HC Deb 23 May 1973 vol 857 cc495-505

4.46 p.m.

Mr. Albert Booth (Barrow-in-Furness)

I beg to move Amendment No. 58, in page 1, line 14, leave out 'ten' and insert 'thirteen'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant Ferris)

With this amendment it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:

No. 1, in page 2, line 4, at end insert: 'one of whom shall be appointed after consultation with the retail consortium'.

No. 59, in Clause 2, page 2, line 11, at end insert: 'and

  1. (e) as to three other members who shall be members of Industrial Training Boards, Industrial Training Boards'.

Mr. Booth

It may be appropriate if at the outset I declare an interest in employment and training. I am a sponsored member of the Technical and Supervisory Section of the Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers.

The purpose of this amendment is to create three places on the Manpower Services Commission for members of industrial training boards.

As it is drafted at present, Clause 2 reads: … it shall be the duty of the Commission to make such arrangements as it considers appropriate for the purpose of assisting persons to select, train for, obtain and retain employment suitable for their ages and capacities and to obtain suitable employees …". I submit that members of industrial training boards have experience and knowledge which suits them ideally to assist the commission and to serve on the commission for the purpose of carrying out this duty of the commission.

As it is defined at present, the commission is composed of representatives of employers, of trade unions and of local authorities. In addition there is one member of an organisation concerned with education. All of those members have a very proper interest in the duty of the commission. However I consider that their interests are no greater and have no higher importance than those of the industrial training boards in that duty of the commission.

While employers may take a pride in good training, they have a primary duty to their shareholders to maintain the profitability of their firms.

The unions, which in many cases have a proper concern for training and do much to develop training schemes, nevertheless have as their first interest on behalf of their members who are trained the promotion of their interests in wages and working conditions.

The local authorities, which are very closely concerned with the effects of industries operating in their areas in order that they may discharge their statutory duties and give proper expression to the views of the communities which they represent, nevertheless are more concerned with the exterior effects of industry and its employment capacity than with the primary duty of the commission.

Members of educational organisations, although concerned about the duty of the commission and about industrial training, are concerned about that only as a minor part of their overall concern for education. It is only right that that should be so. I hope that we shall never regard the rôle of education organisations as being solely a matter of creating labour forces for our factories. I believe that we should see the duty of education organisations as being that of fitting people to lead full lives in our community and not merely seeing that they can earn their bread and butter.

I suggest, therefore, that the commission is not complete as it is defined in the Bill at present. While it contains people who should be on the commission, it omits one other category of people who should be on it, namely, representatives of the industrial training boards.

The industrial training boards take a broader view of industry than any of those already having a direct right to be on the Commission. In the first place any industrial training board is bound to look at all the firms in the industry with which it is concerned, be they large or small, be they making a wide range of products or dealing with very specialist products. They take a broad view of industry.

An industrial training board has a certain independence in its attitude towards the industry with which it is concerned in that it is not answerable to shareholders nor directly answerable to the trade unions. An industrial training board can take a view about the way in which its industry should develop and the way in which its manpower requirements should be met. That is a broad view and it is often one which is forward looking.

An industrial training board is concerned not only about those currently training or seeking employment in its industry. It is also concerned about the future manpower requirement of the industry and the changes that the development of new techniques in manufacture will have upon those working in the industry in the future. It is concerned therefore with future craftsmen and with those at present at school who will be seeking employment in the industry in the future, as well as with those currently in the industry. Therefore, the view that the industrial training boards take of industry and the contribution that members of such boards could make to the Manpower Services Commission is considerable.

I admit that I was faced, as were my hon. Friends whose names appear on these amendments, with considerable difficulty in determining the number of people to suggest. The amendment proposes there should be three members of industrial training boards to put the representatives of such boards foursquare in numbers with representatives of employers and of unions. The amendment presumes that their contribution is not necessarily any more important than that of employers or unions, but that it is no less important in the total rôle of the commission. I believe that three members from industrial training boards would greatly strengthen the commission and enable it to perform its duty in a more effective and far-seeing way. I therefore commend these amendments to the House.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg (Hampstead)

I could discuss at length the point made by the hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth), because for 10 years I have been professionally engaged in helping to operate the Industrial Training Act and in dealing with some 12 boards. I have mixed views about the boards. Some are good. Others which are not even capable of managing their own accounts are probably not fitted to give advice to industry on other aspects. However, I shall not develop that point today.

I want to confine myself to the membership of the commission. I hope that the Minister of State will be able to give me a satisfactory assurance on the point that I want to make.

I speak as chairman of the all-party retail group in this House. It is a pity that the Bill, as it emerged from the Standing Committee, did not provide that one member of the commission should be appointed after consultation with the Retail Consortium. The Retail Consortium is now a fact with which the Department has to reckon. It comprises, to name only four of its components, the Multiple Shops Federation, the Mail Order Traders Association of Great Britain, the Co-op and the Retail Alliance, which gives it a broad enough cross-section to show that it is representative of the entire retail distribution organisation of this country.

Distribution is a vast industry on its own. I say bluntly to my hon. Friend that I hope he will not listen to some of the views coming out from his officials that the CBI can talk for the retail trade. I say that even though I am a member of the council of the CBI.

It is right, in considering the retail trade, to appoint someone specifically who understands the problems of retail distribution. I repeat, the Retail Consortium, made up of these four major components—the Co-op, the Mail Order Traders Association of Great Britain, the Multiple Shops Federation and the Retail Alliance which in itself is an alliance of a substantial number of specialist organisations—is the body that should speak for the retail trade.

I remind my hon. Friend that when the Government were holding their discussions on phases 1 and 2 they specifically invited the Retail Consortium, led by my noble Friend Lord Redmayne, to discuss with them ways in which prices in the retail trade might be controlled and examined. If it was good enough for my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and subsequently my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to discuss matters specifically with the Retail Consortium, I suggest it is not good enough for the Department of Employment to say that it will not discuss these matters with someone specifically qualified to talk about retail matters.

My hon. Friend knows me well enough to appreciate that I am not a difficult character. I am sure that he will be able to satisfy me on this point. I do not necessarily want an acceptance of my amendment, but acceptance of the idea behind it. This can be achieved equally well, even though my amendment may not be accepted, if, under Clause 1(2)(a), one of those three members is appointed by him after he has consulted the Retail Consortium.

I shall find it difficult to accept the answer that if my hon. Friend has to consult the Retail Consortium other organisations might wish to be consulted. It might be that the Welsh TUC or the Scottish CBI will want separate representation or consultation. If my hon. Friend is to use that argument, I suggest that it just is not on. It is not an acceptable argument which would convince me, and, knowing my hon. Friend, I do not think it would convince him.

The Scottish CBI is an offshoot of the whole CBI, and the Welsh TUC, if it exists, is an offshoot of the whole TUC but talking for a specialist part. However, the CBI is the Confederation of British Industry. It has not spawned as an offshoot the Retail Consortium. Therefore, unless my hon. Friend assures me that he will take this point on board. it means—I suppose it is odd that I should say this—that the voice of the Co-op would not be heard, whereas, if he consults the Retail Consortium, the voice of the Co-op, as one of the members of the Retail Consortium, would be listened to, as would the voices of the Multiple Shops Federation, the Mail Order Traders Association of Great Britain and the other component parts of the Retail Consortium.

That is the brief point that I wish to make to my hon. Friend. I hope he will take it on board. I ask the House to forgive me for not being here if this section of the debate goes past six o'clock, because I have a long-standing engagement elsewhere. I do not wish to be discourteous.

Mr. Robert Taylor (Croydon, North-West)

Before my hon. Friend sits down, may I ask him which particular industrial training board has been of great benefit to the retail industry, and in what way?

Mr. Finsberg

The Distributive Industry Training Board has not been as bad an organisation as many of its detractors would make out. It has learned from a very shaky start. It had a very shaky start, but under the excellent directorship of my noble Friend Lord Mottistone it learned that if it was to be a constructive body it had to consult its industry. Although the good major retailers managed their own industrial training quite well before the DITB was set up, I do not think anybody could say that it has been too bad.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Laurie Pavitt (Willesden, West)

I cannot resist the temptation to take part in the debate after the reference by the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg) to the need for the voice of the Co-ops to be heard. I am a Co-op Member, and as such I declare my interest.

I disagree with the hon. Gentleman's analysis. I take the view that the amendment put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) would meet the case. If an additional three people were appointed, as suggested by my hon. Friend, that would provide the opportunity for one person who represents retail distribution to come from that Industrial Training Board, and the voice of that service could be heard in that way.

In this House and elsewhere from time to time a lot of emphasis is laid on productive industry. People tend to forget that thousands are employed in retail distribution, and it is because of that imbalance of emphasis that the case made by the hon. Gentleman and by my hon. Friend deserves the Government's attention.

Efforts that have been made to secure higher standards in industrial production have had their counterpart in retail distribution. Training colleges and courses and other action that has been taken by the training boards for retail distribution have sought to help the economy on the other side of the coin.

It is not enough to produce goods and then leave things to chance. After the goods have been produced they must be distributed, and distribution costs are part of the total economic price which the community has to pay. Therefore, when we are considering the constitution of the commission we must consider not only the production side and representatives of employers and of the TUC, who must inevitably have a large say in these matters, but also the service industries and retail distribution trades.

I, too, am a member of the all-party group chaired by the hon. Member for Hampstead, which has as its secretary my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris). The hon. Gentleman has done a service by bringing this matter to the attention of the Government.

The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. R. Chichester-Clark)

I have listened to several persuasive speeches full of temptations but I have not been persuaded of the need to accept the amendment. We had a full discussion in Committee about the size and constitution of the commission and about the difficulties which would be likely to be posed by a number of organisations on both sides of industry which might understandably feel that they wished to be represented on that body.

A new point merges from the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) relating to the representation of the training boards on the commission. This was not discussed at an earlier stage, and perhaps I may first deal with Amendment No. 58.

It has been deliberate policy to restrict the commission to 10 members. I believe that in order to make a body of this kind, which will have executive responsibility, work effectively, it ought to be kept small. That is a paramount consideration in this whole matter.

Moreover, not only would the addition of three training board representatives, as proposed in the amendment, in itself increase the size of the commission, but it would also be bound to result in pressure from other sources to be included on that body. I think, too, that it would be invidious to have to choose between the training boards themselves. That is not to say that I do not share—I do—the high regard which the hon. Gentleman has for the training boards and for the work that they have done.

Mr. Booth

Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that it will be invidious to have to choose three members from among all the unions in the country?

Mr. Chichester-Clark

I agree that there is some substance in that, but I shall come to an even more powerful argument against the inclusion of training boards' representatives on the commission. They would upset the balance of the commission. The hon. Gentleman rather skirted around that difficulty.

The make-up of the commission—three employers, three trade unions, two local authority representatives and one educational representative—was arrived at after full discussion and consultations, and it seemed to be almost the unanimous view that that was about the right balance.

I said that it would be invidious to choose between the training boards, but I added that there was an even greater difficulty. The training boards' representatives on the commission would, at least potentially, face the conflict of interests in their work. The Bill provides the commission with various powers and duties in relation to the boards themselves. For example, it has to approve proposals for the exercise of functions by the boards, to consider levy proposals by the boards, to decide the allocation amongst boards of such money as is available for key training grants, and so on. The representatives of the training boards might very quickly find themselves in a difficult situation.

Having said that, if one of the hon. Gentleman's motives is to make sure that the boards themselves are not in any way diminished by the existence of the Manpower Services Commission and the Training Services Agency, let me assure him that the boards will not be shut out from the commission. They will in the main, be dealing with the agency, but they will have access to the commission. In the last resort the chairmen of the boards will have access to the Secretary of State himself. Their position will not be weakened, and I think that that will come as some relief to the hon. Gentleman. The last thing that anybody in this House wants to do is to let these people feel that they are being downgraded. There is general admiration for the work that has been done, and valuable work it has been, for very little reward; and little assistance.

Mr. E. S. Bishop (Newark)

The Minister says that the boards will have access to the Secretary of State. May I ask for some more information how that will be achieved? I am sure the House will accept that it could be invidious to choose representatives from the categories specified by the Minister. One can see the need for representatives of the CBI, the TUC and local authority associations, but will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the representative of the training boards might be the member referred to in paragraph (d) of subsection (2) which will represent educational interests?

Mr. Chichester-Clark

If I may deal with what the hon. Gentleman has just said—

Mr. Harold Walker (Doncaster)

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to try to help. I was hoping he would say that there was nothing in the Bill to preclude any other member of the commission from being someone who serves on a training board. It is not only category (d). Any person in any of the other categories may be serving on an industrial training board. In that sense there could be a cross-fertilisation of ideas and representation from the training boards on the commission.

Mr. Chichester-Clark

I think that the hon. Gentleman is right. He said that he wanted to help, and he has done so.

In the normal way, the members of training boards will not seek access to the Secretary of State. They do not do so now. The commission will be interposed between them and the Secretary of State, but their relationship with the Training Services Agency will be similar to that between them and the Cvil Service in my Department. They will have access to the commission, and if necessary the chairmen of the training boards will be able to see my right hon. Friend or his successor. I hope that that will reassure the hon. Gentleman and that he will not feel obliged to press the amendment.

I now come to the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg), supported by the hon. Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt). I have every sympathy with and recognise the importance of the Retail Consortium to which reference has been made. Under the Bill, however, the Secretary of State will appoint three members of the commission after consultation with such organisations representing employers as he thinks appropriate. The Bill does not specify the organisations to be consulted, and for the purposes of legislation that is quite right. But we made it clear in the White Paper—paragraph 3, I think —that it is the Government's intention that those three members should be appoined after consultation with the CBI.

As I said earlier—I am sorry if I have to say something that my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead did not want me to say, but it is true—it is of paramount importance to keep the commission small if it is to discharge its task effectually. We must therefore limit the number of employers' places to three. It seems right that before appointing them we should consult the CBI as the body representing employers in industry and commerce generally.

When I say that, I am not for a moment disputing the importance of particular sectors such as the retail sector, and I certainly recognise that the views of the Retail Consortium carry great weight. However, I hope that it will make my hon. Friend happier to know that if it or any other body wishes to put its views to the Secretary of State about membership of the commission or any subject connected with it, he will naturally take full account of them. But I do not think that we should write into the Bill an obligation to consult the retail consortium. The real answer here is that the commission, taken as a whole, should so far as possible have the authority and range of experience to tackle the manpower problems of the whole country.

Mr. Finsberg

Will the Minister clear up one point? He said that the Retail Consortium and any other body could make representations. What good will that do? Will it still mean that the three people that he appoints will in the end come from the list put to him by the CBI, or does someone put to him by the Retail Consortium, who is not a member of the CBI, stand any chance of being appointed?

Mr. Chichester-Clark

I cannot go further than I have. We made it clear in the White Paper—I stand by that—that we would consult the CBI. There are channels of communication. As I have said, it is obvious that if the Retail Consortium wishes to put views to my right hon. Friend about membership or anything else he will take full account of them. I cannot go further than that.

I hope that the commission will have a membership that has great authority and a great range of experience to tackle the manpower problems of the whole country. It will have to deal with a large range of important issues, affecting the service industries, including retail, as well as manufacturing. It will have to take the small firms into account. Its members need to be people with the knowledge and breadth of experience to deal successfully with all these issues.

One other point that has not been made is that they will need to be conscious of the different needs of different parts of the country. It will not be easy to find the right sort of people or to form a body with such a wide range as I believe is required of these people. We shall not be able to find room for someone directly involved in every sector that comes within the commission's sphere. What we must do is try to appoint members with an ability to approach our manpower problems not from any sectional standpoint but with an understanding of the manpower needs of the country as a whole.

While I may not entirely have contented my hon. Friend, I hope that I may have given him some reassurance, and that the Amendment will not be pressed.

Amendment negatived.

Back to
Forward to