In a formal statement, the GPMU said the submission to set up a Print Industry Forum was “flawed in its commitment, its structure and its objectives”, and that it had “little confidence” in the bid.
It questioned the motives of the BPIF and said the decision of the federation’s national council to undertake consultations with members about a statutory levy, but without making a positive recommendation, was a “dereliction of responsibility” and a “marked failure to show leadership to the industry”.
The ALI report, published three weeks ago, said that out of the 1,763 learners who started the advanced training framework since 1996-97, 660 were still in training and 84 had completed. The report pinned the blame for the problems on the BPIF, not employers.
BPIF competitiveness director Andy Brown (pictured) said the federation was “disappointed” with the findings.
“It relates to a past period where many national work-based training providers have had difficulties,” he said, a point echoed by PGC NTO chief executive Richard Beamish.
Brown and Beamish also agreed that the BPIF’s record of achievement for print-specific NVQ qualifications was satisfactory, and that some of the overall failure was due to few students completing their “key skills” areas of numeracy and literacy.
But Beamish said the report did “little to inspire confidence” in training for printing.
Story by Gordon Carson
