DONCASTER SKILLCENTRE

HC Deb 21 January 1980 vol 977 cc123-62

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr.MacGregor.]

Mr. Roy Mason (Barnsley)

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) is just entering the Chamber, perhaps I may delay proceedings for a second until he gains his breath and can raise the matter that he wishes to raise on the Adjournment.

7.55 pm

Mr. Harold Walker (Doncaster)

I am deeply grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason). If I may indeed try to get my breath, I should like to say that I am deeply grateful for the opportunity to raise a matter of great concern not only to my consituency but to local authorities, industry and commerce in South Yorkshire, Humberside and places beyond. It is crazy that with almost 1½ million people unemployed, key sectors of our economy are losing output because of a shortage of skilled manpower. People must be trained in a spirit of optimism, secure in the knowledge that they are gaining the right skills and being educated to participation in the changes, not to be overwhelmed by them". Those are not my words, although I wholly endorse them. They were spoken by the present Secretary of State for Employment on 16 March 1979. A few weeks later he publicly declared that a key point in the Conservative Party's approach was to retrain those people whose skills are no longer needed". On 20 April, speaking to the electors, the good folk of Radcliffe, in Lancashire, he said: We shall encourage the retraining of those whose skills are no longer required". In the same speech he also said: We have no intention of cutting off job subsidies". But five weeks after taking office he chopped £170 million from the special employment measures.

I shall not weary the House with further such quotations or take up my own valuable time by so doing, except to say that as recently as September last the Secretary of State was still sticking to the same theme, saying: The key to the labour market will be a willingness to be flexible and adaptable through working life. I do not quarrel at all with the policy reflected by such views. Indeed, I have often expressed similar views myself. But, in the light of what he has said, it seems incredible and inexplicable that the Secretary of State now should be making a massive cut in retraining provision and butchering the skillcentre network.

In 1977–78, nearly 100,000 people completed courses under the training opportunities scheme. This year, it is down to something over 70,000—and it is to be cut to 60,000. That information was contained in a written reply from the Under-Secretary of State for Employment, who is to reply to the debate, in Hansard on 16 June 1979.

At present, we have 69 skillcentres and 30 annexes. It is proposed to cut these by 20 per cent. One-fifth will go to meet cuts imposed by this Government. That is a dramatic about-face—a U-turn—from the policies to which the Secretary of State, on the strength of the quotations that I have given, has repeatedly paid lip service.

One of the centres on the Government's hit list is the Doncaster skillcentre, which I had the pleasure of opening only two years ago this month. If all the economic, industrial and social factors, as recently as January 1978, led the Manpower Services Commission to believe that it was right to open the centre, what changes, we are entitled to ask, have occurred since then to justify a reversal of policy?

Can it be that the need for training and retraining in the area has diminished? The unemployment rate in the Doncaster travel-to-work area continues to be far in excess of the national average and not far short of the average of the development areas. The travel-to-work area immediately to the west, Mexborough—I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Dearne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) hopes to join us before the end of the debate—has an unemployment rate in excess of the average of the development areas, while to the east Scunthorpe is threatened with the loss of 5,000 jobs in the steel industry. Should not our unemployed have the chance to retrain?

Is it that the Doncaster centre is under-used? I understand—based on figures given to me in the locality—that the occupancy rate over the past six months is more than 77 per cent., compared with a national average for Great Britain last November of 75 per cent. I understand from the same source that the occupancy rate for Yorkshire and Humberside centres aggregated at the same date was only 71 per cent. When I visited the centre less than two weeks ago, I was informed that the occupancy was not 77 per cent. but nearly 100 per cent. Of 106 places at the centre, 92 are currently taken up.

I know that the Minister will quote, from the figures that he kindly supplied in response to a question, an occupancy rate of 66 per cent. over the past five months. Here we have an extraordinary discrepancy between the figures supplied by the Government from their head office, those supplied from the region and those that I ascertained from visiting the centre. That of itself should make the Government wonder, if they are basing their judgment on statistics, whether they should not look again at their statistical criteria. Whatever the figure given by officials to the Under-Secretary, I believe that the figure that I have just given—the 92 places out of 106 that are occupied, the nearly 100 per cent.—is the real current figure.

Is the threat of closure justified by a low placement rate? I understand from the regional sources that for the past six months the placement figure of those who completed training and sought employment was 74 per cent., compared with an average for the whole country of 78 per cent. But even at 74 per cent. the placement rate is well above the averages for Scotland, Wales and the Northern region. It is very much higher than the placement rate of TOPS trainees from colleges of further education almost everywhere.

Again, the fact disclosed by my recent visit is that the current placement rate is almost 100 per cent.—not the 74 per cent. or the 68 per cent. that I am sure the hon. Gentleman will quote to me. It is almost 100 per cent. That is the truth of the matter, as seen not from headquarters in London but from where the action is at local level.

Surely these figures, even if we take the worst of those to which I have referred, far from excusing a closure threat, confirm the success of the centre and give every justification not merely for its retention but for its expansion. That is particularly so since it has had such a short period in which to build up and to recruit instructors. I understand that that was one factor that inhibited development at the earlier stages.

The Doncaster centre is modern, with modern equipment, providing training in just those skills that are in short supply, not only in South Yorkshire but nationally—engineering trades, fitting, machining, building and construction trades, carpentry, joinery, bricklaying, electrical trades, electrical maintenance and installation, vehicle repair and maintenance—in addition to the more specialised training sought by local employers under sponsored training schemes. The sponsored training schemes have been outstandingly successful at Doncaster.

Furthermore, the courses have received the full support and co-operation of the local trade unions. As an illustration, I quote from the resolution passed by the district committee of the engineering section of the Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers in Doncaster in denunciation of the proposed closure: In an area that does not provide the necessary skills or trained labour, the closure would undoubtedly create a greater problem in meeting the future requirements for trained labour". That resolution, incidentally, should help to nail the lie so sedulously peddled by some Conservative Members over the years that the trade unions in general, and the AUEW in particular, are opposed to skillcentre training. Or do they suggest that somehow things are different in and peculiar to Doncaster? If so, they are providing yet one more argument for lifting the axe from our local centre.

Of course, opposition to the closure goes beyond the trade unions and the local Members of Parliament. Industry and commerce have expressed alarm. The metropolitan borough council has condemned the threat. Only the other day I received a letter from Barnsley metropolitan borough—I am very glad to see with us my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley and other Members representing constituencies in that area—saying that the council would regard the closure of the Doncaster skillcentre as a serious blow to the economic development of the borough.

I hope that the Minister will not seek refuge by suggesting that the matter is one for the Manpower Services Commission. Certainly, when the commission was established it was intended that it would be responsible, within the framework of its budget, for determining labour market policy and formulating priorities and initiatives. But under this Government things have apparently changed. It is now the Government who are deciding, and the commission is being asked to endorse what the Government have decided. It is a complete reversal of roles, with the Marks and Spencer man, Sir Derek Rayner, who may be expert in selling knickers but who probably knows little about manufacturing industry, dictating events. That is a kind of development that is wholly contrary to the spirit and intention of the 1973 Act.

Equally, I hope that the Minister will not inflict upon us the line that I have heard elsewhere, that the cut in skillcentre provision is between only 3 per cent. and 5 per cent. For Doncaster it is not between 3 per cent and 5 per cent., or the 20 per cent. that I quoted earlier; the closure will mean a cut of 100 per cent.

I see that there are present other hon. Members with similar interests, particularly those from South Yorkshire, including my hon. Friends the Members for Don Valley (Mr. Welsh) and Goole (Dr. Marshall), who may want to elaborate and support what I have said. Therefore, I conclude by telling the Minister that if he relies on any case that is built on the argument about the difficulty in placing trainees in areas of high unemployment, if he repeats the currently fashionable claptrap "Why spend money on training people if you cannot subsequently guarantee them jobs?", he will not only be confirming the Government's inability to understand and manage the labour market but will be declaring the Government's cynical abandonment of many of the unemployed and their remaining hope of returning to a job.

8.8 pm

Mr. Roy Mason (Barnsley)

I am very pleased that my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) has been fortunate enough to secure this Adjournment debate on the problem of the closure of skillcentres, particularly the Doncaster skillcentre.

I understand that newspaper reports indicate that the Manpower Services Commission plans to close 20 of its skillcentres to meet cuts imposed by the Government. I hope that the Minister will deny that. There could be no more shortsighted policy. If we are to have economic growth and industrial development, we must end the bottleneck in skilled personnel. It would be to have cuts of lunatic savagery to close 20 skillcentres.

The skillcentre that concerns me tonight is the one at Doncaster. Its closure would have a serious impact on Barnsley, because several local firms, as well as the National Coal Board, have benefited from the sponsored training at the centre, where existing employees are given specialised training in all the new techniques.

Moreover, a total of 41 unemployed Barnsley residents have applied to the Doncaster centre for retraining. That is the centre's other main function. The closure of the Doncaster centre would have an adverse effect on Barnsley in general and in particular on an area which is working hard to bring in new jobs and where the new industrial estates are now beginning to take off. The Doncaster centre has been open for just over two years, and I understand that it can now offer a wide range of courses and recruit even more Barnsley residents for training.

My local council, in its submission on the South Yorkshire structure plan, argued that the training needs of Barnsley borough wet e so crucial to the council's attempts to diversity industry that a skillcentre should be established at Barnsley. Therefore, the Doncaster closure would worsen an already inadequate training facility.

I speak for the officers and members of the council when I say that we would regard the closure of the Doncaster skillcentre as a serious blow to the economic development of Barnsley borough. I urge the Minister to heed the strong representations that have been made to him to ensure that the Doncaster skillcentre does not close.

8.11 pm

Mr. Michael Welsh (Don Valley)

I totally support the comments that have been made by right hon. Friends the Members for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) and for Barnsley (Mr. Mason).

South Yorkshire has lived for too long with the problem of unemployment. The threat of unemployment hangs like a sword over the heads of our men, women and young people. At particular risk are those who have had no training, those whose training is out of date or those who are trained for an industry that is in decline.

It is a paradox that mounting unemployment in the Doncaster area is to be found alongside a crippling shortage of skilled workers. The skillcentre exists to help to correct these problems. The facts about the Doncaster centre clearly show a success story. The Doncaster area is not directly affected by the steel industry, but we are neighbours of the Sheffield, Rotherham and Scunthorpe areas, all of which will be gravely affected. Surely the steel workers need to be retrained efficiently and quickly if they are to avoid the horrors of long-term unemployment, which destroys morale and incentive and is a drain on public funds.

This is a time when the Government should be tooling up to help with these problems. At best, the threat of closure of the skillcentre is sapping morale and enthusiasm. We are used to the hard facts of industrial life in the Doncaster area and we have a capacity to fight back and make the best of adversity. We live with danger and adversity in our mining industry. I came from the mining industry as late as May last year. We can do without adversities being introduced in consequence of penny-pinching, shortsighted Government policies.

A further important fact is that the skillcentre caters for training and retraining direct with industry. An employer will pay as much as £65 per week for each employee who is sent on certain schemes. Over 350 employees have been paid for in that way by organisations such as the National Coal Board, British Waterways, Hotpoint Ltd., Airfix, Mining Supplies, Ransomes, S. R. Gent, Albert Martin, Briden Wire and Rockware Glass, to name but a few. These workers have improved their skills, and in some instances have gained new skills by being sent to and paid for attending the centre.

This is a growing undertaking of which we are very proud. For four years before coming to the House I was the chairman of the industrial development committee, and the skillcentre is a fine achievement for which Doncaster can proudly fly the flag. We are very proud of it. I ask the Minister to ensure that this growth at the Doncaster skillcentre be allowed to continue.

8.15 pm

Dr. Edmund Marshall (Goole)

I am grateful for this opportunity to support my right hon. Friends the Members for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) and for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) and my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. Welsh) in their opposition to any suggestion that the Doncaster skillcentre facility be either removed or reduced in any way.

Although the skillcentre lies just within the boundary of the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, it is in fact less than two miles from my constituency boundary and many of the staff and trainees are and have been my constituents. I was fortunate enough to pay a visit to the skillcentre as recently as 9 November. I was greatly impressed by the new facilities that have been provided. New courses are available at the Doncaster skillcentre which are not available at all skillcentres. I am particularly mindful of the courses in bricklaying, which I found particularly fascinating.

The newness of the skillcentre makes one wonder how the present rumours, and reported rumours, about the proposed closure have come about. It seems silly that such a good facility, provided in the past two years, should now be threatened with extinction. Many people in the locality pressed long and hard for the opening of this skillcenre. I have a copy of a letter dated 1 August 1971, just two months after I came to the House, which I wrote to the then Secretary of State for Employment asking and pressing for the provision of a Government industrial training centre in the Doncaster area. Over many years there was tremendous pressure, and it was a great success when the decision to build the Doncaster skillcentre was taken. I have no doubt that it was due in large measure to the efforts of my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster.

The facility, which was greatly needed in the area, has now been given the chance to get off the ground. However, it would appear that there are some forces at work that want to try to give it a stillbirth.

The area of my constituency which is closest to Doncaster and is most closely served by the skillcentre is the former Thorne rural district. Unemployment in that district has persisted at a level much higher than the national average for two decades. The latest unemployment figure which I have for Thorne is for December 1979 and is 1,503, comprising 1,015 men and 488 women. It is not easy to express that as a percentage rate of unemployment because, in the statistics, the Thorne area is taken with the rest of the Doncaster area as one travel-to-work area. The percentage is worked out over that travel-to-work area as a whole.

In order to estimate the unemployment rate at Thorne, one must examine the most recent census figures, which give the number of economically active persons resident in the Thorne district. That census was taken in 1971, nearly nine years ago. At that time 16,835 economically active persons were resident in the Thorne area. Of those, there were 11,500 men and 5,335 women. On the basis of those figures, male unemployment in Thorne last month was 8.9 per cent. and female unemployment 9.1 per cent. That area is, indeed, an unemployment black spot. It is not possible to give more accurate figures because the normal monthly unemployment figure is expressed for the whole of the Doncaster area.

I hope that I have said sufficient to indicate that the possibilities of providing more jobs for my constituents at Thorne must be seized and exploited to the full. If local residents are to be able to use job opportunities to the full, they need facilities for retraining. The National Coal Board is helping in the area with its decision to recommence coal production at Thorne colliery in the next few years. That will make a profound difference to the area because of the new job opportunities that will arise as a consequence of that decision, both in the colliery and in attendant industries nearby. If the unemployed are to be able to use those new opportunities to the full, they must have at local level and within easy distance the facility to learn new skills by retraining.

Hon. Members have also mentioned the impact of those who are made redundant in the steel industry at Scunthorpe not far away. Some of my constituents travel each day to work in the steel industry in Scunthorpe. There is no other skillcentre in the whole of the South Humberside area from Doncaster to Grimsby. Those who have pressed for a skillcentre in South Humberside were told that the reason for one not being provided was that a skillcentre was planned—and is now provided—in Doncaster. At a time when the steel industry in Scunthorpe is obliged to reduce its manpower, it is silly that the South Humberside area should be denied a retraining centre, even at Doncaster.

I hope that the opposition to the rumoured closure of the Doncaster skillcentre is sufficient to stop any further moves in that direction. I give my wholehearted support to all that has been said to defend this wonderful facility for the people of my area.

8.23 pm

Mr. Edwin Wainwright (Dearne Valley)

Whenever the Tory Party is in power, it restricts the training of working-class people. Even though unemployment in my area is at such a high rate, the Government are determined to reduce the training facilities provided by the Labour Government. I do not know how they can appear before the nation and say that they will cut the means to produce skilled workers.

We are short of skilled workers throughout the country. Every manager and every trade union official knows it. Everyone knows it, except the Tory Government. I am surprised that they intended to take away a skillcentre. The Dearne Valley area is much affected by that decision because it has high unemployment. The only hope for young and middle-aged men is being betrayed by the Tory Government, the economic situation and the advance of technology. The last Tory Government also cut down the training facilities created by Labour because, they said, they were costing too much. How can we create the skilled workers we need unless we provide the resources necessary to give people the opportunity to train?

The Minister knows from his experience and from the way in which he has progressed the validity of what I am saying. He may smile now, but he knows that we cannot have a strong and progressive society unless we provide training facilities for young people. They do not cost that much. It is shattering to think that the Tory Government, who believe, so I am informed, in the advanced technology and microelectronics which will enable us to compete with our foreign rivals, should consider cutting down training. They know that we cannot compete unless we educate our young people and give them the chance to train. By their cuts, the Government are preventing working-class people from increasing their knowledge in a way that is necessary to enable this country to meet its future needs.

We are losing out in textiles. We import practically all our textile machinery because we have not progressed If one wants to buy textile machinery, one has invariably to buy it abroad. When the Labour Party has been in power, it has tried to move forward in this direction, but the Conservatives have destroyed their efforts. Where do the Conservatives get their money from? They get it from investments abroad, by buying goods abroad at a price cheaper than they can be made here and selling them on the home market here knowing that they will restrict the demand for home-produced goods. If we examined in detail where the Conservatives had their money invested, we would discover that people in the Tory Party will buy and sell where-ever they can provided they can make a profit and regardless of what happens to the country. At the same time, they are cutting back in vital areas. I am not talking about every Conservative supporter, only a few important ones.

Let us consider microelectronics, in which area lies the future of mankind. We have seen what happened in the computer industry. If everything had been left to the Tory Party, we should have been sunk. It was Frank Cousins who set things forward. Without him, we should not have had a computer industry.

The new technology of microelectronics is based on the computer, but the Tory Government have done everything in their power to destroy our British microelectronics technology. That is the way the Tories behave. They do not worry so long as they make money. Wherever their investments are, they do not care two hoots about anything else.

The Tories think that if we educate our working class the trade union movement will be strengthened. Of course, that is right. This has to be realised in the trade union movement, too. Unless we have a well-educated working-class movement, we cannot take over industries that we want to take over. But what matters is running industry for the nation's benefit, and we cannot do that unless we have highly skilled workers to do it.

When I look at the history of the Tory Party—and sometimes when I look at the history of my own party and of the trade union movement—I am disgusted. People do not seem to realise, and the Tories in particular do not realise, that we have to compete abroad, producing goods as cheap as or cheaper than those produced by our competitors while maintaining a high standard of quality. What is more, it is no use producing anything at all unless we can sell it. We need people trained on the commercial side, too, to sell goods.

Yet this Government are destroying just about the only skillcentre we have in Yorkshire. The Tory Government are to be criticised for all sorts of things—even my own Government deserved some criticism, for that matter—but unless we base a highly skilled body of working people making certain that we can compete and doing the worthwhile jobs which are needed, we cannot win the battle in the highly competitive world of today.

On the Tory Benches there is often a great deal of shadow talk about Britain and things British. On my side, too, there is sometimes a lack of understanding and acceptance of what that means. But if we want to move towards the best kind of democratic society, we must have skills. Everyone should be skilled. We must all be prepared to cope with the future developments in science and technology.

For goodness sake, let the Government not stop this skillcentre. It is only a small part of a larger scheme, but it is a very important part. I warn them that if they decide to stop it we shall fight them tooth and nail to make sure that they realise what we are fighting for.

8.34 pm

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington)

I am glad to be called in this debate. I have spent the day in the Chamber, and I rise now to do what I can to protect a constituency interest, in this case the skillcentre at Maryport in the heart of my constituency.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill)

Order. I am sorry to have to tell the hon. Gentleman that he cannot do that. The Adjournment debate is about the closure of the Doncaster skillcentre and no other.

Mr. Campbell-Savours

Perhaps, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I could relate the problems which I have in mind to those which similarly affect Doncaster. I must assume that one of Doncaster's problems is a high level of unemployment, just as it is in my area, and perhaps I may assume that the development area status of Doncaster has been lost as a result of the policy announced by the Secretary of State for Industry. Much of the country will be changed as a result of the right hon. Gentleman's statement. My constituency has lost its special development area status. It now has development area status. A number of other actions have been taken by the Government that affect not only Doncaster but my area.

The role of the National Enterprise Board has been severely reduced. The dispersal programme, which would have brought a Government laboratory to my constituency, has been disturbed. I assume that that has also affected Doncaster. Although the constituency of Doncaster does not subscribe to the North of England Development Council, I feel sure that there may be problems. In my constituency the county authority has withdrawn support for that vital industrial promotional organisation.

Many of the services provided by the Department of Industry in Doncaster will be affected as they have been in my constituency. The small firms' advisory services that are run by the Department are to be withdrawn. The Manpower Services Commission's budget, which covers skillcentres in Doncaster and in my constituency, will be halved as a result of recent statements by the Secretary of State for Employment.

I assume that the raising of minimum lending rate has had a fairly marked effect on the development of industry, both small and large, in Doncaster, as it is having in my constituency. The Government are now turning to a national review of skillcentres. The decision to implement such a review came as a bombshell to the community that I represent in Maryport. My constituency is suffering from heavy unemployment in the same way as Doncaster. In the past year 1,000 jobs have been lost. Doncaster's population is much larger than that of my constituency and it has probably lost, proportionally, a greater number of jobs.

The national ratio of the unemployed to job vacancies is six to one. In my constituency there is considerable unemployment. The ratio of jobs to unemployed is 45 to 1. The regional ratio is 14 to 1. I assume that conditions will probably be similar in Doncaster.

The skillcentres in all these communities are seen as a key to the future. That applies especially to local industry. In my constituency—I assume that this is so in Doncaster—an industrial training association has been formed. My constituency has seen the formation of the West Cumberland Industrial Training Association. It estimates that by 1988 there will be a shortfall of 800 jobs in my constituency. The skillcentre was seen as an important participant in the exercise of ensuring that such shortages did not take place.

As soon as the Government's decision was announced, I contacted the 137 companies in my constituency. I also contacted the trade unions. My hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven (Dr. Cunningham) and I are being flooded with replies from local industry. It is demanding that the centre be kept open. It is seen as having a vital role in the infrastructure of the region in the furtherance of industrial development in the county. I refer specifically to the centre with which I am directly concerned, but I assume that the centre in Doncaster—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

The hon. Gentleman cannot do that. He is doing very well, but he must not specifically refer to the centre in his constituency.

Mr. Campbell-Savours

One has to engage in mental acrobatics, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to be able to participate in these debates. Thank you for guiding me, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

I am informed that the national rate of placings of skilled people passing through skillcentres is about 60 per cent. The rate of those taking placings that may not relate directly to the skills that they have acquired in the centres is 82 per cent. I assume that in the case of my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) the statistics for his region are similar. In the skillcentre in my constituency, 60 per cent. of those who have been trained for a certain skill find placings. That was shown in a survey carried out last year. If we take into account those who take placings in employment that does not directly relate to skill, one reaches a figure of 86 per cent. of all placings.

Since the construction of the skillcentre in my constituency—as is probably the case in the skillcentre in Doncaster—we have been training approximately 130 per year. Since 1969 we have added to the skilled pool of West Cumbria a total of 1,200 trainees. That is an excellent record. I hope that the Government would not wish to intervene in any way.

Mr. Robert C. Brown (Newcastle upon Tyne, West)

When my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) speaks of placings following skillcentre training, he should be careful. I accept his figures, but he must be careful not to project the wrong image of the area that we discussed earlier today. The placings from our skillcentres—and the Government might take up the matter—are not as many as those in the South-East and the West Midlands, for the obvious reason that it is more difficult to find employment in the Northern region.

Mr. Campbell-Savours

I have stated that in the case of my skillcentre—and I assume that the situation is similar to that in the skillcentre of my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster—we have a high level of placings, because there is a shortage of skills and we are seeking—

Mr. Harold Walker

My hon. Friend will recall that I pointed out to the Minister that there is inconsistency, not to say a contradiction, in the figures one receives from different sources. Today the Minister supplied me, in reply to a parliamentary question, with figures that are wholly at variance with other figures that I received, not only about my skillcentre but about other centres from regional level. They are quite different and contrast with the figures that I received from my skillcentre in Doncaster. If there is to be such a wide variation, it throws the whole of the statistics open to question.

The closure programme is not a rumour. It is a firm proposal from the Government to the Manpower Services Commission. If that proposal is based on statistics, the Government should consider the reliability of the statistics before the disastrous programme is imposed on us.

Mr. Campbell-Savours

My right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster raises an important matter. I have been worried about the source of figures that have been circulating nationally about the skillcentres. I am not in a position to speak for my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, but in the case of my skillcentre I telephoned the Department of Employment and was able to obtain its figures, and they should be the same as those supplied to the Minister.

I raise another matter that is of a general nature, and perhaps I shall not have to try so hard to comply with the general tenor of the debate. I strongly object to the manner in which I was informed that a decision was about to be taken. If it had not been for a telephone call from a colleague, I would not have known about it. Yet the trade union, nationally, had been informed on 23 December, and it was asked not to make the information public. The great majority of hon. Members were informed probably as a result of an article in a national journal on 1 or 2 January

I take strong exception to a civil servant sitting in an office in London, accountable to a Minister, being in a position to put on a list the name of a town, when that list could lead to a future decision that would affect in a dramatic way the industrial development of my constituency, without consulting me as the Member of Parliament concerned sent to Parliament to represent 52,000 people. An arbitrary placing on a list can cause great anxiety in my area, which leads to great lobbying about something which at the time was highly speculative.

I have contacted a number of people about this. If decisions are to be taken—I hope that these remarks are relayed to other Departments—about the future industrial development of my constituency, I plead that the Member of Parliament for Workington be informed so that he knows how to inform his constituents and thus at least appears to be a reasonable Member.

8.45 pm

Mr. Ted Fletcher (Darlington)

I support the plea of my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) that the Doncaster skillcentre be kept open. I have sympathy with him, because the Darlington skillcentre is on the list to be closed. We have to confine our remarks to Doncaster, but no doubt much of my right hon. Friend's argument applies also to Darlington.

Part of the Government's campaign of economy cuts is drastically to reduce the personnel employed in this sector. They intend to reduce the manpower by 620–520 in skillcentres and about 100 in rehabilitation centres. I do not know the position in Doncaster, but 25 per cent. of the trainees in my constituency are subsidised by local industry—concerns such as British Rail, the National Coal Board and large engineering firms—to the tune of about £65 a week.

One wonders how these random guesses have been made. What have Maryport, Darlington and Doncaster in common? In Darlington, 80 per cent of the trainees immediately secure employment. No doubt things are similar in Doncaster. We have high unemployment in common. Both areas are trying to attract particularly small businesses.

Government spokesmen pay lip service to the need to help small businesses, but the first thing industrialists want to know is the availability of manpower—at Doncaster as well as Darlington. They will not go to an area which lacks skilled operatives, so we are receiving representations from employers that we should try to induce the Government not to close this centre. The establishment in my constituency is 10 years old and was purpose-built as a skillcentre. If it were sold off and we needed skilled labour in future—as we are bound to do—we should have to start again from scratch.

We must look at the problem in terms of the Government's overall policy. They intend to reduce the staff of the Manpower Services Commission by 3,400 in the next three years. In that context we must consider the position of the skillcentres. Many of the instructors are dedicated men and women. Many, such as skilled welders and engineers, could obtain better remuneration working outside a skillcentre. They work in skillcentres with a sense of dedication because they feel that they are making a contribution to the economy of the country. I have met many such workers in my constituency and I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster has met many in his constituency. Such men are prepared to work for less money than they could earn in the market generally, because they feel that they are doing a worthwhile job.

After such sacrifice and dedication, they are told by the Government that they are not needed, that within 12 months the skillcentre in which they are working will be closed and that they must look for other employment. That is destroying the seed corn. The Government are destroying the potential of people to obtain skills. It is not merely a question of training school leavers and helping to provide them with a skill. We have reached the point in technological development where a man needs to be retrained at least three or four times during his working life. Conditions change, and people need training to adapt themselves to those new conditions.

As the pace of technology increases, it will be even more necessary to train people quickly. It is verbiage to pay lip-service to the need for increased production, skilled manpower and to match our skills to those of our West German and Japanese competitors when there is no intention of ensuring that the necessary machines are available to produce the results. If we want skilled manpower and skilled womanpower, we must be prepared to pay for it.

There is a philosophy within the Tory Party that if anything moves it must be hit on the head and cut out. There is no discretion or discrimination as to what bureaucracy could be ended and what must be sustained. As soon as the Government took office, they issued an order saying that no more civil servants were to be employed for six months. That has led to many problems. The Government are now cutting back with a large axe a service which is vital to areas such as Doncaster, Darlington and other parts of the North-East.

Rehabilitation centres in Maryport and Billingham are among 20 which are to be closed. The Government are not simply conducting an exercise against skillcentres. They are conducting an exercise against rehabilitation centres. Among the three due to be closed in my area, one is a centre for disabled people, who are already being asked whether they would be prepared to travel 30 miles to the next centre at Felling.

The problem to be tackled is that of the kind of training that we are to give to young people and to workers whose skills have become redundant and who need to be retrained. The Tories have the answer. It is that those people do not need retraining. Retraining was brought about by a Labour Government because exceptionally large employers had fallen down on the task of training their apprentices.

I add my plea to that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster. I hope that the Government will look seriously at the future of skillcentres. If they do not, many unskilled people will be unemployed for long periods.

Mr. Edwin Wainwright

Does my hon. Friend agree that while great problems are created by a reluctance to train ordinary people in society to prepare themselves for jobs coming forward now or in the future, there are even greater problems in relation to mentally handicapped people who need training so that they may be able to do some kind of work? Does my hon. Friend agree also that the Tory Government are acting against their future?

Mr. Fletcher

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend, whose intervention has emphasised the point that I was seeking to make. If training is not available, many people will be destined to spend many years unemployed.

In my region, 7,000 people are unemployed. If people have no skill, it is difficult for them to get employment. There are 37 vacancies for skilled engineers in the area. The employers, who badly need engineers, will have to get them from other parts of the country or allow the vacancies to remain unfilled. In 10 years in Darlington, well over 3,000 people have been given training in various skills and they are now making a contribution towards building up the economy of the country.

The Tory Government's policy is one of despair, allowing capitalism to find its own solutions. It is in line with the philosophy of the free market, of letting everyone look after himself—the "I'm all right, Jack" philosophy. We have to think again about caring for the community. We have to consider policies that will benefit the community as a whole.

I have no hesitation in endorsing all the remarks made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster. I hope that the Minister will give consideration not only to Doncaster but to Darlington and to the many other skillcentres now under sentence of death.

8.57 pm

Mr. Alec Woodall (Hemsworth)

I humbly apologise to my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) for not having been present when the debate started. I congratulate him most heartily on his initiative in obtaining the debate. I shall be brief and refer only to that part of my constituency that is affected by the proposed closure.

According to the figures that I have, there are 78 trainees attending the Doncaster skillcentre from the Barnsley metropolitan borough council area. Of that number, 54 are from that part of my constituency known as the Dearne—that is, Bolton-on-Dearne, Goldthorpe and Thurnscoe.

Three years ago the Barnsley metropolitan borough council, appreciating the difficulties that we had in providing jobs and job opportunities, established an industrial estate at Bolton-on-Dearne. We were favoured by the Government at that time. We obtained two advance factories, which are now occupied.

Mine is a purely coal mining area. The days have long passed when the National Coal Board recruited anybody and everybody. The days have long passed when, at the age of 15 or 16, a boy left school and knew that he could go to the colliery office and get a job immediately. The National Coal Board is short of skilled mine workers, but the day has long passed when to a large extent it recruited young boys from school. It now creams off the best of the boys and gives them training in its own establishments. The rest are left with the desperate task of trying to find a job when they have no skill. Most of these young people in my area are training at the skillcentre, trying to equip themselves for the first job in their lives after leaving school. With the closure of this skillcentre, the situation will be very bleak.

The Government have recognised the fact that this part of South Yorkshire is a black spot. Thank goodness we are to retain our intermediate area status. Having said that, however, without the skills being there, what firm will come with new industry wanting skilled or semiskilled labour? The job opportunities are practically nil, and will continue to be nil until we get people who have been trained and have a skill at their fingertips, or have at least some idea of how to tackle a job.

I am afraid that this skillcentre closure will be the death knell of the hopes of many young people in my area. The Minister shakes his head, but that is a fact of life. He and I are already having a dialogue about another part of my constituency which is to lose its intermediate area status this year. At present we have between 15 and 16 per cent. unemployed in that part of the constituency. In the part which is to retain intermediate area status we are now to lose the opportunity for these lads to be trained for a job.

I beg the Minister to think again before he takes this drastic step. In South Yorkshire we have the worst spot in the whole of Yorkshire and Humberside—the Dearne area, the Rotherham area and the area between Doncaster, Barnsley and Rotherham. I beg the Minister to look again and, please, to spare this skillcentre and to give these young lads a chance.

9.1 pm

Mr. Norman Buchan (Renfrewshire, West)

I am very glad to be able to enter the debate in support of my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) in defence of the skillcentre at Doncaster and to assure him that he has fraternal solidarity from north of the border. As it happens, at the lower end of my constituency at Port Glasgow we are facing a very similar situation.

I have heard the figures for the North and North-East. In order to make comparisons so that we may judge what the Government are trying to do, I also tell my right hon. Friend that the skillcentre which the Government are closing in my area is in a similar black spot with a very high percentage of male unemployment—11 per cent. or 12 per cent. This is why we must probe the Government deeply about their intentions in relation to such areas as Doncaster and my constituency.

I cannot understand what the Government are up to in this matter. Roughly, their economic argument is that if we reduce public expenditure, for some reason private industry will flourish. But the only people who will allow private industry to flourish are the people who will go into that industry with fresh skills and retraining. Yet the very same Government are cutting back on the possibility and potential of fresh skills and fresh industry. It makes no sense whatsoever, even given the Government's rather crazy economic arguments.

Looking at my own area, to take an example and to make a comparison with Doncaster, one finds that there are 700 youth unemployed and another 700 in the youth opportunities programme. In other words, I am talking about 1,400 young people in the towns of Greenock, Port Glasgow and Gourock. It is an abysmal situation. It is not being helped by actions such as this by the Government.

Finally, we need to know the facts. Why have the Government chosen these particular areas such as Doncaster and Port Glasgow and Greenock? Is it the old argument that a Tory Government will support only success and will, therefore, flood skillcentres into the home counties? Surely that is nonsense. The areas in which we require them are the areas which require regional redevelopment. That means the black spots of unemployment, the growing unemployment areas such as Doncaster and the lower end of my constituency.

Mr. Edwin Wainwright

Is my hon. Friend aware that certain microelectronics companies in the United States have taken from Scotland, and from the whole of Great Britain, a great many of the best of our young people? Does he agree that we are neglecting the training of our young people if we cannot keep them in this country?

Mr. Buchan

We are neglecting the training of our workers and we shall not be able to keep them in the regions and in the country. In my constituency, IBM is concerned with micro technology and we have a new microelectronics factory starting up. However, for every 100 people who are made redundant in the shipbuilding industry only 10 can be employed in these highly geared technological industries. At one time in Greenock and Port Glasgow there were as many as 400 boys in training in the shipyard, including Scott Lithgow, but that number has been reduced to just over 200, which leaves a large gap to be filled.

We need answers from the Government about my constituency and that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster. Do not the Government want skilled people in industry? Do they want to destroy the seed corn of Britain? Are they trying to deindustrialise Britain? The whole community in my area—the provost, churches, trade unions and management—has joined together to fight the proposals, and I am backing them as strongly as my right hon. Friend is backing Doncaster.

9.5 pm

Mr. Ted Leadbitter (Hartlepool)

This is a natural continuation of our earlier debate and is of great concern to the Northern region. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Fletcher) attached his concern to the timely Adjournment debate raised by my right lion. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker).

For many years my constituency has been top of the unemployment league in the Northern region, and at present unemployment for men stands at slightly over 16 per cent. The position is serious for young people.

I, too, should like some precise answers from the Government. The country will not be persuaded that the Government are properly tackling the problem of unemployment, and their determination for an all-round cut in public expenditure raises serious questions. The youth opportunities programme is being cut by £25 million and the special temporary employment programme for young people is being cut by £45 million. I understand that last year about 248,000 young people were out of work, and the Manpower Services Commission estimates that by early 1982 478,000 young people will be out of work. The number of unemployed people under 19 years of age will, on a conservative estimate, double between the latter part of 1979 and early 1982. The Labour Government had a prudent policy to train young people, but this Government are cutting down financial support, which is a disastrous recipe.

About a decade ago a shipbuilding yard in my constituency closed and in recent months there has been a cutback in steel-making. We have therefore been robbed of the foundation for training our young people and are entirely dependent on the training structure laid down by the Labour Government.

It is time that the country knew that the position is even worse than that. In Doncaster, Darlington and the other areas on the closure list, the number of unemployed school leavers will increase. We are to have fewer books in our schools, thousands of qualified teachers will be out of work, all sorts of restrictions are to be placed on the education service and we could face the dangerous situation of young people entering the adult world more handicapped than they ought to be or have been in recent years.

We are racing towards rapid technological changes. A new language of technology is being developed and many young people will be placed at a serious disadvantage. If we do not meet the problem now, those young people may suffer for the rest of their lives and will not have even the chance of taking their proper place in the technological age that we are entering.

This is a sad situation. Hon. Members should not look at the clock and wonder when the debate will finish or think that other debates this week are more important. We may soon be discussing the serious matters of the migratory habits of trout or the sexual habits of the oriental flea. The problems facing our young people must have priority.

I learnt a great deal from those great people who man the skillcentres when they lobbied us last week. A number of my hon. Friends met the deputations and I was impressed by the man who said that he wanted us to understand that those taking part in the lobby were skilled people teaching in the centres. They were not worried about their jobs, because, with their skills, they could get employment in industry. They said "We are worried about the young people." I was impressed by that, as was my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster.

Mr. John Golding (Newcastle-under-Lyme)

I intervene with some embarrassment because I am sponsoring a Bill on migratory trout and salmon later in the Session. My hon. Friend has spoken about the problems facing young people, though the skillcentres cater mostly for those over 19. Has he reflected from his great experience on the impact of the closure of skilicentres on a group that is as hard hit as are the young unemployed, namely, the adult long-term unemployed, of whom my hon. Friend has as much experience as any hon. Member?

Mr. Leadbitter

My hon. Friend has made a responsible intervention. He reminds me that the young unemployed are an addition to those aged over 19 who are out of work and who represent added pressures on retraining and not just first training.

I appreciate that the Minister is limited in what he will be able to say in reply to the debate. Knowing the hon. Gentleman as I do, I am sure that if he cannot answer our questions he will at least transmit to his right hon. Friend the concern of the House and the matters which have been raised in this debate.

Is it true that we are concerned here merely with an overall decision of policy to reduce public expenditure by a certain percentage? If it is, we should like to know. If it is not, we should like to have the true position explained to us.

Has the Department consulted hon. Members who represent constituencies in the areas concerned? Has it consulted the trade union movement, the employers and such organisations as the North of England Development Council and the related bodies in Scotland and Wales and on Merseyside? Has it tried to satisfy itself about the skills required in those areas, even at a time when it is necessary to respond to the Government's call for a cut in public expenditure? Has there been any objective examination made in an attempt to work out the skill requirements in those areas? If any of those organisations has been consulted at all, what response has the Department received? If those organisations have not been consulted, shall we be told?

It appears that the ayatollah of Leeds, North-East—the Secretary of State for Industry—is not prepared to listen. But there comes a time when the country makes a Government listen, tolerance becomes outworn and the Government have to be told that enough is enough.

Like my hon. Friends who represent other parts of the United Kingdom which have similar problems, I am not prepared merely to accept what a Government or some Minister has to say purely because it falls in line with the Cabinet decision to cut a certain percentage from public expenditure. There has to be a dialogue involving Members of Parliament, the CBI, the trade union movement and the training establishments concerned so that everyone can see clearly that what is being done is for the country's good and is not damaging it.

The Government have nearly gone too far. It is all very well kneeling at the altar of monetarism, but this nation was not built on one gospel alone. The broad church of opinion will assert itself. I appeal to the Government to think again, and I use the word "appeal" in a desperate attempt to find some rapport with the Government about the future of skillcentres and our young people.

But, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) reminded me, it is not only our young people about whom we are concerned. Many of their fathers are out of work and need retraining. They need desperately to feel part of the communities in which they live. They must not be cast aside to appease the doctrinaire views of the guru of Leeds, North-East, our abrasive Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who, in a few weeks from now, will be taking at least another £1,000 million out of public expenditure.

In that context, it is important to get the message across to the Government: "For God's sake, do not have a confrontation." I assure the House that I should rather see a Conservative Government in office for a longer period provided they were prepared to listen to some of these reasoned arguments than have the nation plunged into a state of turbulence from which it would take years to recover. I believe in the democratic principle and the process of consultation. Will the Government please listen?

9.21 pm

Mr. Allen McKay (Penistone)

I shall be brief, because the subject has been well covered. I rise to support my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) in his request to be told why the skillcentres have to close. It is, no doubt, for economic reasons. It would appear that Government Departments have been given a remit to cut, and instead of consulting each other each Department has proceeded independently to see what finance it can save.

In cutting the skillcentres, the Government are cutting out a vital element in the industry strategy. The Government, who decided on a policy of change—a policy that they have tried to force through irrespective of the disruption that it might cause—are by their actions preventing that change from taking place. The skillcentres are used for a variety of purposes. They are used by the further education authorities to enable people to develop their skills. They are also used by the unemployed, and the Government are increasing the rate of unemployment, which means that the skillcentres will be needed more than ever. The skillcentres are also used by firms that are unable to provide for themselves the type of training their workers require. The National Coal Board, for example, for which I worked, has frequently used skillcentres. The board has training facilities for 99 per cent. of its employees, but there have been occasions when it has required special training skills to cater for special jobs, particularly in its workshops, and it has used skillcentres.

The area I represent runs into Barnsley and Sheffield. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) has put Barnsley's case. I left Sheffield three and a half hours ago after talking to 1,000 men who, because of the Government's policies, are now on strike. Some of them will no doubt lose their jobs in the near future. These are the very people for whom skillcentres would provide retraining.

I am in correspondence with a number of men who are being made redundant by the National Coal Board and are now seeking work. These people have clerical skills, but because their skills are not needed in the area they are seeking to be retrained in other skills which are required. If the Government mean what they say about change—that the industrial base has to be changed—and if we are moving into an era in which there will be a working elite, as will happen under the Government's policies, that working elite must be skilled. But the skillcentres that will be needed to support that Government policy will be cut.

I hope that the Minister can reply to some of the questions that have been asked, because the people whom we represent will want to know why the Government are acting in this way. Is it part of a general strategy or is it a haphazard cut simply designed to save money, to be made regardless of the social consequences and the consequences for skill?

9.25 pm

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Jim Lester)

I thank the right hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) for initiating this debate, because it gives me an opportunity to make the position clear on possible skillcentre closures, about which we have all seen a good deal of press comment and speculation, some over-dramatisation and not a little passion.

Other hon. Members with skillcentres in their constituencies will also be grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising this question. I congratulate the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) on his ingenuity in making his speech. I had a word with Mr. Deputy Speaker to try to ensure that it was made, because I realise that the hon. Gentleman wants to take every opportunity to put forward the case for his constituency.

It is also interesting to see the support from other parts of the country. We heard from the hon. Members for Darlington (Mr. Fletcher), for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) and for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter).

Perhaps I may correct something that I heard the right hon. Gentleman say twice today about the youth opportunities programme and the special temporary employment programme. Although there was a reduction in expenditure overall, the budgets of both programmes have been consistently under spent. What the right hon. Gentleman did not say was that this year the youth opportunities programme was expanded by 30 per cent. in real terms, that we have maintained the guarantee to all young people unemployed after Christmas or Easter, which the previous Government started, and that the STEP scheme, even though concentrated in areas of higher unemployment, has increased in real terms over the past 12 months. Those are the facts.

Mr. Harold Walker

The hon. Gentleman cannot get away with what he has just said. He must not mislead the House. He should confirm that the Government have been able to maintain them only at the expense of savage cuts in other programmes. Did not the Chancellor of the Exchequer announce in June a cut of £170 million from the whole range of special measures that the previous Government had introduced?

Mr. Lester

The right hon. Gentleman's point was on youth opportunities and STEP, and that is what I have answered with real facts and figures, and the number of places affecting young people.

If the right hon. Gentleman were not such a good runner, we should not have had the debate at all. He had the support of 11 hon. Members, a very convincing team of cricketers, including the right hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) and the hon. Members for Don Valley (Mr. Welsh), for Dearne Valley (Mr. Wainwright), for Goole (Dr. Marshall), for Hemsworth (Mr. Woodall) and for Penistone (Mr. McKay). Few Adjournment debates can have attracted such support and so many Yorkshire men at any one time.

The first point that I must make clear is that no decisions to close particular skillcentres have yet been taken, although the Manpower Services commissioners are to consider proposals that will involve closures. As I understand it, the much-publicised list is a list of candidates for possible closure that will be considered by the commissioners on 28 January. I remind hon. Members who talked about wider consideration that the commissioners consist of representatives of the CBI, the TUC and educationalists. They are independent people, independent of my Department.

Mr. Leadbitter

I agree with that, but did the commission ask the Government whether it could consider closures, or did the Government ask it to do so?

Mr. Lester

If the hon. Gentleman will give me a chance to make a little more of my speech, he will learn the answer. I should like to put some sense, perspective and reason into the whole question. In the view of the MSC's training services division, all the 20 skillcentres and annexes on the list could be cases for closure in the interests of rationalising the skillcentre network, achieving a more cost-effective operation, and providing the right quantity and mix of skillcentre training in the right places.

If all the closures happened, which they will not, there would still be more places available than trainees to take them, and considerable room for expansion. That is if all the closures are going ahead, and they are not. That hardly squares with the idea that we are denying anyone the opportunity to train.

We all recognise that rationalisation must be tempered to some degree by other considerations.

Mr. Buchan

Surely it is too much to tell the House that this has been done in the interests of rationalisation. Is it not the case that it is imposed upon the commission by the Government's crazy devotion to the imposition of a cut in public expenditure? Even if there would be a sufficiency of places after such a process, on present figures, the figures must rise as people leave jobs, as jobs in old industry phase out and as new industries phase in. With the Government's economic policy and unemployment creeping up to more than 1½ million, there may be a grave inadequacy of places throughout existing centres, let alone the core that will be left after the Government's savage cuts.

Mr. Lester

If the hon. Gentleman would let me complete, or even start, my speech, he might find some of the answers. I am not trying to mislead the House. I am giving the facts. If all these centres and annexes were closed, there would still be more vacancies in the existing and expanded network, with the new centres which are being built, than trainees available.

However, we all recognise that rationalisation must be tempered in some degree by other considerations. I bow to no one in the House over my concern about structural change, unemployment and the problem of young people and training. I have taken great interest in these matters in the time that I have been in this office. Therefore, we recommend in principle the closure of not all the skillcentres on that list. Even that will not be the end of the matter. The Scottish and Welsh committees of the Manpower Services Commission must be consulted before the decisions are finalised. No decisions have been taken which I must defend or otherwise. I have listened with interest to what the right hon. Member for Doncaster and others have had to say. I shall, of course, ensure that the Manpower Services Commission is made aware of their arguments and the strength of their views before it considers the closures next week.

I appreciate the point made about the carry-on statistics. I understand that these matters are judged on the same basis as they were judged when the right hon. Member for Doncaster was at the Department of Employment.

Mr. Harold Walker

We did not close any skillcentres.

Mr. Lester

The basis of statistics has not changed with the change of Administration.

Mr. Golding

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Lester

I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment.

It may help if I set out my understanding of the reasons for and the effects of the proposed rationalisation generally and then in respect of the Doncaster centre in particular.

I do not think that there is any dispute that the kind of training for adults offered by skillcentres is not only important but essential to our economy. The Secretary of State has not changed his view. Nor have J. Skillcentre training of itself will not resolve skill shortages, but it can help if industry is willing to make the best use of both trainees and the facilities available. The opportunity to upgrade skills and, by so doing, to increase the prospects of employment is important for people whether in or out of jobs.

I think that we might all also agree that the TOPS system must be flexible and able to respond to changes in the labour market in terms both of where demand for skilled workers is and of the skills in which people are trained. Where we might perhaps disagree is on how far we should expect training facilities to go before industrial need, in the hope that trade will follow the flag, rather than respond to known demands, so that we can be certain that people who go through this very demanding training have reasonable prospects of jobs at the end of it. This change of emphasis has come through in the light of experience. I now give way to the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding).

Mr. Golding

A couple of pages ago, before he got bogged down in the brief, the Minister said "We are recommending the closures". Who are "We"? What is the Government's policy towards the closures? Are they waiting until the Manpower Services Commission has made a recommendation?

Mr. Lester

The training services division of the Manpower Services Commission is making these proposals to the commissioners. Until the commissioners have seen them, we in the Department have no part.

Mr. Harold Walker

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I submit that the hon. Gentleman is misleading the House. He must not do it. He suggested that these proposals had come from the training services division of the Manpower Services Commission.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Richard Crawshaw)

Order. I take it that the Minister has given way, because that is not a point of order. Hon. Members are often misled.

Mr. Harold Walker

With respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it is a point of order when a Minister misleads the House. I am accusing the Minister of misleading the House. We had it from the chairman of the Manpower Services Commission, and the hon. Gentleman should know that at a deputation last week the Secretary of State confirmed, that this programme was prepared after Sir Derek Rayner, the consultant brought in from Marks and Spencer, examined the skillcentre network and came up with the table which has been, or will be, submitted to the Manpower Services Commission. Sir Derek is the Government's man and he is employed by them. The Minister should answer for Sir Derek. The Manpower Services Commission is not responsible for him.

Mr. Lester

If the right hon. Gentleman will give me the opportunity to answer, I shall deal with the position of both Sir Derek Rayner and the Government. Heaven help us, the right hon. Gentleman has given me no chance at all.

We genuinely want to see use made of the facilities for adult training offered by both the TOPS scheme and by direct training services. We do not think that the best use is being made of skillcentres at present. Hon. Members will be well aware that the skillcentre network, which has had its ups and downs—it is not all perfect—was not the result of careful planning. It just grew. Where skillcentres and annexes are situated has often been determined not so much by logic, demand, transport facilities, and so on, as by opportunity or political pressure. They may be fair reasons in their own right, but they do not result in a coherent and effective network of skillcentres providing enough training where it is most needed at least cost.

In particular, the bulk of skillcentres have tended to be located in areas of high unemployment. It was thought that availability of skillcentres' training would help those unemployed or made redundant to acquire new skills, that the availability of a pool of trained labour would help to attract new industry to these areas and that training people "for stock" during economic downturns would help economic growth when the upturn came.

But, sadly, events have not matched the theory. Most workers made redundant by major closures have not chosen to undertake skillcentre training. Of course, unemployed people have come forward for training in areas of high unemployment, but nowhere near in large enough numbers to fill all the places available, and not in trades in which they have some prospect of a job afterwards. In any case, there is frequently a surplus of skilled labour in high unemployment areas, and, not surprisingly, trade unions are opposed to adding to the number of skilled unemployed.

Unless a skillcentre trainee, who has been through a greatly accelerated course, has the opportunity to put into practice in a job soon after he completes his course what he has learnt, the evidence is that he rapidly loses his skills—and with them, of course, his prospect of employment. The upshot of this is that we now have many skillcentres—mainly in areas of high unemployment where the number of training places per worker is vastly higher than average—with consistently poor performance, in terms both of number of training places occupied and of trainees placed in employment using their training skills.

There is somehing of a vicious circle. The knowledge gets around that job prospects at the end of a six, nine or even 12-month stint of concentrated training are dim. People are discouraged from taking courses and occupancy drops. Skillcentre management tries to increase numbers trained, perhaps by letting through slightly less than suitable trainees. Employers and unions then can get the impression that skillcentre trainees are not much help, placing prospects fall, and so on. As one survey of TOPS trainees and their subsequent employment commented, there is no worse advertisement for TOPS training than an unplaced TOPS trainee.

Yet how can we expect large numbers of inexperienced skillcentre trainees to get jobs in areas where there are already large numbers of unemployed skilled and experienced men? The main effects of over-training—for that is what we are talking about—are disillusionment, disappointment for the individuals concerned, a costly but unproductive TOPS system and a bad name for TOPS training generally.

Mr. Buchan

I cannot accept that value judgment without the figures to back it. My figures do not bear out what the Minister says. On the contrary, about 75 per cent. of those who complete the training manage to get posts within three to six months. It would be interesting to know how many trainees are given jobs for which they are not trained because they are seen by employers at least to be trained men even if they are trained in another skill.

Mr. Lester

I shall try to supply the hon. Gentleman with those figures.

Mr. Woodall

Does anything that the hon. Gentleman has said about skillcentres in general apply to Doncaster?

Mr. Lester

I shall be coming to Doncaster by the time I finish. I took the opportunity—I think a reasonable oppor- tunity—to try to put the whole matter in context.

These, I understand, are the reasons why the Manpower Services Commission's training services division is seeking to rationalise the skillcentre network. The 1978 TOPS review, which was fully endorsed by the previous Administration, as the right hon. Gentleman will know, recommended that overall efficiency of the TOPS scheme would benefit by some shift of the balance towards the regions of higher labour demands and employment growth". More generally, it recommended that skillcentres should be much more closely aligned to their local labour market demands. These recommendations underlie the rationalisation proposals.

But the Manpower Services Commission's desire for rationalisation is not the only thing to enter the reckoning. I acknowledge what hon. Members have been saying. The skillcentre network was examined by Sir Derek Rayner, who, as hon. Members know, was appointed by the Prime Minister to seek out areas in the public service where waste could be eliminated and efficiency promoted. Although the right hon. Gentleman made some remarks about the sort of things he sold, few of us would doubt that Marks and Spencer is an example of an efficient and excellent British company. Sir Derek has recommended the closure of a number of centres and a review of performance in others with a view to closure if insufficient resources are available to run marginally efficient centres.

Most of the centres on the list to go to the MSC, and a few more, are also on Sir Derek's list. A few on his list are not on the MSC's list, including three in areas of high unemployment that may be badly affected by forthcoming redundancies. The Manpower Services Commission does not have to follow Sir Derek's recommendations lock, stock and barrel. But it does have to propose a worthwhile and positive response to them which will come up with roughly equivalent increases in efficiency in the network.

The MSC has also, as hon. Members have said, to make considerable staff savings over the next two to three years—3,400 staff in the MSC, of which about 500 will be found from the skillcentre network. I understand that about half of these savings can be made without cuts, but some skillcentres will need to be closed if the required staff savings are to be made.

Small moves in favour of rationalisation can be, and have been, made by closing or changing classes in each centre. But class closures do not make any real impact on the present imbalance of provision between regions or on the overprovision in some localities. Nor do they save staff or much money. But they do have a disproportionately big effect on numbers trained. That, I understand, is just what the possible closures that the MSC will be considering are designed to avoid. I have outlined why there is a need for closures. I shall now try to outline the likely effects.

In selecting these candidates for possible closure, the Manpower Services Commission's main concerns have been to minimise effects on the total number of places available and of people trained, on the availability and accessibility of training, and on the range of training offered. It has, I understand, gone about this in two main ways—by choosing candidates mainly from among clusters of centres and annexes all serving one locality and by selecting centres that are likely to be replaced by new better-placed centres over the next three or four years.

Mr. Campbell-Savours

As the hon. Gentleman knows, when I came to see him the other day I referred to a statement made by Lord Gowrie outside my consitituency but relating to Maryport, in which he said that the centre would not close. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman will take the opportunity to comment on that statement. Many people in Cumbria want to know what he was saying.

Mr. Lester

I think that this would not be the occasion to quote—

Mr. Edwin Wainwright

Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that in South Yorkshire—indeed, in Yorkshire as a whole—we are greatly restricted in the provision of skillcentres? This is one of the most important parts of the system for training our young people where there is high unemployment. What do the Government guarantee to do for our young people and for others who could be trained to move from one job to another and be useful in society? May we have an assurance that the Government have the right attitude, or is the Minister saying, in effect, "We intend to do it regardless of the effects on society"?

Mr. Lester

I am saying that at the end of this exercise there will be more places available for trainees than ever before, contrary to the impression which hon. Members have tried to give. Some centres are being closed because they are being replaced by new, better-placed centres over the next three or four years, and that last point—the reference to new centres—is an important one to which I shall return.

What will be the overall effect of the possible proposed changes—closures and openings? Even if all the centres and annexes on the list were closed, which is most improbable, as I have said, we should end up with only about 150 places fewer than at present, since there will be the new centres being opened. Moreover, because these places would be better located where the demand is, they should be more fully used and more people could be trained—about 27,000 each year instead of fewer than 23,000 as at present. The range of courses would not be changed.

That is the global picture. What would be the effect on particular areas? As I have said, the possible closures fall into two distinct groups—those where retrenchment is proposed, intended to reduce the number of places in an overprovided area, and those where replacements are on the stocks. Let me deal with the latter first.

The Manpower Services Commission will also be deciding the shape of its future capital programme when it meets on 28 January. Two things, I think, are clear. The programme has had to be cut back because of expenditure constraints, and the scope for building and operating new centres is extremely limited unless staff, already short, can be found by making changes elsewhere.

Five of the annexes and three of the skillcentres on the MSC's list are there because they would be replaced by new centres in the near vicinity or, in the case of the annexes, by extending their parent centres. Three other annexes are proposed for closure because their classes can be transferred to their main centres. That leaves five centres and three annexes, which, as the right hon. Gentleman suggested, would involve the loss of local facilities—I appreciate that when a skillcentre closes the loss in its area is 100 per cent.—but where new provision or wholesale transfer is not proposed. They are not necessarily the centres with the worst performance in the network, but most are part of a group of centres which overall make less contribution to their local community than they are capable of. An important point which has been put to me is that closure of these centres, if that is what is decided, would be carefully phased by the Manpower Services Commission to take account of the local unemployment and redundancy position. I accept what was said by the hon. Member for Workington, that Maryport is a special case in this situation and would need special consideration.

Last, but not least, I come to Doncaster, which is quite properly the concern of the right hon. Member for Doncaster and his hon. Friends. I understand his concern because it is a centre with which he is closely involved—indeed, I believe that he opened it—but it is included on the list, I understand, because of consistently poor occupancy and placing since it was opened. In other words, the centre has failed to deliver the goods in the way expected of it when it was built a few years ago.

Moreover, this centre is in an area reasonably well served by skillcentres, paricularly those at Sheffield and Wakefield. However, I do not deny to the right hon Gentleman that, following fairly radical pruning and replanting of classes, Doncaster has started to do much better recently. That, too, is something which, no doubt, the MSC commissioners will take into account when they consider these matters on 28 January, and I undertake to ensure that those figures, and the figures which have been given in the debate are drawn to their attention.

Finally, I remind hon. Members of the main issues. There must be skillcentre closures to make staff savings to take account of Sir Derek Rayner's recommendations, but most important of all to produce a network of skillcentres that are strong and viable and provide a genuine service to their localities to the fullest extent possible and on a cost-effective basis.

Many of the closures will be more than matched by new provision in the area. Overall, there will be no reduction in the number of places available. There should be more training done with better results for those who are trained. The important changes proposed are almost entirely in areas of considerable and apparent over-provision. I support the Manpower Services Commission in these objectives, but I must stress again that no decisions have been made. It is improbable that all the list of centres and annexes will be closed. The commission still has some key decisions to make. As I have said, I shall ensure that they are made in full knowledge of all the views expressed in the debate.