The issue of compulsion around training has emerged on a number of occasions over a number of years. Essentially, the introduction of a statutory right to time off for training, the instigation of a levy on all companies (or companies within a specific sector) to pay for increased training in the economy; and ‘licence to practice’ arrangements.
Engineering historically had a training levy, but this was abolished when it became clear that the cost of collection and redistribution made it inefficient. Other sectors still retain their levies – including construction (the short term nature of their contracts make the long term commitment to training difficult for individual firms).
Since the creation of the sector skills councils (SSC), the concept of a levy has been put forward in some sectors, including the British film industry through its SSC, Skillset. This reflects the similar short-term nature of contracts as found in the construction industry.
Our recent research on skills and training, Skills for Productivity, found a large majority of companies were already undertaking training, yet there were issues concerning whether companies were doing the right sort of training for the companies specific needs. In fact, those companies that tied their training to their business plan through a framework such as Investors in People reaped better benefits. It is not, therefore, so much a matter of not enough companies training their workforce (as a levy would aim to rectify), rather companies needing help to do the right kind of training.
Although not widely used in the UK, some sectors and occupations support licence to practice arrangements. Outside of the professions, gas fitters, airline pilots and heavy goods vehicle drivers fall under LtP arrangements, and recent developments have seen this extended to bouncers, the care sector, and finance / insurance (through the Financial Service Authority).