HC Deb 13 December 1983 vol 50 cc963-8 12.42 am
The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Peter Morrison)

I beg to move, That the draft Industrial Training Levy (Construction Board) Order 1983, which was laid before this House on 2nd December, be approved. As the House will be aware, about this time last year I introduced a similar order concerning the construction industry training board. It was debated and approved unanimously in Committee. The present order similarly requires parliamentary approval.

Hon. Members will be aware of the importance of the construction industry to the economic growth of the country. Output is beginning to rise, and I emphasise the need for higher quality training and more skilled workers. That is particularly so in this industry, with a total work force of 1,500,000.

It is important to ensure that all firms except the very small contribute to costs. We must not be bedevilled by skill shortages as we were in the past. That is one reason why the board was retained. The House will be aware that the employers wanted it to be retained.

The levy is expected to raise more than £42 million and it will be used for the very necessary training in the industry. The levy that covers the period to 31 March 1984 can be seen in three parts. There is the occupational levy of a fixed amount for each occupational group employed, subject to an overall maximum payment limit of 1 per cent. of total payroll. There is the 2 per cent. levy on payments made to labour-only subcontractors, such payments being the amount by which a company's payment to such subcontractors exceeds payments to the company for labour-only subcontracting work that is performed. Finally, there is the 0.2 per cent. levy on brick manufacturing employers which is estimated to cover the sector's share of the board's operating costs for a period of 26 months from the sector coming into scope in October 1982. As the House will be aware, a levy return is completed by every employer in scope each year.

The 1982 Act, as did the previous legislation, allows exemption from levy to be given according to training performance. The board, however, operates a levy not tied to exemption and for this it must have evidence of the industry's support. This has been obtained regularly for a number of years. For small firms there is a small firms exclusion that applies to those with an annual total payroll of less that £15,000. They pay no levy, but they are able to claim grants from the board subject to a reduction of their claim by £150 which is equivalent to approximately a 1 per cent. levy. The payroll limit has not been increased for some years.

At the board meeting on 24 March 1983 there was unanimous support for the levy, and this included all the employers' representatives present. All the employee representatives at the meeting supported the levy. Letters of support had been received from, for example, the National Federation of Building Trades Employers, the Federation of Civil Engineering Contractors, the Electrical Contractors Association and the National Association of Shopfitters.

I recommend the proposals to the House. They have been the subject of detailed consideration and wide consultation and they are widely supported in the industry. I am sure that the board will continue to play a significant role in the industry's training needs. The proposals will also play a significant role in the Government's new training initiative.

12.45 am
Mr. Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield)

At first sight, the order is quite unremarkable. As the Minister said, other than the fact that it provides for the inclusion of the brick industry the order is identical to those laid in previous years, and especially last year.

However, this year we are faced with the stark and unpalatable fact that there has been a serious decline in the number of young men and women being trained in the various branches of the construction industry. Although the Minister may boast about the recovery in the industry, the facts are rather different — as evidenced by the decline in industrial training.

A tragic decline in apprenticeships has taken place during the past five years. In 1979 there were 155,000 industrial training apprentices; in 1980, 149,500; in 1981, 147,600; in 1982, 123,700, and for 1983 the figure has fallen to 99,000. In the construction industry, the figure for 1979 was 12,431; for 1980, 14,035; for 1981, 11,435; for 1982, 9,291, and for 1983 the figure is down to 7,971. Those figures belie the Minister's attitude tonight and illustrate the fact that the work of the construction industry training board faces great difficulty because of the background of decline. The figures echo and highlight the Government's appalling record on training at every level.

I spent many years in higher education, and I have knowledge of what some Conservative Members like to call the education and training industry. At whatever level we look—whether universities, polytechnics, colleges of further education, technical colleges or comprehensive schools — there is not a segment where the Government's influence has been beneficial. Indeed, for every aspect of training, especially the industrial training boards, the Government's record since 1979 has been a disaster.

I represent the textile industry, and I feel strongly about the decline in industrial training boards. There are lessons to be learnt from the order. It applies to one of the few remaining industries that have training boards. I was present in the House when the dagger that pierced the heart of the textile industry industrial training board was delivered by the Minister from the Government Dispatch Box. We must learn from the demise of our industrial training boards. The CITB which has survived is doing a good job in difficult circumstances.

Hon. Members should take the opportunity to peruse the CITB's guide to its work, edition No. 5, 1982–83. They cannot but be heartened by a group of men and women left to carry on the industrial training of their industry against the background of economic collapse, who are trying to pursue in any way they can means to keep the heart beating in the construction industry. One only need read some of the CITB's recent press releases to realise how problematic survival is in the construction industry today. In many ways the CITB has illustrated what, even in poor circumstances, an industrial training board can do and what a potential for innovation this board has. The record of——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean)

Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but he is going rather wide. I am assuming that his remarks are a preamble, but the order is about the levy and the method by which it is assessed. I hope that he will come to that quite quickly.

Mr. Sheerman

I can quickly tie up the subject of the levy with the record of the CITB, which has been one of great enterprise; and the levy, which has been increased over the years, has been used to embrace developments in Government strategy and in moves by the Manpower Services Commission to produce new training initiatives. When we remember that the levy has been used to produce the largest single youth training scheme, we see what benefits can be achieved, in co-ordination with the MSC.

It is a pity that all the industrial training boards are not still in existence; they have been savagely struck down by the Government. Were they still in existence, they would be able to achieve the same results. The Government must face the fact in respect of this levy—and, naturally, the Opposition will not oppose them in this matter—that if those boards were still around, we should stand a better chance, even with a Conservative Government, of salvaging what was left of a proud industrial training heritage.

We can detect some real problems at the heart of the CITB and the way in which the levy is being used. It has been rather frustrated in the use of its levy by the decline in the construction industry in the last four years. It has used the levy to try to stem the catastrophic drop in apprenticeships and training that has taken place in what I call the regular training side of the industry.

Consequently, out of frustration, the CITB has thrown itself into initiatives involving the youth training scheme. I would not gainsay that initiative, but I ask the Minister to note a problem that is emerging, a problem that occurs when a body like the CITB is given a job to do and, as with many industrial training boards, uses the levy to train for skills for the industry as the board knows it, so to speak. When one examines the dilemma that that produces, one cannot be surprised at the terms of a press release dated 22 November from the chairman of the CITB entitled "Hands off Construction YTS. Warning to Manpower Services Commission." That gentleman, who has been entrusted with the chairmanship of the CITB and responsibility for the levy, said: Training a craftsman in the construction industry involves training in a wide range of skills, and in this context I would like to know exactly what the MSC are talking about when they ask us to bring in broad-based training in 1984. He went on: I have seen broad-based training in Europe and I am certain it is not what the British building industry wants and would stand for. He continued: Under some European systems, trainees do not know until the end of the last nine months of a three-year apprenticeship exactly what craft they will specialise in. Then he said pointedly: I ask you: what builder wants that? To my mind, a builder wants a bricklayer who is a bricklayer, a carpenter who is a carpenter, a plasterer who is a plasterer, and so on. He wants a craftsman who can do his work efficiently and effectively and has been properly trained to the standards which will enable him to do so. Finally, he said tellingly: I can tell you what the builder does not want for the standard of work required today. He does not want the MSC's idea of a general handyman expensively trained by the taxpayer turning up on site and giving the service of a Jack or Jill of all trades and a master of none and incompetent at his so-called craft. We can see some difficulties if the levy is to be used in that way. An industrial training board is traditionally geared towards training for skills, but out of frustration it is increasingly involving itself in a different programme which will provide a different product.

There is conflict in the case of the CITB, and I hope that the Minister will turn his attention to that aspect, which puts the CITB and any traditional training body in a dilemma. I believe that the type of bitter exchange between Mr. Leslie Kemp and the MSC is something to which the Minister should turn his attention.

The chairman of the CITB wants trained, skilled men for his industry, and as he cannot achieve that by normal methods he is attempting to do so through a powerful commitment to the YTS. There is bound to be a conflict, and I believe that it underlines the lack of precision and coherence in the Government's industrial training strategy. I believe that the MSC rightly sees the YTS as a general non-specific training scheme whereas the CITB wants to continue training for the skills that the construction industry must have if there is to be a recovery within the industry.

Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent)

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is room for compromise? For too long there has been a belief that specialist training in a narrow craft must take a long time. The MSC is trying to introduce a broader-based training which will provide an effective base for a more rapid training skill. If one studies the work done by the armed forces in my constituency, one sees the high level of skill that they achieve within a short time. The MSC's operation is overdue and worth having.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not stray into the question of training. This is a comparatively narrow order which deals with a levy and the way in which it should be assessed.

Mr. Sheerman

I have been guided, Mr. Deputy Speaker, by the way in which the debate on this levy has gone during the past four years. I do not want to stray into a general debate on training, but I believe that it is important to point out that the levy goes towards a training system in an industry that is vital to our economic recovery. If the levy is being used in a way which does not further the CITB' s interests, it is of concern to the House and the country.

As the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) suggested, there are some interesting paradoxes. I am sure that we both agree that there is a lack of coherence in the Government's attitude towards training about which the Government should think carefully.

If you would allow me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, there are two points of detail about which the industry is worried and which I should like to draw to the attention of the Minister. The first is that the levy is per capita rather than being a percentage of the payroll. There are voices in the industry who think that this bears down unfairly on the smaller firm; I am not referring to the small firm that is excluded because it is under the £15,000 limitation mentioned by the Minister in his introduction but the small to medium firms which believe that payment on a per capita basis in terms of skilled men works against them and in favour of the largest employers, the big builders and particularly the civil engineering side of the industry which employs fewer skilled men and more unskilled labourers. I understand that in regard to the contract side of the levy that is met to some extent, but some in the industry would say there is not enough consideration of it.

There is also a belief that the construction industry training board should use its levy to widen its powers specifically to organise, register and even indenture the apprentices and that it would be logical to use the levy and the CITB as the focus of the apprenticeship system and even for the modernisation of that system rather than leave it with the Building and Allied Trades Joint Industrial Council, which, according to some people in the industry, seems to be living in the past.

We support the work of the CITB and its role in training over 100,000 people. It operates for 48 firms within the industry, and the levy is used well. It is another example of a training board which could not operate without the close co-operation of trade unions and employers. Much of the industrial fabric of the country, which so many people in the Government wish not to reveal to the public, could not work without the close co-operation of the modern trade union movement. We see this embodied in the construction industry training board and in the trade unions' co-operation in the Manpower Services Commission and their very great commitment to the youth training scheme and to training schemes for the future.

Lord Carr talked about the desperate need for a better vocational training system and the great lack of that system in the past. We must turn our attention to that. The Government should reflect on the success of and the prospects for the CITB and consider bringing back the other industrial training boards so that they can produce levies for them, too, in late-night motions like this.

1.4 am

Mr. Peter Morrison

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) for supporting the order. I am particularly grateful to him, as I am sure the construction industry training board will be, for the praise which he heaped on both the board and its staff for the amount of work which they have done over the years. As he will probably be aware, I keep closely in touch with the chairman of the board and the staff and I know that their commitment to training in the industry is very strong.

If I got the hon. Gentleman's figures wrong, I apologise. He said that the number of apprenticeships in the industry had dropped. I agree. I was slightly at sea about the figure of about 7,000 which he gave for the year 1982–83. The figure available to me is 13,704. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman has drawn his figures from a different source.

The hon. Gentleman also referred to the method of raising the levy. He will be aware that all members of the board, including the Federation of Master Builders, agreed to the method of raising the levy this year. I appreciate that other points may be made in future, but this year all the members totally agreed.

The hon. Gentleman commented on how the apprenticeship system within the industry should be focused and organised. I hope that he agrees that it is better that the industry, with the construction industry training board playing an integral and important role, should make up its own mind about the best way to proceed in the future.

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe). We want to get away from time serving and the age of entry and concentrate on standards. That is also the wish of the CITB. I am, Mr. Deputy Speaker, aware of your warnings about straying outside the remit of the order, but the interrelationship between the youth training scheme and the apprenticeship system under the CITB is important to what both are trying to achieve.

The youth training scheme is a flexible foundation course on which further skill training can be built. Despite what the hon. Gentleman said about the press release from the chairman of the CITB, I have no doubt that the board and the Manpower Services Commission are at one on what they wish to achieve in terms of initial skill training built upon the youth training scheme. I assure the House that I shall be working towards that in the next few months.

I am grateful to the CITB for the important part it plays as the managing agent for more than 20,000 places on the youth training scheme. The youth training scheme is at an early development stage and is, therefore, something on which we can build and from which we can all learn. Nevertheless, it is flexible — an attitude which the industry and managing agents should adopt.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support. I am sure that the CITB and the Manpower Services Commission will be grateful to him for his constructive attitude to the methods by which both bodies are pursuing youth training. I therefore commend the order to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved, That the draft Industrial Training Levy (Construction Board) Order 1983, which was laid before this House on 2nd December, be approved.