§ 3. Mr. David NicholsonTo ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many representations he has received from chambers of commerce on his proposals to introduce training and enterprise councils.
§ The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Norman Fowler)Since the White Paper "Employment for the 1990s" was published on 5 December last year, almost 4,000 individuals and organisations have expressed an interest in training and enterprise councils. Of these, 87 approaches have been from chambers of commerce.
§ Mr. NicholsonWill my right hon. Friend confirm that industry contributes some £15 billion per year in training employees and that the extra £3 billion from the Government, plus the direction of training being given to industry, will be a recipe for success? Does he agree, however, that the continuing support and working co-operation of local business as represented separately by bodies such as chambers of commerce, is also essential for success?
§ Mr. FowlerI entirely agree with both the points that my hon. Friend, with his considerable experience of the chamber of commerce movement, has put to me. Employers are now investing more than £18 billion a year in training. That is a substantial increase, but I entirely agree that the success of training and enterprise councils will depend heavily on the support that they receive not just from employers but from everyone in the local community.
§ Mr. WallaceI am sure that the Secretary of State is anxious that the business men who come forward should be of the highest calibre, but is he not concerned that many of them, as a result of their success, will not have the time to devote to training? What quality control procedure will there be to ensure the standard of training provision is of a uniformly high standard throughout the country, and not patchy, with variations from area to area?
§ Mr. FowlerNational standards of training will, of course, continue. That is crucially important. Training and enterprise councils, however, are concerned with the local delivery of training. I believe that our proposals will enable leaders of business locally to be used, as it were, as boards of directors while Training Agency staff can be seconded to the councils. In that way, we shall have the best of both worlds.
§ Mr. Beaumont-DarkDoes my right hon. Friend agree that one of the tragedies of training has been that the trade unions have helped to destroy the apprenticeship system, because they wanted young people to be paid too much of the skilled wage at the beginning? Is there any more accord now? Do the trade unions intend to help the scheme on its way so that people will be trained and have real jobs when they have finished that training?
§ Mr. FowlerI very much hope that that is the case. Training and enterprise councils have not been a matter of controversy between Government and trade unions or, indeed, with other organisations. One of the areas in which 170 the councils should work quickly and well is my hon. Friend's own city of Birmingham, where employers and unions have a good working relationship, and I should like to see that continue.
§ Mr. MeacherAfter the fiascos of the job training scheme, which achieved only a quarter of its targeted number of places, and employment training, which achieved only half the targeted number, why should the training and enterprise councils do any better when they have no extra funding, unbalanced and unrepresentative membership, and no public accountability for the public funds provided?
§ Mr. FowlerThe most indicative thing about the hon. Gentleman is that he seeks to attack every training initiative that has been made over the past two years. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] I will give the hon. Gentleman the facts, so that he will know them in future. The fact is that some 180,000 people are now on employment training schemes. They have taken absolutely no notice of the hon. Gentleman's advice, and I advise the public to do the same.