SKILLCENTRE (ASHFORD) (Hansard, 6 February 1979)

§ Mr. Keith Speed (Ashford)

I am grateful to have this opportunity to debate tonight a matter which is important to industrialists and workers in my constituency. It also raises points of national importance. What the Minister has to say will be read keenly by many concerned with industrial training outside this House.

The town of Ashford features in the Kent county council's structure plan as Kent's growth area for the 1980s. The industrial relations in the town are excellent. There are many companies. Some are large multinationals. There are companies such as British Rail Engineering. They range right down to small businesses employing only a few people.

The population of the town is expanding in accordance with the structure plan and there are good further education facilities in the town. New industry, in accordance with the structure plan, is coming into the town, but the need was identified by local industrialists some years ago, and by the Ashford industrial group, for further industrial training facilities on a substantial scale to make expansion sensible and to train for new jobs.

Accordingly, in 1977 the Training Services Agency proposed the establishment of a skillcentre in Ashford, with approximately 120 places, and proposed to include things such as bricklaying, capstan setting operations, heavy vehicle repairs 362 and maintenance, refrigeration and air conditioning.

There then followed the apparently inevitable delay in finding a suitable site for the skill centre. This was the subject of correspondence between me and the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Marks).

Then came, for me and for local industrialists, something of a bombshell, for at an industrial seminar in the latter half of last year, organised by the mayor of Ashford, we learned that there was delay concerning the site, about which we had been arguing, and also a major difference of opinion between the education world and the industrial world on the need for skillcentres. It seemed that there was a feeling that training could be done in further education colleges and that skillcentres as such were necessary.

To paraphrase the arguments of the education world, I refer to the chairman of the Kent county council further education committee, Councillor Draper, who very forcefully put it to me that skillcentres would appear to be duplicating the provision for courses which are currently provided or could be provided by further education colleges.

In a letter to me at the end of last year, Councillor Draper went on to say: Colleges felt that they had excellent resources in all the areas which were proposed for Skillcentre and saw no need for public expenditure on providing Skillcentre when the money could be spent more usefully in other aspects of training This view is partly backed up by the union concerned, the National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education. In a recent press statement, dated 30 November last, the local branch said: A Skillcentre of the size envisaged at Ashford is unnecessary in East Kent. Most of the work proposed for it can be accommodated within the existing facilities at the local colleges of technology which are already successfully running a range of TOPS courses in co-operation with the Training Services Division of the Manpower Services Commission. It went on to say: The staffs of the colleges are highly qualified craftsmen and experienced teachers. The college departments are advised by committees of local industrialists to ensure that courses meet local as well as national requirements. The proposed Ashford skillcentre, 363 welcomed by some local firms, could offer local industry a source of ready trained semiskilled labour without the need for costly industry based training schemes. Such would be in accordance with the aims of the Manpower Services Commission in carrying out its statutory duties. However, such a development in Ashford, duplicating as it would already existing facilities, would be a shameful waste of public money. That was the view of the educationists. However, very much the contrary view has been taken by local industrialists. As the Minister will appreciate, they, after all, are the clients of the system. A contrary view is also taken by the chamber of trade. I have had a letter from it only this week, and it is very concerned about this matter. A contrary view is taken by the borough council, which has been most helpful and, again, has been very concerned throughout this saga.

The other union involved, the Civil Service Union, also takes a contrary view. It, of course, represents the staff and instructors at the skillcentres. In a recent paper to the Manpower Services Commission, it said: In general the proposal that training should be geared to industrial requirements is sensible and should prove acceptable to the union"— That is, the Civil Service Union. It is in catering for industrial needs rather than individual aspirations in isolation from such needs that skillcentre training distinguishes itself from further education. Only this week I had a long and helpful discussion with the union's assistant general secretary, and he made the important point that skillcentres deal with training and not education. I know that the Minister will appreciate that there is a difference between the two.

Secondly, on the whole, we are dealing with much older people than those who attend the colleges of further education. That point is made with considerable force by the Project Ashford liaison committee, which represents many local industrialists.

There is a clear divergence of view between the educationists and the Kent county council, on the one side, and the industrialists, the Civil Service Union and the Ashford borough council, on the other. I suspect that that divergence of view will be repeated in other parts of of the country where these matters are considered and debated. I am not suffi 364 ciently qualified to give a definitive answer, but I suspect that the answer lies between these two perhaps extreme positions.

Unnecessary expenditure of public money at any time, and particularly in the present circumstances, would be wrong. I am convinced that many of the industrial training or retraining courses can effectively be provided only by a new skillcentre. I accept that other courses could be catered for in the colleges of further education. This compromise, if that is the right word, may give us the best value for money. Indeed, if such a compromise is not the answer, the whole concept of skillcentres must be open to question.

I urge the Minister to endorse the provision of a skill centre with perhaps 30 or 40 places fewer than originally planned. The original planning was for 120 places. I ask the Minister in turn to urge his colleague at the Department of the Environment and the Property Services Agency to acquire the site and build the centre. This week the chief executive of the Ashford borough council told me that there is a suitable site for the special requirements of the Property Agency in Ashford. I hope that negotiations can proceed with a view to completion of the purchase of the site and the building of the centre, which will take some time.

This matter has been in limbo for too long. I look to the Minister tonight to get things moving.

The chief executive of the Ashford borough council wrote to me on 29 November last, saying that as far as local industrialists are concerned the provision of a skillcentre in Ashford is a must". They are absolutely right, but they do not want to wait for their old-age pensions before they and their employees can use it. I hope that the Minister can give us confidence that the industrial future of Ashford will be soundly based.

§ The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. John Golding)

I thank the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Speed) for raising this question on the Adjournment. He courteously and fairly outlined the issues. Like him, I know the pressures that have been exerted for and against a skillcentre in Ashford.

365 There is no doubt of the need for skilled training in Kent. That was one of the first propositions put to me when I took office. If there is to be a skillcentre, Ashford is by far the best site as far as the Manpower Services Commission is concerned. It is the strong view of the district manpower committee—including the trade unionists and the employers—that there should be a skillcentre in Ashford.

The Manpower Services Commission had tentatively decided, following a survey, to create a 120-place skillcentre. Those who support the establishment of the skillcentre in Ashford must have been heartened at that. Then came the strong opposition from the colleges of further education and others. I received representations from my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) on behalf of the Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians and the building employers. The opposition is understandable. They argued that it was best to use existing facilities in the colleges rather than build a skillcentre.

I agree with those who say that it does not make sense to duplicate facilities or to spend public money unnecessarily. The MSC also holds that view, and that is why it has decided after serious consideration to abandon the idea of removing all the craft courses from the colleges and has decided to guarantee to the three colleges of further education concerned—at Ashford, Dover and Folkestone—continued support for existing training opportunities scheme craft courses. That will be welcome news to the educational organisations that have made strong representations to the hon. Member for Ashford and to the MSC. Their interest has been recognised.

A mini skillcentre providing about 80 places—the size envisaged by the hon. Member—will be created. I must emphasise that we need this centre. In fact, we need throughout the country to widen the scope of skillcentres to give them wider responsibilities.

I do not accept the arguments of those in the Civil Service Union who say that training must be kept separate from education. Nor do I accept that education must always be kept apart from 366 training. I look forward to the time when all young people and adults are able to receive training and education together.

At this time, when skill shortages are beginning to be reported, it is important to strengthen skillcentre provision The wider responsibilities for skillcentres that we envisage are set out in the TOPS review which states that skillcentres should continue to perform their role as providers of off-the-job occupational training for manual skills, but, first, with room for sharing with colleges in the provision of the practical work element in technician courses; secondly, the use of some skillcentre capacity as a testing ground for new forms of training, including work preparation; thirdly, an increase in the provision of semi-skill training in skillcentres, particularly in engineering, the development of some sectors to provide semi-skill training for young people and adults; and, fourthly, and particularly important, the use of skillcentres as a base for a more mobile and flexible approach to employers to sell them the direct training services.

This last proposal could be an important development for Kent because there is an important role for TOPS and the skillcentres to fulfil in encouraging employers, particularly small employers, to take advantage of the direct training services that the MSC, through the training services division, can provide. Indeed, all these developments are important and they could not be supplied through existing college arrangements. They should not be denied to Kent, but certainly would be if we did not go ahead with the mini skillcentre.

I note what the hon. Gentleman said about PSA delays and I shall pass on his comment.

There are still difficulties, but, because of the needs of Kent for increased skill training, I shall ask all concerned to press on as quickly as possible with the provision of the mini skillcentre, without, as I have mentioned, undermining the important role of the colleges of further education.