HC Deb 01 November 1973 vol 863 cc463-74

10.0 p.m.

Mr. John Golding (Newcastle-under-Lyme)

Britain can prosper only through industry, and that industry must rely on skill. Our national prosperity is completely dependent on craftsmen and technicians. In many ways, we have failed to maintain the status of the skilled as we should. Apprentices in Britain receive less encouragement than is their due, and because of that I wish the Association of Teachers in Technical Institutes well in their campaign to secure a better deal in education for the 16–19 age group.

Tonight I want to focus attention on one aspect of governmental and industrial neglect of the interests of apprentices, namely the failure to support British apprentices in the so-called skill Olympics—the international apprentices competition.

In August 1973, a total of 284 apprentices from 15 countries took part in the Annual International Apprentices Competition held in Munich. Despite the high standards of apprentices in many trades in this country, Britain failed to get one gold medal in any of the 31 competitive events. It was only the second time in 20 years that that had happened. The total British wins were only 2 silver medals, 3 bronze and 3 commendations.

In the league table of the 15 nations, we beat only Belgium, Portugal and Lichtenstein. We were licked hollow by Germany, Korea, Japan, Switzerland and Spain—and even China and Ireland beat us.

The Post Office Engineering Union—of which I am an officer—was delighted that a Post Office apprentice, David Macdonald, received the highest commendation in a Telecommunications demonstration and that another Post Office engineer, Alan Taylor, won a bronze medal in the industrial electronics section. While proud of our members, we were disappointed that Britain did not do better overall.

To quote from the Building Trades Journal, Participation by United Kingdom apprentices…is vital to the prestige of British industry… Britain's entry to the Common Market underlines the need to show the world that the skills of United Kingdom craftsmen remain as high as ever and to impress upon our own apprentices the strength of the competition we must face in overseas markets. Combining the incentive of a competitive sporting event with practical training, the International Apprentices Competition is unique in its ability to serve this purpose. The object of the exercise is not only to win gold medals. It is also, in the words of Frederick D. Hill, the man who has done more for this cause than any other To raise the standards of skill and craftsmanship in Britain by adding a stimulus to industrial training and by providing an opportunity of directly comparing our own standards and methods of industrial training with those of other countries. It serves as a practical international training conference.

Probably the most important reason for our general lack of success is the absence of a national apprentice competition. All the successful countries have one. Spain, Japan and Korea all take their national competitions very seriously indeed—and this is reflected in their results. The Netherlands found little interest until they started to hold a national competition. It is now very popular. Elspeth Ganguin in the Financial Times of 4th May 1973—under the significant heading "Dutch Enthusiasm for Apprenticeship"—after reporting that the Dutch competition was viewed by 30,000 spectators, explained: The annual event has three aims. It serves to select candidates for the International Apprentices Competition.… It provides an opportunity for comparing levels of craftsmanship throughout Holland, with a subsequent 'drawing together' and it gives vocational guidance through letting boys and girls actually see for themselves what there is for them to do. Not only do we lack a national competition, but at Munich our girls and boys received little support. The unofficial United Kingdom steering committee—to whom all credit must be given—had no staff and very little finance. One of the first acts of this Government was to refuse to take over responsibility for the competition from the City and Guilds Institute when it found it could no longer afford to do so on the annual grants—£4,000 in 1970–71—which it had been given.

To help select the British team after 1970, the Institute offered to continue the administration if the Government would shoulder all the costs, but this, for reasons to which I will return, the Government refused to do. The sum total of support from this Government appears to be that in September 1971 the hon. Member for Howden (Sir P. Bryan) wished our team luck and gave them a drink—and in 1973 the Consulate in Munich lent our team a Union Jack!

To make it possible to send a team at all in 1973, and to repay a debt from 1971, the collecting box had to be rattled by Major-General Cyril Lloyd—a former Director General of City and Guilds. The first subscription list includes, strangely—£2.50 from ICL. No doubt someone in ICL had read the appeal in one trade paper that even a stamp would be useful. The trade unions made their contribution—£250 from the electricians' union, the EETPU, with smaller contributions from the engineering union, the AUEW, the ATTI, the Furniture, Timber and Allied Trades Union, USDAW and the POEU. The Post Office, on the other hand, despite the enthusiastic support of management and unions, was unable to make a grant. Perhaps the Minister could state why this should have been so and how things might be changed?

Commenting on this poor general state of affairs, on 28th February 1973, Barry Devney in the Daily Express revealed how, The contestants' dark blue blazers with Union Jack badges and their flared green flannels will be provided cut price by a giant tailoring firm. Their black shoes will be worn by courtesy of a big footwear company. At Munich, one or two apprentices even had to borrow essential tools. This is not good enough for a team which represents a country once known as, "The workshop of the world".

To understand why the Government do not help more, one has only to look at the 1970 anouncement. I quote: Officials of the Department of Employment and Productivity told today's meeting that Ministers recognised the potential value of the international apprentices competition from the point of view of raising standards and stimulating interest in industrial training. That was the good news—and now to the bad. But they were impressed by the real difficulties that have been experienced in international competition of this kind of organising tests which provided a fair and objective comparison of the relative skills of apprentices in view of the widely differing methods and technologies of individual countries. Moreover, there were differing degrees of enthusiasm for the international competition among industrial training boards, which had primary responsibility in Britain for raising the quality of training in their industries or groups of industries. The cost of a new Government commitment to financial support for United Kingdom participation in the international competition has also to be considered in the context of the Government policies on public expenditure. How mean can you get? As mean as museum charges and school milk is the answer, I suppose. The latest reply of 17th October 1973 has the grace to leave out the argument of finance. To quote the Minister who replied, the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Chichester-Clark): Opinion in industry and the training boards is divided about the value of these international craft competitions and my present view is that they do not warrant official support."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th October 1973; Vol. 861, c. 233.] I shall expect a better answer than that this evening from the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Dudley Smith).

It is true that the Engineering Training Board has been opposed, possibly because its officials believe that All formal set tests are undesirable and should be replaced by a system of continuous assessment. Let me emphasise that I have a lot of sympathy with this point of view in so far as it applies to apprentices generally, but I do not think it should prevent the highest flyers from competing. In any case the engineering industry has most need of the stimulus. In a disturbing report in November 1970, shortly after the Government had refused to take responsibility, Mr. C. P. Rawlinson, MBE, CEng, MIMechE, stated: The performance of our engineering trades apprentices cannot be compared with that of apprentices representing other—to us—less industrially developed countries. The CBI is also opopsed to the use of training board funds for the International Apprentices Competition, wanting, I am advised, to ensure that activities of quasi-governmental boards are restricted. They do not wish grants to the IAC to be used as a precedent. The CBI is, however, in favour of a national competition.

This opposition of the CBI and the Engineering Training Board should not hold up progress, although both CBI officials and engineering employers are skilled at this, having served their time, I believe, successfully in progress obstruction.

The 30 competition crafts tend to be of interest to five industrial training boards—the Construction Industry Board, the Engineering Industry Training Board, the Road Transport Industry Training Board, the Furniture and Timber Industry Training Board, and the Shipbuilding Industry Training Board. Of these, all except engineering are, I am advised, well disposed to apprentice competitions and would respond to a lead from the Government. Indeed, the Construction Industry Training Board underwrote the 1973 British entry to the tune of £3,000.

Much of industry is quite enthusiastic. For example, the Building Trades Journal of 23rd February stated: There is perhaps no better way to show those now training to be craftsmen, and to encourage others who intend joining them. that the industry's employers appreciate the efforts they are making, than by helping these craft ambassadors to take their proper place at the head of award winners". In this it echoed the constant support of the Chairman of the Building Exhibition, Mrs. M. A. Montgomery, who, in a letter to The Times of 22nd March 1971, called for the United Kingdom to offer herself as the host country. The National Federation of Master Painters and Decorators of England and Wales gave a grant in 1971.

Earlier I quoted trade union financial support. It is only fair to say that employers' associations and private firms contributed the bulk of the money and that the Birmingham City Council gave £500. The Government should, therefore, put any opposition in perspective.

In 1970 the Government also gave as a reason for withholding support the difficulty of organising tests which provided a fair and objective comparison of the relative skills of apprentices from different countries. It is true that this gave cause for concern in 1969. This had, however, been tackled by 1970, as the report of Mr. Rawlinson shows, and it is no longer true that the test pieces are not acceptable. In painting and decorating, for example, the painting of an emblem has given way to three walls with a door and window.

Although the Government are no longer using the cost as an excuse, let me put one fear at rest. A fair amount of opposition has come from those who, believing wrongly that it would cost £250,000, do not wish Britain to act as host country. In response to this the International Council has now decided that the bulk of the costs should be met each year by the competing countries, and that all will contribute to the Secretariat at present provided by the Spanish. Whereas the annual cost of competing will rise to £20,000, the cost of being a host country will fall to £75,000.

The Government can have no case for the niggardly way in which they have treated our apprentices. There is every national reason to give the international apprentices competition support. Mr. Hill says: All test drawings for each trade are prepared by top international experts, each drawing incorporates the latest technical skills of that particular trade. Each participating country benefits by the acquisition of this up-to-date knowledge and brings back, at the end of each competition, a complete set of drawings on which to improve their national training methods… Many countries indeed, particularly Japan and Germany, are now basing their forward youth training programmes on the advanced skills, drawings and experience gained…". We cannot afford the complacency which would keep us from sharing the knowledge of training acquired in other countries. The Government should sponsor a national apprentice competition at the earliest opportunity, and if the Government have not the wit and will, why should not the City of Birmingham—for example, a city of a thousand trades—take up the challenge at the new Exhibition Centre? But the main responsibility rests with Government to suport a national competition and our international teams.

We should hold the International Apprentices Competition again in this country as we did in 1965. The Minister should now implement the recommendation of his Department's working party. The apprentices deserve more than a drink and the loan of a Union Jack. They deserve the fullest encouragement to take a pride in their work. I hope that the Minister will not approach this problem in the mood of a Mr. Sowerberry, the undertaker to whom Oliver Twist was apprenticed. Like Oliver in a different context, the newly-formed Society for the Promotion of Vocational Training and Education asks for more. It asks for more financial asistance and more moral encouragement. It should, in the interests of Britain, its apprentices and its industrial future, be given.

10.17 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Dudley Smith)

The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) has reminded us that my Department's previous response to his interest in this matter was within the confines of a Written Answer. I am glad to have the opportunity to discuss the subject at greater length. It might be helpful if I first say something about the history of competition and then go on to talk of the reasons which led us to conclude in 1970 that it would not be appropriate for the Government to take over financial and administrative responsibility for participation in the competition by the United Kingdom.

The competition is held annually over a period of a fortnight, with participating countries acting in turn as host. The competition consists of practical tests in some 30 trades. Each country is allowed only one competitor in any trade. Medals are awarded and it has become known, as the hon. Gentleman said, as the "Skill Olympics". Its stated aims are to raise the standard of industrial training, to promote greater understanding and friendship among those taking part and to provide an opportunity for the exchange of experience and ideas.

The competition started in Spain in 1947 as a national competition. Over the years other countries have joined in and dropped out. I understand that currently some 20 countries are participating. The United Kingdom first took part in 1956 and has done so every year since. From the start the City and Guilds of London Institute accepted responsibility for the administration of the competition in this country. This involved policy and advisory committees, and also technical committees for each of the crafts, whose job it was to select United Kingdom representatives and consider other questions such as the choice of test pieces.

The only source of revenue in the United Kingdom was a fee paid for each entry to the selection competitions. In 1968 the entry fee was £10. This did not cover the costs, and initially the City and Guilds of London Institute met the deficit. The institute found itself unable to maintain this level of support. In 1967 my Department gave a grant of £5,000, and in 1968 and 1969 nine industrial training boards together with my Department and the Northern Ireland Government agreed to bear collectively up to £10,000 of the deficit, and the whole of the deficit in 1970. In that same year the institute informed my Department that it could no longer accept financial or administrative responsibility for the competition.

My Department accordingly set up a working party, with representation from the institute, the main training boards and industries concerned and the CBI and TUC, to examine the rôle of competitions in helping to raise standards of industrial training and to recommend whether the United Kingdom should continue to participate in the international competition. In addition to drawing on its own experience the working party sought the views of organisations and individuals who had been concerned with the competition, and some who had not. It found very divided views on the value of competitions in this area, and I shall return to these.

The working party concluded that the balance of argument lay in favour of promoting competitions, provided they were of the right kind, and it therefore did not want to see the United Kingdom withdraw from the international competition at that stage. But it added that the United Kingdom should continue to participate only if certain conditions were satisfied. These were that the competition tests should be more closely controlled and made more relevant to industrial practice, that the United Kingdom competitors should be chosen through a national competition organised by appropriate training boards and that the information and experience gained from participation should be disseminated as widely as possible.

The working party recognised that industry and the Government should share the responsibility for participation in a number of ways. These were that preparation of competitors should be a matter for the appropriate training boards while international aspects and arrangements for participation of the British team, should be in the hands of a committee established by my Department. The cost of selecting the United Kingdom representatives should be borne by industry. The Government should bear the direct cost of participation in the international competition itself. The working party also recommended that annual competitions should be run on a zonal basis—for example, one covering the European nations and one for the Far Eastern nations—but that there might be an interzonal or global competition every five years.

I mentioned earlier that the working party had met strong arguments both for and against competitions. On the one hand it was argued that they could contribute to industrial training, for example, by focusing attention on standards and methods of training and by providing comparisons, if only on a limited basis, between one training scheme and another and from year to year. They also provided a healthy element of competition and stimulated the desire of young people to improve their performance, as well as a great sense of achievement on the part of the winners. They extended the horizons of the individuals who took part and gave them experiences they would no doubt treasure all their lives. On the other hand it was argued that industry should be concerned with setting and achieving minimum standards of performance rather than identifying the best performers in particular trades and that, whatever the benefits of competitions, there were other and better ways of achieving those objectives.

There was also increasing questioning of the validity of once-only assessment, through specific test pieces, as opposed to more continuous assessment over periods of time. Further, the test pieces for competitions often could not create a real industrial situation and might indeed be irrelevant to actual industrial practice, although I accept that this may have improved. The cost and effort involved in running or participating in competitions had to be weighed against the limited scope for participation. There were also difficulties of co-ordination and organising competitions on a fair basis, particularly in view of different practice in different countries.

In considering these opposing views, the Government naturally wished to pay particular attention to the opinions of the industrial training boards, the bodies which have had the prime responsibility in recent years for raising the quality of apprentice training in their industries. On consulting the boards in 1970 about the report we found, not surprisingly, very differing degrees of enthusiasm for the international competition, but generally their support for it could be described as lukewarm. Given this state of opinion on the part of the boards and their industries, the Government decided not to take over financial and administrative responsibility for United Kingdom participation in the international competition.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned a number of boards. He said that all five boards except the one concerned with engineering were in favour of the competition. But our officials had advice from the staff of the Road Transport Industry Training Board and the Shipbuilding Industry Training Board that their boards were most unlikely to favour supporting the international competition.

The fact that the Government were not prepared to take over financial and administrative responsibility for participation did not of course mean that interest in the United Kingdom in the competition came to an end. After the City and Guilds of London Institute withdrew from administration in 1970 the United Kingdom entry was sponsored by a voluntary body, now named the Society for the Promotion of Vocational Training and Education. This year 24 apprentices from the United Kingdom took part in the international competition at Munich, and our apprentices gained two silver and three bronze medals, as the hon. Gentleman has reminded us. I gather, too, that the successful or highly commended entrants included two from a sector of industry with which the hon. Gentleman is very familiar—telecommunications.

The hon. Gentleman asked me about a grant from the Post Office. That is not my responsibility; the Department has no control over the Post Office. The Post Office's rules about finance may well prohibit it from making such a grant, but I will look into the matter and give the hon. Gentleman the answer if I can.

My hon. Friend the former Minister of State told the House about two years ago that it was open to any appropriate body to take an initiative in organising the entry of United Kingdom apprentices to the international competition. I am of course glad that there has been sufficient interest to permit continued United Kingdom participation, and I willingly pay tribute to the work of the Society for the Promotion of Vocational Training and Education in this.

I should add that this summer we have again sounded out the opinions of the training boards principally concerned on the value of the international competition. We found that only one board considered it to be of value and provided support for entry to the competition. Most of the other boards did not consider that the competition was of sufficient value to justify their support, and in the main this seemed to reflect opinions in their industries.

I am sure there is no disagreement between us about the importance of continuing the improvement in the standard of apprentice training in this country that has been one of the successes of the training boards. But my general impression is that the training boards see this aim as best met by their work directed at the generality of apprentices. As part of their work of monitoring and improving their own standards they keep themselves informed of developments in other countries, and some strong links with training organisations abroad have been built up over the years.

I recognise that there are divided views about the benefits of the competition, and I respect the views so well expressed tonight by the hon. Member. I know he is sincere. We are not debating whether the United Kingdom should participate in the competition: our participation has continued, and I have already paid tribute to those responsible. The point at issue is whether the Government should provide financial support for that participation. The cost might not be great for most years, though it would carry with it responsibility for more substantial expenditure when the United Kingdom was the host country, but this has to be weighed against other claims for money for general training. We are increasing substantially the expenditure by the Government on industrial training, and we see as priorities the development of training opportunities for individuals who wish to increase their skills and the encouragement of training which is important to the development of individual industries and the economy as a whole.

I think it is right that the Government's decision on financial support should reflect the response of training boards, which have the main responsibility for apprentice training. Given that they and their industries remain generally unconvinced of the value to training in this country of participation in the international competition, it remains our view that it would not be appropriate for the Government to undertake the financial support which has been urged on us tonight. I am sure, however, that our debate has been of value in enabling the House to give attention to one of the most important types of industrial training for apprentices.

The Government have had serious doubts about the representative nature of the competition. Even when the City and Guilds Institute was administering the United Kingdom participation, the number—

The Question having been proposed at Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at half-past Ten o'clock.