HC Deb 06 November 1979 vol 973 cc203-5
4. Mr. Hooley

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what reductions have been made in Exchequer support for the operating expenditure and for grants of the Construction Industry Training Board; what percentage loss of support these cuts represent; and what consequential additional costs will have to be borne by the industry.

Mr. Jim Lester

I am informed by the Manpower Services Commission that total MSC financial support available to the Board in 1979–80 will be £15.5 million compared with actual expenditure of £14.86 million last year. Decisions on the grants offered to employers are taken by the Board, on which employers' organisations, trade unions and educational interests are represented.

In June of this year the Construction Industry Training Board was asked, in common with other boards, to make economies in its use of public funds in the current financial year. The Board decided to raise a supplementary levy on employers which is expected to realise an additional £3.8 million to be devoted to the grants scheme. Economies are being made in operating expenses and the Board may also draw, if necessary, on its reserves.

Mr. Hooley

Is the Minister aware that it is crass stupidity to cut back on industrial training in the building industry at a time when there is a shortage of skilled craftsmen in both the house building and modernisation programmes? Is he also aware that what has been done has resulted in extra burdens on private industry, on top of the burdens that it has to bear because of the high interest rates imposed by the Government?

Mr. Lester

There has been no cutback in the overall level of training this year. A sum of £6 million was voted for special measures over two years to deal with skill shortages in the industry, and the £4 million which is being spent in the current year is not being changed.

Mr. Cyril Smith

Is the Minister aware that the view of many hon. Members is that it would be possible to increase the amount of training carried out by training boards and still reduce their expenditure? Is he further aware that many people who work for the training boards are in receipt of five-figure salaries and that their numbers run into 50, 60 and sometimes 100 per training board? Has not the time come to review the whole bureaucratic machinery of some of these training boards?

Mr. Lester

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. He will be pleased to know that a review of industry training boards is now taking place.

Mr. Heddle

Does my hon. Friend agree that now is the time to assess the basic needs of training in the construction industry and to place the responsibility for providing an adequately trained work force fairly and squarely on the shoulders of the building industry?

Mr. Lester

I agree entirely. One matter that causes great concern is that in the Greater London area, for instance, 50 per cent. of the training for the construction industry is carried out at skill-centres, and not by the industry itself.

Mr. Heffer

Is it not true that when training was left to the industry employers failed to carry out training, and that it is therefore essential that support is given to the Construction Industry Training Board? Incidentally, I disagree with the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith). Future apprenticeship training must come partly through the Apprenticeship Training Board, and the Government's attitude is scandalous.

Mr. Lester

I should not want, by anything that I have said, to imply that we are not supporting the Construction Industry Training Board or training boards in principle. We are reviewing the way that they are working to see how they can best be improved.