ENTERPRISE ZONES (Hansard, 30 July 1981)

§ Mr. Peter Morrison
I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
With your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and that of the House, perhaps with this we may discuss Lords amendment No. 4, in page 7, line 19, leave out subsection (2) and insert— (2) An employer shall not be obliged to comply with a requirement imposed under section 6 of the said Act of 1964 (returns, information and records) in respect of an establishment or employee if—

(a) at the time the requirement is imposed the establishment is situated as mentioned in subsection (1) above or, as the case may be, the employee's employment is carried on at or from such an establishment, or

(b) the requirement relates to a period during which the establishment was so situated or, as the case may be, the employee's employment was so carried on."
Both these amendments relate to enterprise zones. Again, they are technical. They amend defects in the original Bill as it left this House. I shall, of course, be happy to answer any questions which the right hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) may wish to ask me.

§ Mr. Harold Walker (Doncaster)
I do not wish to detain the House for long, nor do I want to encourage the House to oppose the amendment. But I should be grateful if the Minister would give us a little more information not directly about the amendment but about a matter which is related to the amendment.
The amendment deals with levies and, of course, levies are imposed by industrial training boards. Throughout the progress of the Bill in both Houses, we have had overhanging it the shadow of the announcement by the Secretary of State on 26 November last year that it was the Government's intention that statutory boards should he retained for only a few key sectors of industry. We have also had hanging over us the shadow of the review that the Secretary of State required the Manpower Services Commission to carry out, and we have the report of the review only today. I regret to say that it is available only in the Library. Copies are not available in the Vote Office.
We had assumed that the Secretary of State would make a statement about the review and the future of some of the boards. Apparently that is not to be the case. We are to be satisfied with the mere publication of the report. But it leaves some very important questions outstanding.
First, there is the future of the financing of the boards. Since 1974, the boards have had their operating costs met by the Exchequer in the form of grants from the Department of Employment, and the Secretary of State has said that the funding of the operating costs will terminate by the end of this year.
If we are not to have any statement from the Secretary of State arising from the MSC's review until the House returns after the recess, it means that the boards will have a period of three months in which they will be in the greatest doubt about the source of their finances after the end of the year—that is, the boards which are presumed to survive.
In my view, the boards and their staffs, whose jobs are bound up with the boards, are entitled to some statement from the Government before the House rises for the recess about what the arrangements will be at the end of the year when the cash runs out.
Secondly, I believe that we are entitled to some assurance from the Government that no decisions will be taken on the recommendations of the review body until the House has had a full opportunity to debate its report. On a quick reading of the Manpower Services Commission's report, I am enormously encouraged to note that the commission appears not to share the view of the Secretary of State about the need to reduce the number of boards. In many cases, the commission sees the need for the continuation of statutory arrangements.
The House should be given the opportunity to debate the report and to make recommendations preferring the advice of the commission to that of the Secretary of State before he makes any decisions. I hope that the Minister will give us an assurance that the House will have that chance after the recess, and that any decisions about new orders relating to the scope and number of boards will be deferred until after that.

§ Mr. Peter Morrison
I agree entirely with the right hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) that it would not be sensible to delay more than necessary the decisions about the future of the industrial training boards, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment has made that clear.
1327 As the right hon. Gentleman will know, we have been in a little difficulty. For very understandable reasons, the Manpower Services Commission asked the Government if it might delay delivery of the report of the review from the end of June to the end of July. That has put us back just a little.
As for the operating costs, it is fair to say that my right hon. Friend has made it clear that that is a matter which he will consider very carefully. He realises that in the present state of industry and so on, the cost to industry of affording the operating costs is an added burden. So the right hon. Gentleman's points are well understood. We are looking carefully at the matter.
On the question of the review, the Bill gives Ministers the opportunity, having consulted the MSC, to make up their minds. My right hon. Friend will make a statement to the House as and when he has made up his mind about the future of the ITBs. I think that that is what the right hon. Gentleman wants. I take on board and understand that it is important to reach quick decisions because the uncertainty is not good for training or for the staffs of the boards who have done a good job in the past.