry recognise the need for a training fund. We should ignore the prejudiced few and begin to discuss models that are suitable.