INDUSTRIAL TRAINING ORDERS (Hansard, 9 June 1981)

§ Mr. Harold Walker
I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 2, line 38, at end insert— '(4) If an order made under subsection (2) of this section has the effect of winding up an industrial training board the Minister shall, not more than twelve months after the order takes effect, and at annual intervals thereafter, publish and lay before Parliament a report of the training arrangements in the industry and the report shall contain information in particular about 339

(a) the arrangements for monitoring skill shortages and other training needs, and the action being taken to alleviate them,

(b) the devising, and keeping up-to-date, and the publicising of training standards appropriate to the industry,

(c) the extent to which trade unions and educational institutions are involved in the industry's training arrangements.'.

I am sure that, when he saw the amendment, the Under-Secretary of State instantly recognised the words. They are culled from the press notice giving details of what the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for City of Chester (Mr. Morrison), said on 13 April when he spoke in Plymouth: we are not going to let companies off the hook of statutory boards to slip back into inefficient training, skill shortages and poaching. We want to capitalise on the successes of the statutory boards—not waste them. Any voluntary arrangements would have to be adequate to meet essential training needs".I hope that hon. Members are looking at paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of the amendment, because the Under-Secretary of State went on to say: These would include: monitoring skill shortages and other training needs, and arranging voluntary action to alleviate them; devising, and keeping up to date and publicising training standards appropriate to the industry; working as appropriate with trade unions and educational institutions. All that we are asking the Under-Secretary of State to do today is put his words on the statute book.
It is eminently sensible that Parliament should continue to have an oversight of the effect of winding up an industrial training board, with particular regard to those factors properly identified by the Under-Secretary of State. If boards are to be abolished, because the Government are convinced that the alternative voluntary arrangements will meet the manpower needs of the industries concerned, unless there are monitoring arrangements and reports to provide essential information we shall be unable to judge whether the Government have been wise or unwise in abolishing those boards, and whether it is necessary to take urgent statutory action to re-establish them.
What the Under-Secretary of State said at Plymouth was sensible and he should underpin it by statutory action. I hope that the Government will agree to the amendment.

§ The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. David Waddington)
I hate to disappoint anyone. Although no speech of mine gave birth to this amendment, I heartily applaud the choice of language of the Under-Secretary of State for Employment, my hon. Friend the Memberfor City of Chester (Mr. Morrison). Certainly the amendment covers some of the most important objectives of voluntary training arrangements and goes on to require that an annual report about them shall be published.
I readily accept that it is right that the Government should take a close interest, initially at least, in the voluntary arrangements that may replace statutory training boards. At the same time, it is inappropriate, on several grounds, to impose a statutory obligation on my Department to publish a report about them each year. Initially we would expect the MSC' s annual report, which my right hon. Friend has a statutory duty to lay before Parliament, to contain information about the commission's relations with new voluntary training bodies which may be developed in place of industrial training boards. The 340 annual report has regularly given information of this kind about voluntary bodies outside the ITB field. When the new voluntary bodies settle down, one would expect the MSC not to have to take such a substantial interest in them, and I would not expect that reports about them would continue to be necessary.
I should also remind the House that it has always been envisaged that in some areas we may finish up without any collective institution. Where most of the training is done by a few big firms, arrangements could well be left in their hands, with satisfactory results. In those circumstances, the amendment would imply requiring individual companies to provide information on a regular basis; this the Government most certainly would wish to avoid.
Finally, it would be inappropriate to lay a statutory requirement on the Secretary of State to make an annual report on matters that were not within his direct responsibility. That sounds slightly technical, but strictly it is correct. I invite the House to reject the amendment.

§ Mr. Eastham
I am disappointed with the comments of the Under-Secretary of State, who will recall that in Committee I raised this matter and asked about monitoring. He replied then that there was merit in the idea of some monitoring, although nothing had been firmed up. All parties acknowledge that Governments have consistently made mistakes. That was the reason for the legislation in 1964. What we are trying to do is protect the future, not just of individual industries, but of the nation, if we are to have any industry at all.
We have all been bombarded with numerous pieces of literature from various quarters and interests. We also pick up some information from reading odd publications. Only recently I read in a building trade journal published in April a long article entitled "Training for survival". I shall not bore the House with full details of it, but one passage is worth recording: As I am sure you appreciate, training has, like the nation, reached its crossroads and it is vital at this time of uncertainty that we take the right road. You do not need me to remind you that industry is vast and complex; that its workload is largely unstable and cyclical and highly sensitive to changes in Government economic policies; that there is great diversity both in size and type of firms, a large number of whom do little if any training. That all underlines the need for someone to see into the future and to help industry through the various phases of boom and recession". This was submitted not by trade unionists, but by professionals, who, I presume, would often support the Government. We are seeing the realisation by intelligent people that proper provision has to be made. This is why we cannot now have a situation like that prior to 1964, where we will be faced with a time lag. If we start to fail now, it will not show immediately. When apprenticeships and training are involved, it takes a number of years to show up. There will be a gradual decline.
9 pm
For those reasons, we need monitoring, and a report, so that we may have advance warning. We should not leave it until the death, when we suddenly find ourselves in a terrible mess. Input is needed from industry, and also from education and the various employment agencies. Industry is an ever-changing business, and, in view of all the new developments and technologies, one has a right to ask what provision is to be made. The Under-Secretary said that there would be no interference and that the Government were not asking for reports. How will we get 341 the information? Who do we turn to? Who will make the provisions? How will the Government know which needs are to be provided or should be provided?
I should al so like a breakdown into groups, by age and sex. It would not be a bad idea to know about training for the disabled. Disabled people are able to carry out many intricate jobs. This is the International Year of Disabled People, yet there is no mention of using the skills of many of these people who, although physically incapacitated, can perform useful jobs. We need positive information and an opportunity to debate some of these issues on the Floor of the House.
If industry lets us down, as it has done in the past, and as I am sure it will do in the future, it will not be industry that pays, but the nation.

§ Mr. Waddington
I fear that the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Eastham) may not have heard all that I said. I was at pains to say that, in its annual reports, the MSC regularly gives information about voluntary bodies, and there is no reason why that should not continue. So, although the hon. Member says that there is no provision for monitoring, some monitoring will no doubt continue.
I appreciate the hon. Member's interest in the matter and I apologise for having risen to my feet so quickly. Obviously, the after-effects of a late night prevented me from seeing that he wanted to intervene. I realise that he is the author of new clause 5, which has not been selected. However, had it been selected and debated, I should have had to point out that it would place an intolerable burden on firms to supply statistics which at the moment are not available to the Government. We already receive plenty of complaints in our Department about the gathering of statistics from companies, and the resultant burden on companies.
We must strike a balance. I believe that the present arrangement is proper and should continue when voluntary bodics come into existence. However, I repeat that, in the initial stages, the Government should take a close interest in the voluntary arrangements that are to replace statutory training boards.

§ Mr. Harold Walker
I am astonished by the Minister's reply. He began by warmly endorsing the Under-Secretary of State's speech at Plymouth but went on to say that the Government rejected any proposals to ensure that actions that the Government believe to be desirable are taken.

§ Mr. Craigen
Is it not significant that it was the hon. and learned Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Waddington) rather than the hon. Member for City of Chester (Mr. Morrison) who replied to the debate?

§ Mr. Walker
I thought that the hon. Member for City of Chester (Mr. Morrison) must be feeling the pangs of hunger or the need for refreshment, but perhaps that was too simple an interpretation. Perhaps he is not here because he does not want to face the inevitable consequences of what he said. When a Minister makes a speech in public, it is regarded as a statement of Government policy.
I had hoped that the Government would say that even if they were not prepared to accept our amendment alternatives would be put to the House to implement the suggestions made at Plymouth. All we have heard is that the MSC report contains references to monitoring 342 arrangements in the voluntary sector. However, that does not go as far as the Under-Secretary went in his speech at Plymouth. We ask the Government to live up to their words. Ministers should not make speeches and then come to the House, turn their backs on them and assume that hon. Members will not have read them. We are entitled to know what the Government intend to do to implement their Plymouth proposals. I hope that the Minister will tell the MSC that its annual report must vindicate the words chosen by the hon. Member for City of Chester at Plymouth.
Big companies are required by law to provide certain information for shareholders. I cannot understand why they should not have a similar obligation to provide information about their training performance. That is just as important to the company, the industry of which it is a part and the nation. The arrangements for meeting manpower needs are as important as many other aspects of a company's business.
We shall return to the issue. In view of the time, I shall not divide the House. However, I hope that the Government will reflect upon our remarks and ensure that they live up to the words uttered in ministerial statements and which have appeared in departmental press notices. Alternatively, I hope that they will be more cautious about how they goad the public.