If you want skills, you must pay for them

Food manufacturers, as well as the government, must be prepared to invest in skills development in the present climate, according to stakeholder groups.

As those representing industry interests fight for government reserves that have been called into question in the economic crisis, Jack Matthews, chief executive of food and drink Sector Skills Council Improve, said: “Joint investment is the way the government is probably going to go - for each pound invested, the industry needs to be prepared to put a pound in.”

But speaking to Food Manufacture​, one prominent food scientist involved in training provision questioned if food processors themselves were sufficiently committed to skills development: “Would the industry pay to train staff? Their record so far has been pretty poor.

“There are a few rays of light in that Northern Foods and Sainsbury are offering scholarships to students in some universities. But attempts to provide formal career path development for the industry a few years ago failed due to a lack of cash, not a lack of interest.”
However, he went on to say the latest government statistics showed that there were 70,000 psychologists in training, versus 2,700 food scientists. “With limited money, institutions may consider teaching psychology to be cheaper than teaching science and you can see where some may go if they are squeezed.”
Another training provider questioned: “What proportion of funding reaches food manufacturing companies and is available to attract people with the skills required to take it forward, compete with other industries and enhance education and skills requirements? What proportion of the funding is spent on over-managed, over-staffed quangos that fail to meet the needs of the industry?”
After revelations that the government’s budget deficit totalled at least £178bn, reports towards the end of 2009 suggested that it was planning widespread cuts in cash for training initiatives.
That has provoked strong lobbying from trade groups, which argue that backing for the sector should be maintained because of its importance in tackling climate change and securing sustainable food supplies.