 "Chris Jones")
Nearly 47 million of India's youth were unemployed in 2011, up from 33.5 million 10 years ago. Around million young Indians are estimated to join the workforce every month. One way - and perhaps the only way - to ensure India's much-talked about demographic dividend does not turn into a demographic crisis is to skill its workforce. A recent report by UK's City & Guilds Group suggests the US will experience a shortfall of 17 million skilled workers, while India will have a surplus of 47 million by 2022. The City & Guilds Group operates in 100 countries and is a charitable organisation committed to promoting skill development. Its group chief executive Chris Jones, who does not have a formal degree himself, was in India and he spoke to Anjuli Bhargava on how skill training needs to be employer-led and financed, and how in the UK skilled workers are present on the boards of some leading corporations. Edited excerpts:
In India, we are talking of trying to skill seven United Kingdoms. The numbers are staggering. What's your advice for India to move ahead on this?
When we came here seven years ago, there was no infrastructure to help develop skills. Now we have the National Skill Development Corporation (NSDC), the Sector Skill Councils and indeed a skill development ministry. This is a giant leap forward.
But, I'd like to see an employer-led and employer-owned system here including the cost of training and the onus. Ultimately, it is employers who will be recipients of the investment into vocational education. Whether it is engineers in STEM (a curriculum focusing on four disciplines - science, technology, engineering and mathematics), in construction or any sector. The more that employers can begin to drive the system, the better.
In the UK, for instance, we are introducing a levy. Any employer with 70-100 staff has to pay 0.5 per cent of their gross payroll as a levy towards training their workforce. If they don't use it for that, it goes into a common pool and smaller companies can access it to support their training. One way for the government to reduce their level of funding is to place the burden rightly on employers and industry to contribute in this way.
What about the informal sector, which constitutes the majority? How does one ensure they upgrade their skills to international levels? Can a plumber or an electrician here work or substitute one in the US or the UK?
Our aim is to create that level of transnational standards so that people can genuinely transfer their skills overseas. It is already happening from India to West Asia.
Certification helps. In the oil & gas sector, we have met and certified skilled Indian workers who are leaving for Qatar and Bahrain for engineering-related jobs. Our certification allows portability and mobility.
This is a problem developing around the world. There are lots of degree holders, but technicians and skilled workers are harder to find. We will see great dependency on India to meet this demand.
Earlier, auto companies were primarily looking to source auto components and spares from India. Now, cars are being manufactured here and sent all over the world. Be it Jaguar Land Rover or Suzuki, there is a huge shift. So, it is not only about skilled workers leaving India to work in other countries but also to meet the demands of Make in India that skills training becomes crucial.
Isn't there some social stigma attached to vocational training even today? Parents encourage students to go in for higher studies over vocational studies. Do you see that changing slowly?
This stigma exists all over the world, but things are slowly changing. I have read a newspaper story where a city had advertised for street sweepers and the applications coming in were from graduates, MBAs and so on.
In the UK, 15 years ago, we had a government that said 50 per cent of our youth should go to university. What we saw was the deregulation of the UK university system. This led to a huge growth in the number of universities, graduates and degrees, with little hope of employment.
So you are now seeing a shift back to apprenticeships. You don't have any debt; you have got a job; you are earning; you are learning; and honing your skills. Many of the apprentices work and earn degrees while on the job.
In the UK, we have around 600,000 apprentices joining companies every year. In companies such as BT, you can join as an apprentice at the age of, say, 18 and come out eight or nine years later with an undergraduate and a master's degree, having earned money throughout, and be highly skilled.
Earlier, apprenticeships were in areas such as plumbing, electricians, carpentry and so on. Today, you can do an apprenticeship in paralegal, construction, healthcare, megatronics, sales, marketing, management, etc. You had companies that only recruited graduates and now the same companies only take in apprentices. While many of these apprentices might not have achieved academically, a few years down the line, these might be well be ahead in their careers compared to someone who has gone to university.
BAA (defence company) has more apprentices at board level than degree graduates. According to employee surveys, apprentices have greater loyalty than graduates. And, the staff are economically more valuable to companies if they are apprentices than graduates.
This is not to say all graduates are bad, but I think you are seeing a narrative develop which says that this, too, is a good, legitimate and cheaper pathway to success.
