Training for Employment in the 1990s
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1990.tb01817.x |
| Published date | 01 May 1990 |
| Date | 01 May 1990 |
LEGISLATION
Training for Employment in the
1990s
Nick Wikeley"
In
the
1980s
the Thatcher Governments were faced with two intractable economic problems:
mass unemployment (especially amongst young people) and recurrent skills shortages
(particularly in the new technology industries). The last decade therefore saw a succession
of
ad
hac
initiatives designed to provide work experience for unemployed adults, to inculcate
basic skills in school-leavers and to instil a more vocational approach in the school
curriculum.' Between
1979
and
1989
just over five million people started government-
funded training schemes.* The cost of such programmes soared from
f0.5
billion in
1979-80
to
f2.7
billion in
1988-89.3
The framework for the provision of training, both for those in work and for those seeking
work, has recently undergone radical changes. The first part of this article seeks to place
these changes in the context of the development of national training policy. The second
section deals with the specific changes to the training infrastructure which have been
implemented by the
1988
and
1989
Employment Acts. The third part considers the
two
main training schemes now operating, the Youth Training Scheme and Employment
Training, the legal status of trainees and the role of the benefits legislation (as amended
by the Employment Act
1988
and the Social Security Act
1988)
in encouraging participation
in such programmes. In conclusion a preliminary analysis of these reforms is offered in
the light of recent research on training provision.
Industrial Training Policy, Voluntarism and Corporatism
Training for employment has traditionally been regarded by British governments as the
responsibility of industry. The assumption has been that market forces, through the
apprenticeship system and
informal
on-the-job training, would provide an adequate supply
of skilled labour. This policy of voluntarism has allowed industry to train or not to train,
according to pragmatic and short-term cost considerations, and has enabled skilled workers
to maintain wage
differential^.^
State provision for industrial training has therefore
performed a residual function, catering for specific groups in the workforce such as young
people, demobilised servicemen and the disabled. The State has accordingly only intervened
*Lecturer in Law, University
of
Birmingham.
I
am grateful to Mark Freedland, Martin Loughlin and Stan Siebert for their comments
on
an earlier draft
of this article. The responsibility for the opinions expressed and any errors which remain
is
mine alone.
1 Spawning a bewildering variety of acronyms, eg TOPS (Training Opportunities Programme), YOP (Youth
Opportunities Programme), YTS (Youth Training Scheme), JTS (Job Training Scheme), TVEI (Technical
and Vocational Education Initiative), CPVE (Certificate of Pre-Vocational Education). See M. Loughlin,
Local Government
and
the Modem State
(London: Sweet
&
Maxwell, 1986), pp122-125
on
the growth
of vocationalism in secondary schooling.
2 HC Deb
vol
154, col384w (13 June 1989). This has inevitably affected the unemployment count;
see
M.J. Dicks
&
N. Hatch, 'The relationship between employment and unemployment',
Bank
of
England
Discussion Papers
No 39 (1989).
3 HC Deb vol 160, col 148w (14 November 1989).
4
See
J. Sheldrake and
S.
Vickerstaff,
The History
of
Industrial Training in Britain
(Aldershot: Avebury,
1987), p31.
For
a discussion of the problematic concept of 'skill',
see
C.
More,
Skill and the English
Working
Class
(London: Croom Helm, 1980).
354
The Modem Law Review
53:3 May 1990 0026-961
To continue reading
Request your trial