Industrial Training (Northern Ireland)

HC Deb 26 June 1984 vol 62 cc958-68 1.54 am

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Butler)

I beg to move, That the draft Industrial Training (Northern Ireland) Order 1984, which was laid before this House on 24th May, be approved. This is an important and seemingly fairly lengthy order. Nevertheless, its purpose is relatively simple. In my opening remarks I shall deal with its main provisions, and doubtless the finer details will be teased out as the House wishes during the debate.

The draft order originated from the need to have statutory authority for the implementation of some decisions reached as a result of the review of industrial training arrangements in Northern Ireland, which was completed in September 1982. The review, which paralleled a similar review in Great Britain, considered not only which sectors of industry should be retained under statutory control, but the future role and composition of the Northern Ireland Training Executive and its relationship to individual sectors of industry.

It may be helpful to explain that the Northern Ireland Training Executive provides a common administrative and secretarial service to the industrial training boards. That is a sensible arrangement as the boards in Northern Ireland are much smaller than those in Great Britain. By agreement, the executive has during the years developed some aspects of training that are applicable to more than one industrial sector. During the review, the majority of interests in the Province supported the retention of individual industrial training boards, where the industries themselves wished the boards to remain. They also supported the redefinition and extension of the role of the Northern Ireland Training Executive.

Bearing in mind the views of those interests, and the size of the industrial base in Northern Ireland, it was decided that the industrial training boards, with the exception of the man-made fibres-producing industry training board and the footwear sector of the clothing and footwear board should be retained. It was made clear, however, that it would be the Government's policy to encourage the development, on a continuing basis, of voluntary training arrangements in sectors within the scope of the remaining eight industrial training boards, where those were desired by a sector, and to remove such a sector from scope where proposals for such arrangements were strong enough to provide effective training. In addition, it was concluded that the role of the Northern Ireland Training Executive should be redefined and extended, and that the new body should be called the Northern Ireland Training Authority.

The proposed draft order will re-enact the Industrial Training Act (Northern Ireland) 1964 and incorporate amendments concerning principally the setting up of the new Northern Ireland Training Authority and the regulation of levies for the industrial training boards. Other proposed amendments will bring the powers of the boards in Northern Ireland into closer alignment with their counterparts in Great Britain.

First, I shall outline the provisions for the new training authority, which will replace the existing Northern Ireland Training Executive. It is the Government's intention through the order to create a dynamic body to encourage the further development of industrial training in the Province. The authority will have the duty to keep under review all training in the statutory and non-statutory private sectors, and to report to the Department of Economic Development, as well as to the sectors concerned. Another important function will be that of encouraging voluntary training arrangements in sectors not within scope of a board so that appropriate and effective training will be provided. It will also have the responsibilities of developing and promoting new techniques of training and training in new technology, and of providing advice on such training.

In addition to those duties, the authority will have the power to provide training generally, including the provision of courses and other facilities and the payment of grants, fees and allowances. The authority will be obliged to develop links with the public sector and to cooperate in the provision of relevant training in that sector when requested. These functions will be in addition to those already carried out by the Northern Ireland Training Executive—the provision of a central administrative and secretarial service for all industrial training boards and cross-sector training—and clearly represent a major extension of the role of the executive.

As a result of that extension, the membership of the authority will be enhanced. It will also reflect the close relationship of the industrial training boards with the authority. It is therefore proposed that the membership should consist of a chairman, the chairmen of the industrial training boards as ex-officio members, three representatives of employers, three representatives of employees, three persons with expertise in training or education, and one representative of the public sector.

The authority will receive its finance from three sources—the industrial training boards will pay for services provided; income will be derived from the sale of similar services to the non-statutory and public sectors; and the Government will contribute towards the cost of functions which have a wider purpose than meeting the direct training needs of those boards and voluntary organisations using the services of the authority. Initially, pump-priming funds will also be available to help the authority become established.

I think that that deals with the main purpose of the order. The individual articles are clearly laid out and supported by the usual explanatory note. The House will forgive me if I do not deal with them individually at this time of night but simply conclude by saying that I consider that this order, by setting up the new Northern Ireland Training Authority and by extending the responsibilities of the industrial training boards, will create the correct structure for the development of training in Northern Ireland to provide the appropriate skilled work force so necessary for the growth of the economy.

2.3 am

Mr. Peter Archer (Warley, West)

This is another example of the consequences of direct rule by unamendable order. It is a great pity that with so much time and attention pre-empted for discussion of constitutional and security issues matters which evoke passionate political debate on this side of the water are relegated to this hour.

This order embodies a view of training for our industrial future and of the whole responsibility of Government which I believe is profoundly wrong and should be challenged. There is a gaping divide between the Government and the Labour party on this issue and it deserves a longer and more searching debate than we can give it today.

The document on which the order is based sets out the Government's philosophy. Its very title—"Training for the Future"—should be a warning to us because it is a tautology. Training, by definition, cannot be for anything other than the future, but nodoubt the Government chose that title to insinuate the implication that it was a forward-looking document when in fact it reflects a view wholly consistent with the Prime Mininster's admiration for the Victorian era. It is a hymn of praise to the voluntary system. If that is criticism from my lips, I do not suppose that it would be regarded as criticism by the Minister, because the Government clearly accept it. The foreword by the Secretary of State expressly says so.

That document embodies the belief that the Government's best contribution to industry is to stand by passively and that employers are the best judges of their own interests and should therefore decide these matters. The fallacy of that is not just that other people such as employees, consumers and future generations may have an interest in the outcome. It overlooks the fact that when people are asked to make decisions individually, knowing that their competitors are making similar decisions, they are virtually driven to decide to contribute the least that they can get away with because otherwise their competitors may contribute less and thus secure a competitive advantage. If they are asked to participate collectively in the decisions, that fear, at least, is removed. There is thus a wide chasm at the outset between the Government's approach and the approach that we would wish to see.

The difference begins to show itself as soon as we start to examine the details. On the proposed provision for membership of boards to which the Minister directed our attention, article 14 refers us to schedule 2, which explains their composition. There is to be a chairman and an equal number of members representing respectively employers and employees. Certain others will represent neither category but, through their competence or their goodness, commend themselves to the Northern Ireland Office. The hon. Gentleman properly explained how it was proposed to select them.

That appears to be a most fair arrangement until one recollects that the chairman who will hold the balance between employer and employee representatives is almost always himself a representative of employers. That is not disputed. It cannot be. The Irish Congress of Trade Unions made that point in- written representations on the consultation document and repeated them in written evidence to the Assembly committee, pointing out that imbalance. When Mr. Mayne the under-secretary was giving oral evidence the point was put to him. He replied: The situation of course is that the chairman of the retraining board is not representing employers. He went on to say: It is true to say that traditionally the majority of chairmen of training boards have been employers. The chairman may not be there with instructions to represent employers. He may even be trying to be fair. But the purpose of having as chairman a human being and not a robot is that he will have the opinions, habits, interests and prejudices that go to make up any of us. And they will be derived from his experience and interests as an employer.

The decision to compose boards in that way is not that of a Government who even wish to be seen to make balanced arrangements. The third category of members who commend themselves to the Northern Ireland Office as it is presently composed is hardly likely to include many who have been outspoken as champions of employees' rights. It is small wonder that the trade unions resent the proposal.

It gets worse as it goes on. One of the most important duties of a board is to decide on proposals for a levy. Those who decide on the amount of the levy will be deciding on the amount of resources that a board will have available, and so to a great extent the measure of its activities. When we read paragraph 8 of the schedule, which is tucked away modestly among the provisions, we learn that employee representatives on the boards are not entitled to vote on any matter relating to the imposition of a levy. So the question of how much employers are to claim for the training of employees is to be decided by employers. I was always taught that for anyone to be judge in his own cause was the reverse of natural justice, but here it is the reverse of effectiveness.

As the Irish Congress of Trade Unions points out, the need for industrial training boards arises because employers do not always make proper provision, which is essential if the country is to compete with other industrial nations.

The order makes it clear that there is to be a remission of levy, which may extend to total remission, for those employers who comply with their obligations, that is to say, even the obligations as defined by the employer representatives of the board.

The Government, in accordance with their philosophy, would prefer employers to make their own provisions individually. So the levy that we are considering is, by definition, to be paid by those employers who do not make appropriate provision for training, yet the rate is to be decided by employers' representatives. It is as though penal policy were to be decided by a committee of three, two of whose members were Mr. Fagin and Bill Sykes.

The more we consider the implications, the more worrying they become. The running costs of the board will no longer be paid by the Government. They will be returned to industry. In the depths of recession, when many companies are struggling to survive, the running costs are to be returned to industry. That proposal is denounced in the annual reports of virtually all of the boards.

The levy will need to make provision for the running costs, and the levy applied for this purpose will be a maximum of 0.2 per cent. of the payroll. But the running costs have always been greater than 0.2 per cent. of the payroll, so the intention is clearly to bring about a reduction in the activity of the boards.

There is no end to it. Even the employer representatives on the boards are not to have the last word. The Department may set aside their view if the relevant employer organisation considers that the provision which it proposes is too generous. As the Irish Congress of Trade Unions states, that might have been a reasonable response had there been any evidence of profligacy by the boards in the past, but of course there is not a shred of evidence that in the past the boards have diverted too high a proportion of industries' resources into training. That has not been the problem of British industry in its efforts to compete with the rest of the world.

Clearly the Government do not really like public provision for training at all; they would like to return it entirely to the hands of individual employers. Training should mean picking up the job by sitting next to Nellie. The Government cannot wholly dismantle the system, but they can draw the teeth, and they expect our industry to compete with other countries, where Governments see such provision as a very important part of their responsibility.

The order has missed another great opportunity. In its response to the consultation document, the Equal Opportunities Commission stated that women in Northern Ireland are disadvantaged in employment perhaps to an even greater extent than elsewhere. Women comprise about 40 per cent. of the work force, and are largely trapped in low-skill and low-paid jobs. Girls are substantially more likely than boys to leave school without the technical and scientific skills that would enable them to qualify for apprenticeships or other forms of training. Of the 2,000 places available for apprentices between 1980 and 1982, no more than 10 were taken by women. Of those released by employers for part-time study, only 13 per cent. were women.

The Equal Opportunities Commission responded to the consultative paper by calling for a concerted programme to combat inequalities and for positive action to compensate for the effects of past practices which have been detrimental to women. The EOC spoke of flexible hours for training courses, increased contact with schools, less rigid age conditions for apprenticeships, supportive counselling and day care facilities for children. Where in the order is there a word of response, a word of recognition, a word even of encouragement to the boards to take cognisance of all that? The consultative document was called "Training for the Future". It would have been more appropriate to call it "Training for a return to the Past".

2.12 am

Mr. Roy Beggs (Antrim, East)

I should like to take this opportunity to offer congratulations from these Benches to the Minister on his appointment as Privy Councillor.

I welcome the draft Industrial Training (Northern Ireland) Order 1984 in that it makes provision for Northern Ireland similar to that already existing for the rest of the United Kingdom, as laid down by the Industrial Training Act 1982. However, I emphasise that I resent—and members of my party resent—the need for such separate legislation, particularly at this time of the morning.

The main difference in the provisions proposed for Northern Ireland from those already existing for Great Britain is the establishment of a new body with enhanced powers, to be known as the Northern Ireland Training Authority, which will replace the Northern Ireland Training Executive, established under the Industrial Training Act (Northern Ireland) 1964. It is appropriate that after 20 years in which the Northern Ireland Training Executive fulfilled its role with distinction, progress should be made to meet present and future demands in industrial training.

We in Northern Ireland welcome the opportunities arising from the establishment of the Northern Ireland Training Authority, and will demonstrate, although to some extent we are being used as guinea pigs, that although at present in Great Britain there is no analogous body to either the Northern Ireland Training Executive or the proposed Northern Ireland Training Authority, we can create and develop such a body to the benefit of industrial training in Northern Ireland so that other regions of the United Kingdom will wish to learn from our success and example.

The opportunity under section 6 for the Northern Ireland Training Authority to develop and promote new techniques of training and training in new technology should be advantageous to the 120,000 people unemployed and to the numerous school leavers and graduates unable to find employment. Some feel forced to emigrate to find work. Regrettably, we continue to have a severe brain drain from Northern Ireland. That is our loss, and we hope that it will be arrested.

I hope that the new body will seek at an early date to review training programmes and basic skills for existing industry, and to research the new skills required for today's and future silicon valleys. I hope that the Northern Ireland Training Authority will harness the talent of our people, and develop their skills through new imaginative training programmes so that the skill resource inherent in them will prove of equal importance to the excellent industrial incentives in operation and, thus, help to attract new business ventures and create jobs.

Levies on industry are never popular. Many are seen as a form of tax on jobs. It is appropriate that the system of levy remission should be incorporated into legislation for the proposed administrative system. Small businesses—two or three-men operations—cannot afford a further indirect tax on jobs. Most of them do not make use of the industrial training facilities at present provided. They poach trained personnel from larger employers.

Section 17 is headed "Training for employment overseas". It would be interesting to know the details of previous uptake in that area and whether an effort was made to attract and provide training for student apprentices from the Third world or other countries. Will the Minister tell us whether there is provision, for example, for reciprocation of training opportunities within European Community countries? I believe that the interchange of experience would be beneficial for our young people, especially if useful, industrial experience gained outside Northern Ireland could be passed on when they return to Northern Ireland.

It is difficult to identify controversial provision in the draft order. Nevertheless, under article 29 it is ridiculous to propose further icing on the cake to that which is already enjoyed by firms that operate in enterprise zones by suggesting that we are not carrying on business. It seems that enterprise zone operators have a friend at court.

Finally, I wish the Northern Ireland Training Authority and all who serve on it success and satisfaction in the task which they face in providing for the industrial and training needs of Northern Ireland.

2.19 am

Rev. William McCrea (Mid-Ulster)

I join with the House and the hon. Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs) in congratulating the Minister upon his elevation to the Privy Council. I trust that our response to the order will be as pleasant as possible for him.

The order is the outcome of a long and detailed review of training arrangements in Northern Ireland. The review has taken into account the Government's national proposals for new training initiatives and was undertaken in close co-operation with a wide range of interested organisations. The major change brought about by the order is the replacement of the existing Northern Ireland Training Executive by the Northern Ireland Training Authority, a new body with enhanced powers.

The new authority will take over the centralised administrative functions of the industrial training boards and will have wide responsibilities for reviewing the training needs of industry and encouraging the development of training arrangements with the non-statutory and public sector, as well as developing and promoting new training techniques and training in new technology.

The matter has been discussed by the Northern Ireland Assembly, which recommended three changes to the order. I am pleased to say that the Assembly's success rate has been high, as two out of three of its recommendations have been accepted completely by the Secretary of State and are embodied in the order, and an undertaking has been given to respect the spirit of the third recommendation.

Some dangers must be highlighted, and I trust that the Government will take note of them. The membership of the Northern Ireland Training Authority will be such that any new statutory training board that is set up will be allowed to have its chairman as a member of the authority. That point was mentioned by the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer). It has been pointed out that that could lead to an imbalance on the training authority in favour of employers, as the chairmen of most industrial training boards tend to be employer representatives and therefore in time an authority could develop which was in favour of employers rather than fairly represented the wide range of interests within industry.

I am pleased that the Secretary of State, in response to the Northern Ireland Assembly's representation on the matter, is willing to keep the matter under careful review and has promised that, should the Government consider at any time that the chairmen of the boards were unjustifiably frustrating the wishes or decisions of the other members, the position would be rectified by the Department. That statement by the Secretary of State has allayed genuine fears.

The second point that I feel must be highlighted relates to the danger that the work of training boards may be threatened by the percentage of their levy that firms will be able to retain in the form of a remission. Under the present proposals, firms could receive remissions of up to 0.2 per cent. of their payroll. If every firm received that amount of remission, it has been submitted that most training boards could not exist. The maximum permissible levy was 1 per cent. of the firms' payroll, but at the moment few boards are charging that.

Most small firms would be exempt, though there is no set limit on which firms would be exempt. That varies from industry to industry. The limit for exemption depends upon the amount of money paid out by a firm each week in wages, and is set by each industrial training board. Clearly, those industrial training boards which cover mainly small firms will have to have a much lower threshold than those which cover mainly larger firms.

The hon. Member for Antrim, East has referred to enterprise zones. Firms located in enterprise zones will be exempt from the payment of levies to industrial training boards and from the supplying of statistics and information about training to the board or to any authority. There is a real fear that firms will renege on any responsibility for training by locating within enterprise zones. Every effort must be made to educate enterprise zone companies about the standards of training acceptable in the statutory sector, and to encourage them to achieve and maintain such standards by making use of the services and facilities provided by the Northern Ireland Training Authority. It is important that firms in enterprise zones do not simply forget about their important role in maintaining a skilled work force, and poach workers from firms which have trained them.

Small firms are adversely affected by the time-consuming burden of training returns. It is appreciated that there is a need for such information, which forms the basis for educated policy and planning decisions, but I sympathise with the frustration felt by small business men and women who are obliged to deal with the demands of bureaucracy, which unfortunately divert their attention from the task of building up their firms and ensuring that they continue to function.

Requests to employers for information should be limited as far as possible, and the number of approaches made to companies by the Department should be minimised. The Government have, I am glad to say, declared their interest in alleviating the burden of paperwork imposed on firms. I am sure that every hon. Member finds unbearable the increasing burden of struggling under a mountain of paperwork. I trust that our firms will. find themselves more free to tackle their principal task of producing goods as competitively and efficiently as possible.

Other hon. Members may wish to raise other aspects of industrial training. One of the great assets of Northern Ireland is the skilled work force which it possesses. Any legislation which seeks to protect the position of that work force and to ensure that a skilled work force will be available in future in the Province is to be welcomed. At present, the statutory training boards cover only 45 per cent. of the work force in Northern Ireland. I trust that the order will give the encouragement needed to lead to an extension of industrial training facilities to the remaining 55 per cent., which is mainly in the public sector or in certain sections of industry which rely at present on voluntary training. Some of those areas train their employees very well—I am thinking of the teachers and the nurses, for instance—but there is still a large area where there is at present no form of training.

We must balance the need for a trained industrial work force with a recognition of the fact that this control must lead to a huge and unnecessary burden of paperwork, especially for small employers. I trust that, in the administration of the order, the correct balance will be reached and that the excellent work that has been done by the industrial training boards—our appreciation should be put on record—will continue under the new Northern Ireland Training Authority.

2.29 am

Mr. Butler

With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker. On a personal note, I thank the hon. Members for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs) and for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) for their congratulations. I greatly appreciate what they said. The right hon. and learned Member or Warley, West (Mr. Archer) has also and separately congratulated me. I equally appreciate that. Having said that nicely to him, I must say that I find a considerable difference in tone between what he uttered from the Opposition Front Bench and what the two hon. Members from Northern Ireland said. It struck me that their approach was much more realistic. It was certainly more supportive and I think that they have a better grasp of the situation in Northern Ireland than perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman has.

The question whether we should be debating this matter was raised by the hon. Member for Antrim, East. Presumably he was running the normal line of the Official Unionists and was saying that his party would have preferred legislation to cover the whole of the United Kingdom. That would have provided arrangements for Northern Ireland that would not have been at all appropriate. The result would have been several different training boards and certainly not the Northern Ireland Training Authority, which is most appropriate to Northern Ireland's needs and is unique to Northern Ireland. He is as aware as anybody of the work done by the Assembly committee which shadows the Department of Economic Development and from which the order originates. That was good work. The hon. Member for Mid-Ulster told us of the recommendations made by that committee. Two thirds have been accepted and, in respect of one third, the Government have said that they will treat the amendment in good spirit.

I find myself in tune with what the hon. Member for Antrim, East said about the need to harness the talents of the people of Northern Ireland. He and the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster made some important points. I especially noted one in regard to the reciprocation of training in EC countries. Certain courses have been used for catering training in West Germany. My Department will encourage reciprocation whenever it is feasible. There is a special point in regard to people who are to work overseas. In many cases, they will work for the benefit of the Province, so nobody would quarrel with their benefiting from our training arrangements.

The hon. Members for Antrim, East and for Mid-Ulster mentioned small firms. I note what they said. It is difficult to decide how to cope with them. I know from my industrial experience that small firms tend to sit back, let the bigger ones do the training and then poach from them. However, there is much to be said for exempting smaller firms up to a given limit. I also agree with the need to balance requests for information to avoid burdening small firms with too much bureuacratic bumf.

I found the speech of the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West a somewhat sour little piece. Much of his criticism seemed to be drawn from the Northern Ireland committee of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. In some respects, he was completely off the track. He was critical of the make-up of the training boards and said that the employers would now decide the levy.

The constitution of the boards, both in Great Britain and Northern Ireland, has been the same for the last 20 years. So far as I am aware, during the time that it was in power, the Labour party made no attempt to alter this. The balance has been one of equality between employer and employee representatives, with the addition of educationalists. Even without the educationalists, and given the 50–50 balance between employer and employee representatives, the chairman would have the casting vote. That has not changed.

Mr. Archer

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. May I seize the opportunity of saying what a pleasure it is to be able to use that term of him? I confess that previously I had overlooked the good news, but the fact that my congratulations are belated does not make them any less sincere.

My point about the employers deciding the levy had nothing to do with the balance of the boards. It was that paragraph 8 of schedule 2 says that employee representatives shall not vote in deciding the levy.

Mr. Butler

I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his personal remarks.

As I said, the position has not changed over these years, so perhaps the right hon. Gentleman is pursuing a hare which should not be pursued.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman was also concerned about the representation on the authority, and pooh-poohed the fact that the chairmen of the industrial training boards could be employee representatives, although the greatest number have been employers. He pooh-poohed the fact that they might not fairly represent the boards of which they are chairmen. That is an unfair attack on such chairmen. They are ex-officio, and it will be their responsibility to reflect the feelings of their boards.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman was also concerned about a lessening of the statutory sector. His Socialist approach would, of course, always prefer the maximum amount of bureaucracy. If adequate training can be brought about without the necessity for statutory boards, surely even he would prefer thereby to forgo the administrative cost, which could be up to 20 per cent. of the whole, just for the sake of some bureaucratic interference.

The Government see this legislation in the context of ensuring that training is maximised and carried out as effectively as possible. There will be no lessening of the statutory sector unless or until those voluntary arrangements can be seen to be well organised, well worked out and likely to be effective.

In his condemnation of this small piece of legislation, the right hon. and learned Gentleman failed even to mention the new training authority. That was most remiss of him. It has an enhanced role and a remit over the whole private sector. For the first time, it will be required to liaise with the public sector. The hon. Member for Antrim, East reminded us that it will be promoting new techniques and training including training in new technology. No one can describe that as training for a return to the past. It looks forward very much to the future, and in that spirit I again commend the order to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved, That the draft Industrial Training (Northern Ireland) Order 1984, which was laid before this House on 24th May, be approved.

c968
1. WELSH GRAND COMMITTEE 72 words
c968
2. STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c. 19 words
c968
1. BETTING, GAMING AND LOTTERIES 23 words
c968
2. VALUE ADDED TAX 36 words
c968
3. EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS 18 words
c968
4. INTEGRATED MEDITERRANEAN PROGRAMMES 43 words
c968
5. HEXACHLOROCYCLOHEXANE (LINDANE) 77 words