Industrial Training Levy

HC Deb 19 January 1994 vol 235 cc896-950 3.46 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Miss Ann Widdecombe)

I beg to move, That the draft Industrial Training Levy (Construction Board) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 18th November, be approved.

Madam Speaker

With this it will be convenient to consider the following motion: That the draft Industrial Training Levy (Engineering Construction Board) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 2nd December, be approved.

Miss Widdecombe

The proposals before the House seek authority for the Construction Industry Training Board and the Engineering Construction Industry Training Board to impose a levy on the employers in their industries to finance the operating costs of the boards and to fund their range of training initiatives, including grants schemes. Provision for this is contained in the Industrial Training Act 1982, and the orders before the House woud give effect to proposals submitted by the two boards.

Both proposals include provision to raise a levy in excess of 1 per cent. of an employer's payroll. The Industrial Training Act 1982 requires that in such cases the proposals must be approved by affirmative resolution of both Houses. In each case, the proposals are almost exactly the same as those approved by the House last year. As in previous orders, they are based on employer's payrolls and their use of sub-contract labour. Both have special provision for excluding small firms from paying levy.

For the CITB the rates are 0.25 per cent. of payroll and 2 per cent. of payments made by employers to labour-only sub-contrators. Employers with a payroll of £61,000 or less will be exempt. This is an increase from the previous threshold of £45,000.

The ECITB treats its head offices and construction sites as separate establishments and applies different levy rates which reflect the actual costs and the different arrangements for training particular workers. For head offices, the rates are 0.4 per cent. of payroll and 0.5 per cent. of payments to labour-only sub-contractors. Firms employing 40 or fewer employees are exempt. The rates for sites are 1.5 per cent. of payroll and 2 per cent. of labour-only payments, with exemption for employers with a payroll of £75,000 or less.

In each case, the proposals have the support of the employers in the industry as required by the Industrial Training Act 1982 and have the full support of the respective boards, which consist of senior employers, trade unionists and educationists.

The House will know that the CITB and the ECITB are the only two statutory industrial training boards. Most other sectors of industry are covered by independent, non-statutory arrangements. In those two industries, however, employers are firm in their support for a statutory board and the House will recall that last year we reconstituted the CITB for a further five years. In doing so, we recognised the strong feelings of employers, and the performance and achievements of that board.

The House will also be aware that the ECITB is currently being reviewed. Such reviews are, of course, necessary if we are to ensure that the training arrangements that we have in place are right for employers in a particular sector. As with the CITB, we have consulted fully with the industry about the effectiveness of the board and about the levy system more generally. The ECITB's current term of office is due to expire in July and I expect to make a statement to the House around the beginning of April.

The draft orders will enable the two boards to carry out their training responsibilities in 1994. It is right that the House should approve them, and I commend them accordingly.

3.50 pm

Mr. Tony Lloyd (Stretford)

This so far remarkably short debate shows the priority that the Government place on training.

Miss Widdecombe

Before the hon. Member comments on the degree of Government interest in training, will he recall that there were no Opposition Members present during a major debate on the national education and training targets a few weeks ago?

Mr. Lloyd

That is an interesting point given that the Minister is surrounded by a Whip, who has to be here, and by the hon. Members for Romford (Sir M. Neubert) and for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham), who—and I mean no disrespect by this—are always here for such debates. I do not think that there are signs of a massive interest in training.

Perhaps I can provoke discussion by starting off where we left off yesterday, when the Minister offered me various invitations. She asked whether I would welcome the number of young people in training and jobs. But she never responded to the argument that, at a time when skill shortages are beginning to emerge in the economy, 125,000 16 and 17-year-olds are unemployed. She has never sought to deny that fact because the figure comes from the Department of Employment's labour force survey, which was published in the Employment Gazette.

I am happy to talk to the Minister or, indeed, to the Secretary of State who invited us to discuss the fiddled figures. If the Minister gives me a guarantee that she will talk seriously about what happened to the 125,000 unemployed 16 and 17-year-olds and state why they did not appear in the official unemployment figures, we shall attend the discussions. Will the Minister give that guarantee?

Miss Widdecombe

The invitation to discuss with the Secretary of State the way in which the figures were calculated and the various differences and studies was extended to the hon. Gentleman's predecessor, but it was never taken up. I shall be most interested to know whether the current Labour Front-Bench team want to take up the offer. Until the team come to discuss the employment figures with us, they are not in any position to condemn civil servants for their independent and high standard of work.

Mr. Lloyd

My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) is bigger than I am, so the invitation is bound to come to him first. We would be delighted to come along. The accusation is not that civil servants fiddle the figures but that politicians instruct them on how they should count—in fact, miscount—the figures.

I did not pluck from the air the statistic that 125,000 16 and 17-year-olds are unemployed. The figure appeared in the Employment Gazette, a Department of Employment publication, and it comes from the labour force survey. It was produced by the same civil servants who the Minister wants to deride. Of course, those civil servants are telling the truth. For 125,000 young people, the Government's guarantee did not apply. They were betrayed by the Government. They were unemployed, some of them were left idle on the streets and some resorted to crime and drugs —the sort of things that afflict young people and society. The Government are responsible.

Miss Widdecombe

As the hon. Gentleman has such utter confidence in the labour force survey, and as he is so keen to accept its figures, will he confirm that he accepts the figure of 2.7 million unemployed and that it is not underestimated by 1 million, as his friends have been claiming in recent days?

Mr. Lloyd

We had an enjoyable debate about that matter on Sunday; regrettably, it was not in this place. As the Minister will recall, I was able to quote to her a survey done by Dr. Wells at Cambridge university. He pointed out that the Government's official figures underestimate real unemployment by between 1 million and 2 million.

It is internationally accepted that the Government are prepared to use and abuse any form of statistics, just as we saw with the abuse and suppression of information on the health service and the way in which the Government manipulate figures up and down to suit their political purposes, and sometimes for nefarious purposes. Apparently it is not relevant to mention the £1 million profit that the Conservative party made when it bought the freehold of Smith square from Tory-controlled Westminster council and then sold it on again to the private sector.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington)

It was £2 million.

Mr. Lloyd

As my hon. Friend says, it was £2 million.

I do not think that it was applied to training. I think that it was to prop up the deficit of the chairman of the Conservative party at that time. That matter is not central to training, but it is central to the shoddy way in which the Government deal with their own properties and those of other people.

Miss Widdecombe

May I refer the hon. Gentleman to the debate? I am sure, Madam Speaker, that if you had not been otherwise engaged, you would have ruled several of the hon. Gentleman's sentences out of order.

However, the hon. Gentleman claims that tile International Labour Organisation definition is the one which we should be using. He says that we are deliberately suppressing figures. May I take it that the essence of the hon. Gentleman's case is that the United Nations and the International Labour Organisation are conspiring with Conservative politicians to produce a definition specifically to enable Britain's employment figures to be fiddled? Is that the hon. Gentleman's ludicrous statement?

Mr. Lloyd

The Minister is on rather dangerous ground in praying in aid the ILO. Will the Minister discuss, for example, the fact that the ILO has condemned unconditionally the Government's ban on trade unions at Government communications headquarters, and that it has described that employment practice as an outrage against the employment rights of people at work? That is what the ILO says about the Government. The ILO unemployment figures are certainly worth discussing.

We will take up the Minister's offer, but only on condition that we examine in particular the 125,000 missing 16 and 17-year-olds whom the Government betrayed when they promised training which they did not undertake either through the CITB or any other training mechanism. That must be the starting point.

Let us consider the Government's record on training and the particular role of training boards. Department of Employment spending specifically on the now disbanded employment training and youth training schemes dropped between 1987 and 1992 by £3 billion a year down to £1.7 billion, when unemployment and the number of people who needed training to put them back into work had increased massively.

But the Government's record becomes a little worse. We know that, since that time, there have been further real cuts in the training budget. Training and enterprise councils have had their budgets cut, so in real terms less money is devoted to training and considerably less money is devoted to individual training, with the result that training for work and youth training are particularly shoddy little schemes.

For example, we know that, as a result of the training for work scheme and its predecessors, only one third of the people obtained work. The remarkable statistic—it would be amusing if it were not so very sad—is that unemployed adults have virtually the same chance of obtaining work if they do not go on a Government scheme as they would if they did. That must be the biggest indictment of the Mickey Mouse training schemes that the Government have made available through the CITB and, indeed, elsewhere through employment training and now training for work.

Miss Widdecombe

Will the hon. Gentleman clarify his statement by telling the House within what period that one third had not found work before he creates the impression that they never had work?

Mr. Lloyd

If we want to pursue this matter, I invite the Minister to begin to answer questions which would allow us to answer her question. The Department of Employment has stopped publishing figures that enable people to track what has happened to the unemployed. I would be delighted if the Minister returned to the Dispatch Box—of course, I would do her the courtesy of giving way again—and said that she will answer questions which relate specifically to what has happened to the long-term unemployed. If she does not have the information at hand, which is the usual departmental response, I hope that she will undertake that the Department will set up precise mechanisms to track the unemployed so that we can begin to talk seriously about what has happened to them. Does she want me to give way on that matter, or was she simply introducing a bit of Dispatch Box rhetoric?

It is a serious point. We need to know what happened to the long-term unemployed. I shall tell the Minister what has happened to them. They live in poverty; their families suffer; they have greater health problems; they have greater marital breakdown; they have greater stress; and they die younger. In the end, their children are more likely to be involved in crime and drugs. That is a tragedy.

Long-term unemployment blights our society and the lives of our constituents. It is a direct result of the mass unemployment policy that the Government have pursued. Therefore, to some extent, we know what happens to the long-term unemployed, and we know what the Government have not done for them. They do not provide training for people to go back to work. As my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) says, the bottom line is that they simply do not care.

Miss Widdecombe

In view of the hon. Gentleman's deep concern for the long-term unemployed, which I share, will he now welcome the 1.5 million training opportunities that the Government have created for that category of people?

Mr. Lloyd

No. I am sorry, but I will not welcome the Mickey Mouse schemes set up by the Government, because they do not any good. They keep the unemployed off the streets, if that is what the Minister means, and out of the statistics. If that is the objective, of course we understand why the Government welcome the schemes. [Interruption.] They are fiddlers on the Bench—that is absolutely right.

Miss Widdecombe

The main intention of our training schemes is not simply to equip people with the right skills as determined locally but, more importantly, to keep the long-term unemployed in touch with work-related training. One of the things we found—the Labour Government found exactly the same thing—is that employers are reluctant to take on people who have been unemployed for any length of time. Therefore, it is crucial that the long-term unemployed have training which is linked directly to employment and the labour market so that they at least keep in touch with work-related activity. Will the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that that is the basis of our training schemes, and will he welcome it?

Mr. Lloyd

My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) says that there is one vacancy for every person out of work and for every 20 people on the dole. That is the tragedy of what the Minister is saying. There is no easy path for people to return to work when there is no work to which they can return. That is the tragedy of the employment schemes that the Government have made available.

The schemes do not work. They do not create work; they do not up-skill people; they do not help the nation; and they do not help individuals. The bottom line is that it is a political game. We saw the same game as each Secretary of State was trundled out to pasture and a new one was wheeled in. The Government reinvented the wheel. What is worse, sometimes they have broken the wheel.

I shall refer specifically to construction skills because the Minister has tried to divert me from that matter on occasions. Recently, the Secretary of State launched the Government's new apprenticeship schemes with a lot of fireworks. He said that it was a magnificent opportunity and there was a vast marketplace for the United Kingdom to compete in, but in order to do so successfully, we needed to ensure that our work force had all the skills they need.

The Secretary of State has also said that he wants to build up vocational training and qualifictions. If he were serious about that, he would get the support of Opposition Members. He had the nerve to ask whether somebody would want their house rewired by an electrician who had demonstrated skills by rewiring other houses, or by someone who had passed an exam in solid state physics. Is the Secretary of State saying that decent education is the privilege of people like him? I believe that the Secretary of State went to public school, and his children may also go to public school. The Under-Secretary herself may have gone to public school.

The reality for many thousands of our fellow citizens is that they do not have an opportunity to go to such schools, but they are entitled to the best quality education. To sideline them and to say that all that is wanted is people who have basic rewiring skills is to insult them and to denigrate their abilities.

Miss Widdecombe

The hon. Gentleman is keen on education. Yesterday, I announced that 77 per cent. of those aged 16 to 18 stayed on in education to obtain the qualifications which are so important.

Mr. Kevin Barron (Rother Valley)

That is because they have no jobs.

Miss Widdecombe

The hon. Gentleman makes my point exactly. When the figures were announced, all that Opposition Members did was to cry out that it was because there were no jobs. In other words, education is the second-best choice.

If the hon. Gentleman is so keen that education be made available to all—that is an ambition that I share—why does he put it down as second-best to getting a job and leaving young people low paid, untrained and poorly educated at the age of 16?

Mr. Lloyd

Perhaps we need to engage in a little systematic teaching in the Chamber. Let me teach the Minister about what happens in our further education colleges. It is true that the Opposition welcome the increasing numbers of young people who are staying on in education.

Miss Widdecombe

The Opposition do welcome it?

Mr. Lloyd

We welcome it where that education is of their choice and is meaningful. It would be simply ridiculous to do anything else. Like many of my generation, I was lucky enough to pass through the state system at a time when the state system was able to transport people from areas where education opportunities had not existed previously.

Of course I welcome the increase in figures, and further education ought to be a right. Let me tell the Minister what happens in the underfunded system which she and her colleagues have created during the past 15 years. At the age of 18, there is a massive decline in the figures so that Britain has a far smaller proportion of its young people in full-time education than in most other parts of western Europe. That is the case when we compare ourselves with France and Germany—the nations which we like to compete with.

If the Minister wants to say that we are doing a little better than Morocco on that scale, I would not want to dispute that. However, that is not the reference point to which I or the people I represent aspire. We can do a little better than that.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman (Lancaster)

The hon. Gentleman said that he would inform the House of what is going on in our further education colleges. May I invite him to come to the Lancaster and Morecambe college of further education? He could not find a more admirable institution than that. The college provides the most superb training and it turns out people who get jobs. Places at the college are sought after, and the people it turns out are sought after. Would the hon. Gentleman care to visit, so that he will be in touch with what is happening in a part of the world which he ought to know?

Mr. Lloyd

With the respect that I have for the hon. Lady, of course I will accept her invitation. However, there is a proviso. A year or two ago, when I spoke for the Opposition on health and safety, I wrote to a lot of hospitals and health authorities regarding the position of health and safety in those areas. I specifically wrote to the chairman of the health authority in the area which the hon. Lady represents. The hon. Lady raised a point of order in the House and condemned me for interfering in her constituency. I trust that, if I accept her invitation, it will not lead to the same hysteria and shenanigans which occurred on that occasion.

I would also say to the hon. Lady that I would be delighted to come up to that area, which I visit from time to time. She knows that her seat is one which the Labour party would expect to win at the next election, and she will have a considerable number of visits by Labour Members during the coming months. If I agree to come to see the hon. Lady's college of further education, will she come with me to the jobcentre, where perhaps we will talk to those in the dole queue who number about three times as many as there were when the Government took power in 1979? It would make an interesting joint focus—the failure of the Government represented by the dole queues and the paltry effort that they have put into further education.

I wish to talk specifically about the construction industry and the Construction Industry Training Board. I welcome the Secretary of State to the Chamber. He will be interested to know that not so many minutes ago the Minister was berating the House for the limited number of people interested in training who have bothered to turn up for the debate. I can tell the Secretary of State that it will not take him long to read the Under-Secretary's speech, because there was very little in it. However, he may be a little more interested in the speech that she has made since then in interventions in my speech. We are ever willing to help the Government. We should develop our interest in training and I welcome the Secretary of State to the debate.

I have just referred to something that the Secretary of State said. I did not complete the point that I wanted to make, because I gave way to the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman). Given the Secretary of State's educational background and the opportunities that it gave him, he has something of a cheek to denigrate ordinary people in the way that he did when he spoke at the national training awards ceremony at which he launched his plans for vocational training.

I have said to the Secretary of State privately and I repeat it publicly that we shall support a properly structured, properly funded approach to vocational training, as long as it provides proper, quality education which is genuinely aimed at uplifting the skill level of our young people. We need to uplift the skill level of not only our young people. The Secretary of State should recognise that the position in Germany is very different. Many of those who enter vocational training do so having already received a first-class education to a high standard through the ordinary academic system.

If the Secretary of State is prepared to put the money into such a scheme, he will receive a welcome from the Opposition. But if his scheme is simply an attempt to divert those who are regarded as the lower classes by Conservative Members on to Mickey Mouse training, if he is simply saying, "We want the best for the chaps and chapesses from the public school system, but anything will do for the kids from the inner-city areas," he will receive no welcome from the Opposition.

The Secretary of State makes comments such as: do you want driving your car someone who has only passed a written examination? I do not want someone driving my car who has had only practical experience and no training whatever. That would be ridiculous. He says: who do you want as a foreman on a construction site, someone with good practical and people skills or someone who could write a good essay on the construction industry? If the Secretary of State denigrates the type of education that makes our construction workers properly qualified, he is foolish.

Let me quote from someone at the sharp end at one of the very good colleges of further education to which the hon. Member for Lancaster referred a few moments ago. Almost as if in response to the Secretary of State's silly remarks, one of the critics of the current system of training, a college lecturer, said that a young NVQ-qualified craftsman could build a brick wall, but because he had never been told about the effects of freezing weather on water, he would not know what to do when it was cold. He went on to say that the wall would probably fall down in a couple of years. I agree with what that lecturer said.

I remind the Secretary of State that there is a need for theory as well as practice. Of course we want practical skills. The Government have sold the practical side of the nation down the river for the past 15 years. However, we must upgrade the general level of education of those who become the practitioners in industry. That is what the Secretary of State seemed to denigrate in his launch. I hope that he will think again if he is serious about education and training in construction for our young people.

Miss Widdecombe

The hon. Gentleman cannot accuse me of not responding to him. He has consistently referred to what he describes as Mickey Mouse training. Will he tell me how a syllabus devised not by the Government but by the industry, independently assessed and drawn up on the basis of good practice, can be a qualification deserving of the title "Mickey Mouse"? Will he please recognise that there are those who, while not benefiting from the academic route, will nevertheless, like their German and Japanese counterparts, benefit from a competence-based work route? That is what NVQs are about. Will he please welcome them and respect the industry that has drawn them up?

Mr. Lloyd

The Minister has a long way to go. She does not seem to understand the problems.

Mr. James Clappison (Hertsmere)

Answer the question.

Mr. Lloyd

Of course I shall answer the question. Does the hon. Gentleman want to intervene to ask a question before I start to reply to the Minister?

I refer the Minister to a study conducted by Professor Prais and others who considered NVQs and concluded that they were not terribly good. The university of Manchester also carried out a study of NVQs and concluded that in many cases there was an over-concentration on—I cannot remember the Minister's exact words—what is, in effect, self-assessment. The teacher decides whether the student, apprentice or learner has made progress and, in accordance with the Government's preferred method of assessment, is then measured by output funding. It is a nasty little world, but a Government who praised Westminster council should not have too much difficulty with the concept of people cheating, which is what happened under that system. That is what devalues NVQs.

If the Minister thinks that what I am saying is merely proof of the nasty Opposition being beastly to the well-meaning Government, let me cite Mr. Martin Pollard. He is the chief executive of the joint council between employers and unions in the electrical contracting industry, so his comments are highly relevant to the debate.

Mr. Pollard said that one of the problems for young people undertaking the TECs' two-year courses is that they find jobs as electricians although they have not—[Interruption.] I am sorry that the Minister, having asked a question about the quality of NVQs, is talking to the Government Whip, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick), and does not want to listen to the answer. Perhaps the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) can tell her the answer later. Oh, it is very decent of the Government Whip to leave the Chamber.

Mr. Pollard said that some training and enterprise funding councils were funding two-year courses and releasing trainees to find jobs as electricians, although they had not reached the required standard. He continued: In fact the only position in which they could be employed is that of a labourer—surely a waste of two years' training. It is not only a waste of training but a massive waste of Government money and of the lives of these young people.

I visited the construction site of a very good development in my constituency. One of the senior people there said that, when he takes people from Government training courses in the construction trades, he finds that he has to put them back in the classroom. People who have undertaken a two-year Government course are being told that their bricklaying or other skills are not up to scratch and that they must go back to the classroom. They do not earn the money that they had expected to earn, so they say, "Sorry pal, I'm off," and they decide to take a job elsewhere—if they can find one. They may have difficulty doing so because their skills are not adequate. That is an example of the problems created by the Government.

The Government are directly responsible for the failure outlined by Mr. Pollard, an independent industrialist.

Miss Widdecombe

rose—

Mr. Thomas Graham (Renfrew, West and Inverclyde)

rose—

Mr. Lloyd

If the Minister will forgive me, I shall give way first to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Graham

Some time ago I mentioned to one of the Ministers the case of a young constituent of mine who had been training to be a plumber. The training shop was shut and he was thrown on to the dole without having finished his course. However, the Secretary of State for Scotland told the House that we badly needed to spend more than £5 billion on improving water and sewerage services. We shall desperately need plumbers and construction workers, but the Government are not willing to provide money for training in Scotland because they have cut funding by more than 33 per cent.

Mr. Lloyd

My hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham) makes an important point. He makes the case that we shall certainly need those skills and that is not in doubt. I shall come directly to that point on a United Kingdom basis in a moment.

One of the staggering things that we confront in Scotland is that, as my hon. Friend says about one of his constituents, young people are treated in a shoddy way. Yet we learn that the Secretary of State, who has announced his apprenticeship scheme, has not the clout in the Cabinet to take that system north of the border. The apprenticeship system on which the Government are pinning the future skills of the nation will not apply in Scotland. My hon. Friend is right to be incensed.

Mr. John Prescott (Kingston upon Hull, East)

He has not got any money.

Mr. Lloyd

Well, there is a difference of opinion on our Front Bench, which one gets now and again in a healthy, democratic party. I had not thought of it before, but my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde tells me that the scheme is seen as so sub-standard that the Scots do not want it. Even the Secretary of State for Scotland has apparently rumbled the Secretary of State for Environment and does not want the scheme. I thought that it was because the Scots were being deprived. I now learn that the Secretary of State for Scotland does not think that the commitment will be there, that the money will be there or that it will be there to provide the quality training that we ought to have.

If the Secretary of State for Scotland does not want the scheme, we must doubt the reason why it has been foisted on those of us in the rest of the country. Does the Minister want to give way?

Mr. Prescott

Is it true?

Miss Widdecombe

No.

Madam Speaker

Order. One debate at a time.

Mr. Lloyd

I invite the Minister—

Madam Speaker

May we return to the subject of the order?

Mr. Lloyd

Give me a chance. [Laughter.] I invite the Minister specifically to confirm whether the apprenticeship scheme will apply in Scotland as she seems to indicate.

Miss Widdecombe

indicated dissent.

Mr. Lloyd

She is now shaking her head. Is the Minister telling us that she does not know whether the scheme will apply in Scotland?

Miss Widdecombe

When I said it was not true, I was referring to the incredible degree of waffle, imputed motivation and knowledge of what goes on in Cabinet, which the hon. Gentleman does not have. I was also saying that the hon. Gentleman is getting more ludicrous by the moment. Madam Speaker agrees with me: we should get back to discussing the order. May we discuss the training levy for the construction industry and not Scottish NVQs?

Mr. Lloyd

I am a little surprised. I thought that when I gave way the Minister wanted to tell us whether she knew that the system would apply to training and to the construction industry among others in Scotland. It is clear that she has not got a clue. The Secretary of State is in the Chamber. I wonder whether he knows. I undertake to keep talking for the time it would take him to get to the Dispatch Box. It appears that the Secretary of State does not know whether the scheme applies in Scotland.

Would it be possible for the House to adjourn until the Prime Minister came along to tell us whether he knows? Perhaps we could even get the Prime Minister to the Scott inquiry to tell us whether he knows anything about the sale of arms to Iraq, anything about Government policy on training—

Madam Speaker

Order. I am not minded to adjourn the House. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has a lot of material before him at the Dispatch Box and he can return to the order.

Mr. Lloyd

I am just beginning to warm up.

There is a central question about whether the apprenticeship model will apply to construction trainees in Scotland. It seems as if the cavalry is about to come with the news. Does the hon. Member for hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) want to break the news to the House himself, or would he prefer to convey it to the Minister? We seem to have a problem in inter-departmental consultation. It seems to be a case not so much of Fabian of Scotland Yard as of the Secretary of State for Scotland.

If we consider the construction industry and the situation as evidenced by my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde in his constituency, and then consider what has happened on a national basis to the number of trainees in the construction industry, we find that the level of employment in the industry has plummeted. In 1990, when the foolishly manufactured boom of Lawson was still at its height, there were nearly 1.9 million people employed in the construction industry. By last July that figure had dropped down to only 1,392,000. In other words, about 500,000 construction workers had lost their jobs in that two-year period. That is a staggering loss both of employment for those individuals and of our economic base. It is a staggering leaching of the nation's skills.

I have something else to tell the Minister and again she will not know whether it is right or wrong. The industry on a reasonably accurate forecast reckons that, for every two construction workers who leave the industry during a slump, only one returns.

Miss Widdecombe

Has the other one found a job?

Mr. Lloyd

I will tell the Minister about that. A couple of weeks ago I came by taxi to the House. The driver of my minicab was a very nice man and I talked to him about his background. He told me that he used to run his own construction company but, unfortunately, he was one of many victims of the recession. He hates this Government. He lost his business and his employees were all made unemployed because of the Government. He is now driving a taxi and he hates it. He resents the fact that he is a skilled man yet cannot use the skills that he has acquired over the years to work for those who want him to in his chosen trade. Instead, he is taxiing around, like many other people. Yes, the Minister is right, some people find jobs—they find jobs as taxi drivers or in the McDonald's sector of our economy. They do not find skilled jobs in construction or in manufacturing, because that work has gone and in many cases gone for good.

In a little over two years, a quarter of the construction labour force disappeared. We should stand back in amazement at that and show at least a little sympathy for the individuals involved and for our economy. At the same time the number of apprentices in the construction industry slumped. In 1990—the year that I cited for the peak in employment—there were 77,000 apprentices in the construction industry. By last year, the figure had virtually halved to 43,000. That is no great tribute to the skills revolution that the Government claim is taking place. It simply shows an industry that regards training for the future as an avoidable expense when the going gets tough, in this case directly because of Government policy.

In no sense is the level of skills being maintained. We have lost permanently about 250,000 skilled workers and we have not even begun the process of replacing them through the industrial training schemes that we are discussing. The Minister should apologise to the House for that.

I do not want to be over-critical of the industry training board.

Mr. Prescott

Why not?

Mr. Lloyd

Because it would be unfair to shoot the messenger when the people responsible are sitting behind the Government Dispatch Box. Sir Clifford Chetwood, the chairman of the construction industry training board, wrote in the foreword to the 1991–92 report—the most recent one available: It is therefore with some satisfaction … that, by judicious use of reserves and by the application of a range of counter-cyclical measures, CITB has been able to maintain training at an acceptable level during this period of deep recession in the industry. I am sorry to say so, but Sir Clifford is being complacent, given that the number of apprentices in construction has virtually halved.

We know that one of the problems facing the CITB is that its revenue has been cut during that period. As businesses have ceased to trade and as people have left the industry, the sums coming into the construction industry have been cut by £8 million. Last year the level of spending in the industry was about £52 million; this year's spending will be down to £43 million. That is a significant fall. That goes a long way to explain why there has been the cut in the number of people gaining training in the construction industry, which we think they should have.

The Government are simply incompetent in their ability and desire to plan. They were forced, because of the demands from within the industry—one or two Conservative Members were part of the process of lobbying—to retain the Construction Industry Training Board. I am happy to pay tribute to the role that they played at that time. It was recognised that the Government's ideological approach to training—that we do not want national bodies and do not need any national mechanisms for planning—was wrong-headed. The industry said that.

In the end, even the Government, dogmatic and pig-headed as they normally are, were forced to listen to what the industry said. In the end, grudgingly and against the desires of the ideologues on the Government Front Bench at the time, the Government accepted the role of the CITB. But they have never accepted the need for the CITB to act in a counter-cyclical manner. When there is an upturn again in the economy, we shall see an increase in wage costs, for example, as happened between 1981 and 1990, when the industry increased the number of employees by some 250,000. Wage inflation became a significant part of the construction industry at that time. It was a damning critique of the incompetence and failure of the planning mechanisms that the industry was allowed to get into that position.

It may be bold and unwise to do so, but let us speculate that the shoots of recovery have at last appeared and that one of the industries that will pick up is construction. We would once again have skills shortages throughout the construction industry of a kind that will not easily be picked up by the present training board policies.

That is the central failure of the training board structure that we currently have. The Government are not committed to it. They will not finance it properly and will not let the industry finance its training properly. That is why we will have wage inflation within construction when there is any kind of pick up within the industry. Although I welcome every new job that is created—let the Minister understand that the Labour party welcomes that—we do not welcome the incompetence of a Government who have failed to plan for the future.

Reference was made earlier to colleges of further education, of which there are some 400 in England. Some 40 have stopped their wet trade construction courses over recent months. The reason for that is twofold. It is in part because the trainees are simply not coming forward, either through the CITB or the industry. There simply are not the bums on seats. The other reason comes down to the Government's so-silly view of the educational process. They paraded with great pride and pleasure the creation of a market in education.

The effect is that further education colleges, squeezed for money, have made decisions. They have decided to withdraw from high-cost courses that are resource intensive, such as construction and some of those in the manufacturing skills, and instead have opted for low-cost courses, sometimes courses such as English. That is welcome and I am not denigrating those courses, but I am dismayed that one in 10 of our colleges of further education has ceased to provide resource-intensive courses.

Will the Minister tell the House whether she has any views on who will train our young people in construction skills if those courses no longer exist in further education colleges? I do not know who will train the next generation. It becomes a serious problem.

The central point of the debate is that it is because the Government consistently underfunds the CITB, because they do not have a credible approach to training within construction, that the Opposition intend to divide this evening on the two orders. We must make it clear to the Government that they are simply not providing the money nor the effort necessary to maintain training opportunities. I have been in the House for some years and I have participated in debates on previous training orders. Today is the first time in my memory that we have sought to divide the House on the issue. We shall do so to make our protest public.

The time has come to tell the Government that they can no longer get with their rhetoric about training. Each new Secretary of State launches his or her new scheme, but a couple of years later each new system fails.

According to any reputable measurement—that discounts anything produced by central Government—and any international comparison, Britain is falling short when it comes to providing intermediate vocational qualifications. A recent report showed that 63 per cent. of workers in Germany have intermediate vocational qualifications, either technical or craft qualifications. Nearly two out of three German workers have a vocational qualification and a further 11 per cent. have a degree. The German economy is based on a high level of worker education and skills.

In Britain, the number of workers with university degrees is rougly the same, but only one in four people have vocational qualifications. We are falling far behind the Germans, the French and the Japanese. Conservative Members may still believe that we are witnessing a skills revolution, but that is not what is happening in the British workplace.

Miss Widdecombe

Can the hon. Gentleman tell me how many national vocational qualification equivalents the Labour Government introduced? What did his Government introduce as an equivalent to training and enterprise councils? What did his Government ever do to bring about a training revolution?

Mr. Lloyd

That is a good question and like all good questions, it has a good answer. The Minister should cast her mind back to when the apprenticeship system was still alive and training our young people.

Miss Widdecombe

How many apprenticeships were offered for girls?

Mr. Lloyd

I agree that that lack has always been a problem and a black mark against our training system. I intend to ask the Minister a specific question about the number of women trainees in construction. I hope that she intends to make progress on that issue.

The Minister asked me what happened to promote training before the Government came to power. Critical as we are about the collapse of training in construction, because of the Government's lack of commitment to that training board's structure, the fact that that board exists has offered protection to the industry. Despite that, however, the number of trainees in construction is half what it was in the years 1981 to 1990.

There were 56,000 apprentices in the construction industry in 1979, but by 1993 that number had dropped to 43,000. Roughly one quarter of apprenticeships were lost. In 1979, the number of trainees in the print industry was 2,767. By last year that number had fallen to 380. That is an incredible reduction and its' relevance must be obvious to hon. Members.

In the- early 1980s, the Government abolished with a flourish the Print Industry Training Board along with the other industrial training boards. The Government argued that they had to be abolished because they were not fulfilling the role desired by the Government. According to the Government White Paper published in 1988, ITBs had 'not succeeded in raising the standard and the quantity of training in the sectors they covered to the level of our major competitors."' Since then, in those industries where the Government misguidedly abolished training boards, training has collapsed. [Interruption.]

The Minister laughs with mock scorn. When the printing industry training board was abolished, the number of trainees dropped from 2,767 to 380. The Minister does not think that is a collapse. The Government have sabotaged training, skills, the skills stock and Britain's future in the printing industry—which, of all industries, needs high skill levels.

I come from a family of three generations of printers. I was brought up in a family in which it was common to recognise the love that my own father had for his skills as a printer. The Government are dismantling that tradition. For the Minister to laugh places her and the Government in the right context. This is an anti-training Government. This is a Government of industrial destruction. This is a Government of political Luddites, who have smashed our infrastructure and left little for young people in industries such as printing and construction.

Although training has been badly hit in the two remaining boards, the number of trainees has only halved. In industries where boards were abolished, training has effectively been dismantled.

Miss Widdecombe

indicated dissent.

Mr. Lloyd

The Minister shakes her head. In printing, one trade union put up £1 million to run a school of excellence. The European Community was prepared to make available £1.5 million to back that project and Salford local authority in Greater Manchester made a prime site available for the school. Some employers also wanted to put up money, but the employers collectively could not get their act together. The printing industry loses by that because, when an upturn arrives in that sector as in construction, we shall see again the skills shortages that bedevil this country every time that the Government lead us from bust to a temporary pick-up in the economy. The Minister's laughter is the laughter of a Government who have neither the sense nor the compassion to understand the problems.

Even though the Government did not want to talk about construction and engineering construction industry training and have made almost no comment, this debate provides others with an opportunity to express their views. We have had the opportunity to bring the Minister to her feet on other occasions, but she has not answered particularly constructively to questions about the construction and engineering construction industries.

I will ask the Minister one or two questions that I hope she will find easier to answer, since they were posed by her predecessor when the CITB review was completed and the board was told that it could continue another five years. At that time, the Government devised a number of tests. The CITB had to set a target for participation by ethnic minorities and women in youth training schemes. What progress has been made? Can the Minister encourage us to believe that there is realisation of the need to encourage ethnic minorities and women to enter an industry that has traditionally been male-dominated?

Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey)

The disabled should also be encouraged.

Mr. Lloyd

As my hon. Friend says.

I am not sure that I understood the Minister's remarks about the long-term future of the engineering construction training board.

Miss Widdecombe

A statement will be made in April.

Mr. Lloyd

The Minister says that a statement will be made in April, but we do not know now what will be the outcome. It would be outrageous if the Government were to destroy that board as they did the others, hard on the heels of the information that I have given the House about the collapse of training in the construction and allied industries.

Britain is sliding steadily backwards, and it will continue to do so as long as we have a Government who are anti-education and anti-training. The Government display no commitment to industrial training and offer no encouragement to train to those who are in work. They offer precious little encouragement to people out of work and to the next generation. The Government's failure to treat the engineering and construction industry training boards seriously will lead us to divide the House at the end of this debate.

4.44 pm

Sir Michael Neubert (Romford)

Anniversaries are an uncomfortable reminder of the passage of time, but they also provide an opportunity to measure the advance and achievement of the year gone by. This annual debate gives the House such an opportunity. My interest in the construction order arises from my role as parliamentary adviser to the Federation of Master Builders. It is the third such debate in which I have taken part. Nothing much changes, except the Minister. It is never the same Minister twice. This afternoon, we are glad to welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) to take her turn in starring at the Dispatch Box.

We always hear a major speech from a member of Labour's Front Bench. On the last occasion, the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) took one third of the 90 minutes available for debate. This afternoon, we have three hours available, but again the hon. Gentleman has taken one third of the time. I hope that the Government do not give a full day on the next occasion because, if the hon. Gentleman were to speak for two hours, I am not sure that I have the stamina or bladder capacity to hear all that he had to say.

I welcome one change. The Government have given this business prime time by putting it first on the Order Paper, and we should welcome the opportunity to bring the construction and engineering construction industries to the attention of the nation at this early hour, rather than debate them at some dark hour of the night when only Members of Parliament are around to listen.

There have been two main developments since our last debate. I welcomed the statement made two weeks after we last debated the future of the CITB, which was under review. I expressed my appreciation of the Government's action in recognising once again the unique character of that industry and accepting that it continues to warrant exemption from Government policy of looking to industries to make independent, employer-led arrangements to provide and to fund adequate training.

The case for exemption needs to be defended. A project's time span can be as short as three months. Larger projects, of course, may be measured in years, but there are not so many of them. The construction of the Palace of Westminster took 15 years, but today it is scarcely an exaggeration to say that one can see in Hong Kong the start and finish of an office building in the three weeks that one is on holiday there. The longer-term view is no longer available to the construction industry as to other industries, so a statutory levy makes sense. Otherwise, the cheap short cut would always be taken.

The construction industry consists mainly of small firms, widely dispersed, engaged in a variety of activities. The work load is cyclical and vulnerable to changes in the economy, which makes manpower forecasting unfeasible.

The industry is highly mobile, the size of the workplace varies and businesses come and go with frightening frequency. At the same time, it is all too easy to start up a business, however inadequately trained or qualified a person may be.

The industry is therefore in a category of its own. As for health and safety, the very nature of the work in the construction industry involves much higher risks than the work in many other industries, so safe working practices are imperative, and training for safety must be given the utmost priority.

No employer would ever want to take on staff who, once they have qualified, go down the road and work for some other business, thus acting in competition with the original employer. Thus, a central statutory requirement is essential, and the need for a training levy proven. I thank the Minister for allowing the CITB an extended life of five years, thus giving it time to plan strategically for the training function of the future.

A second major development has been the improvement in the economy—[Interruption.] Now that my voice has recovered its full vigour, I hope that the House will be interested to hear about the improvements in the economy. The depth and length of the recession were without precedent. We have been in uncharted territory. The economy seemed to turn the corner, but then it appeared that it had not done so. There are, however, real signs of recovery now. For those who have eyes to see and ears to hear, there is good news every day. That shows the difference between now and February of last year, when we were much less certain.

Mr. Graham

The other day I had a visitor from America who was travelling through from England to Scotland. He was appalled by the infrastructure problems that we face in Scotland and England—the potholes in the pavements and roads, and so on. He was shocked to find that the school that he had gone to was in a dilapidated condition and had no money for repairs.

One of the major problems, surely, has been that the Government have not injected enough cash into the infrastructure of public life, thereby employing more plumbers, electricians and builders. It is like the chicken and the egg: the Government are not prepared to train workers because they are happy with the short-term gains that arise from not putting enough money into public infrastructure. We will only get the construction industry going again, with real training, when the Government start putting money into public infrastructure to improve our roads, schools and hospitals. That will never happen until the Government put their money where their mouth is—that is the only way to get Britain back to work.

Sir Michael Neubert

I was rather surprised, on two counts, to hear what the hon. Gentleman had to say, although I always listen carefully to his interventions. Although the United States has a powerful and successful economy, it also has areas of dereliction that are far worse than any in this country. I saw in a news bulletin from Michigan last night scenes of shocking dereliction. As for infrastructure, I was going on to refer in glowing terms to the Government's policy on infrastructure projects, on which the Government have a proud record.

I identify the following features of the economy as encouraging. First, we have low interest rates. Then, we have a low annual rate of inflation—still below 2 per cent., and we have been below that figure for a record period. We have low wage settlements, high productivity and a competitive currency. All those are ingredients for economic growth.

The building industry, however, is slow to share in the benefits of increasing confidence and expansion. In recent years—notably in the autumn statement 15 months ago —the Government have offered commendable support to major infrastructure projects. That is a welcome boost for the construction industry, but those projects have only limited trickle-down benefits for small and medium-sized builders such as those which make up the membership of the Federation of Master Builders.

The Jubilee line extension is a prime example of a project given Government support. It is tragic that it took a year for the financiers to get their act together, although the difficulties are well understood. The recovery would have been further ahead if this major £1.9 billion project, creating 20,000 jobs, had been under way 12 months ago, but it was not to be. It is a good illustration of our negative news reports that, on the day that the project was clinched, it did not feature on the BBC's nine o'clock news until 9.25 pm, and then only fleetingly.

Crossrail is another project to which I hope the Government will give whole-hearted backing. It combines private and public finance and it could transform transport in London, enabling all those Americans who pass through on their way to Scotland to enjoy efficient public transport.

To show the state of the building industry I should like to draw attention to a submission made by the Building Employers Federation and the Federation of -Master Builders. The submission was made jointly to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 27 October last—only three months ago, since when I am assured the position has not changed much.

Those organisations reported to the Chancellor: output has declined for 13 consecutive quarters since the beginning of 1990, making this the longest recession since the 1930s; the value of output is now over 15 per cent. down on its peak, a significantly larger fall than in most other industries; the housing market is still very fragile with sales well below expectations; employment in the industry has fallen by about half a million since 1989, and there have been additional cuts in employment in our associated professions and in the building materials industry; the length and depth of the recession has in turn led to very substantial and damaging reductions in our training and recruitment programmes for both apprentices and graduates. This now threatens the future capability and capacity of both small and large firms". As I have already said, there is little prospect of improvement—indeed, there has been none in the past three months, as shown by the most recent state of trade surveys.

The building and construction industries are always the first to be hit by recession, they are always hit the hardest and they always take the longest time to emerge into recovery. Let us not overlook the importance of the industry to Britain, however. In 1992, the recession notwithstanding, the industry had a total turnover of £47 billion, or about a tenth of Britain's gross domestic product. Construction amounts to about a third of the nation's manufacturing base and even in this recession it continues to provide about 1.4 million jobs. A tenth of the entire population depends directly or indirectly on the construction industry.

Moreover, construction accounts for half of Britain's fixed investment and it has a crucial role to play in extending and improving our economic and social infrastructure. There is a widely recognised need for new investment and for more maintenance work on housing, on school and hospital buildings, on roads and factories and on other areas of construction work. To that extent at least I can agree with the hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham).

The order is to be welcomed, but I have two reservations about it. I apologise for the fact that they are repetitious, in the sense that I have inevitably made these points before, but they remain relevant. The first criticism is that the order provides for the threshold for exemption to be increased, from £45,000 to £61,000—the intention being to exclude firms with four workers, whereas the number used to be three.

At a time when the Government talk of the need for increasing training it is ironic and contradictory that, by means of this exemption, they should reduce the obligation to contribute to the costs of training. No fewer than 35,000 businesses are estimated to be excluded from the levy—businesses effectively in receipt of subsidy for training from the rest of industry.

The raising of the ceiling reduces the board's income by £1 million. I agree with the hon. Member for Stretford that it is unfortunate, at a time when we want more training and recognise its importance, that we should start by giving the board a new lease of life for five years but then reduce its income. It is estimated that a nil threshold under which everybody would be required to contribute would yield £8.5 million. That would give a significant boost to training, and it would be money from the industry and not from the public purse.

The Federation of Master Builders represents many small and medium businesses, and it may seem odd that it should support the view that all should contribute. I support that view because I recognise its fairness. Competition is distorted because some businesses have to pay the levy. It is a small amount compared to the funds with which those firms manoeuvre, but is another competitive disadvantage for small and medium businesses that are liable for the levy. That is obvious from my earlier illustration about the level of turnover for VAT registration, which was likewise increased by the Chancellor to £45,000. The same considerations apply because revenue is lost.

In a parliamentary answer on 16 December, the Paymaster-General revealed that the revenue forgone as a result would be £40 million in the next financial year and £45 million in the following year. It is surprising that, with the deficit running at £1 billion a week, the Chancellor is willing to forgo that amount. One would have thought that it would be welcome.

It is understood that we want to encourage small businesses: that is the purpose of those policies. However, it could be argued that small businesses should learn from the beginning that the full cost of training and VAT liability are among the expenses that they will have to bear if they survive and succeed. That would be fairer than the current system and would remove the competitive disadvantage of having to charge customers 17.5 per cent. plus the cost of training for work that could be done for much less by a smaller business. Most customers may find the extra amount rather too much to pay. We are not debating the difference between small and large businesses because such an advantage could accrue to a business with four workers and not to one that employed only five. That is where it hurts and the disadvantage must be resisted.

I have reservations about the training and VAT exemptions. I understand that the Minister is not responsible for VAT but she will appreciate how the two come together in the minds of business men who are struggling to survive in this over-long recession. Firms that could constantly exceed the ceilings might be tempted to take short cuts and adopt devices to avoid liability. In such cases, the cash-only-no-questions-asked payment becomes attractive and the black economy beckons.

Despite those disadvantages I welcome the order and I am glad to know that it will give the Construction Industry Training Board another year to plan and execute training in one of the country's most important industries.

5.3 pm

Mr. Jimmy Wray (Glasgow, Provan)

Nobody is enthusiastic about the order, because everybody knows what the Government have been like over the years. It is almost 32 years since the levy raised its head, following a White Paper in 1962 and an Act in 1964. I must declare an interest because I am proud to say that I am sponsored by the Transport and General Workers Union. I was also the Scottish political education officer. We carefully examine any schemes that the Government organise, and we looked at the situation in 1962 and again in 1964. When the Government do not agree with a scheme they use a Ways and Means resolution to change an Act and give power to a Minister or a Secretary of State.

In 1973, the Government used the 1964 Act to set up boards. The 1962 White Paper had examined the state of firms throughout Britain and had found that no training whatever had been provided. Everybody knows that a country without a skilled work force cannot survive. Everybody also knows that the country is bankrupt. The Minister said little, but neither did the Minister who produced the orders in 1993. The record of what was said is in Hansard.

The Employment and Training Act 1973 again gave power to the Secretary of State, and he used it to get rid of the training boards. At that time, there were about 27 boards, but now there are only two. The Minister spoke about reviews. The Government have had more reviews on training than any other Government, and the reasons for their reviews were, first, that they could not stomach the trade unions and people in the community being represented on the boards and, secondly, because they had no control whatever. They gave the power of supervision to the Manpower Services Commission and then removed it when they limited the 1 per cent. levy. They abolished that in the way that they abolished 25 out of 27 training boards.

The two boards that remain have been given a life of five years, but the Government do not really agree with them. That is why the Chamber is empty and why the Minister has little to say about the matter. As trade unionists and socialists, we are interested because our political philosophy greatly differs from that of the Government. They believe in consultation with big business and in consultancies for themselves.

An ordinary Member of Parliament's wage is no use to this lot. They have had their fingers in the till for years and that is why they have bankrupted the country. They wasted money on the poll tax and on other schemes on which they had to turn back. Now they are talking about training.

It is instructive to compare training in countries such as Japan and America with the state of our 16 and 18-year-olds who have to beg in the streets because the Government have taken away allowances for the kids. Their lack of investment has turned Britain into a drug-ridden, crime-ridden country. Anybody knows that a Government who will not invest in houses, schools and hospitals to give bread and butter to the electors will not survive.

We are looking at a fallen House. The Government are out and they know it. They are on the run and that is why they have little to say. The former Prime Minister has moved to the hierarchy and many more will follow, and the Prime Minister is running scared. [Interruption.] I could not say that they have done a good job. I get that message from my union and the workers I support, who are working-class, humble people. They get out of their beds in the morning; they do not go to wine bars and live in other ways. I want to get it all on record to let the Government know the effect of the orders.

The 1994 draft order maintains the arrangements that applied in earlier years, except in one important respect —the exclusion threshold level—which greatly concerns us.

The exclusion threshold provision in the draft order means that employers with annual payrolls of less than £61,000 will not have to pay a training levy, though they will continue to be eligible for training grants. That is unfair to other employers and employees, who should all have the same quality and reserves.

In 1993, the exclusion threshold was £45,000—a figure which was set in 1990, when the exclusion threshold was increased from only £15,000. It was a substantial agreement and represents a considerable loss to the training boards.

My union, the Transport and General Workers Union, opposes the principle of an exlcusion for small employers and objects to the proposed increase in the threshold. The Construction Industry Training Board is also opposed to the principle of the exclusion, as is the Federation of Master Builders, of which I once applied to be a member, and which encompasses 20,000 building firms with more than 300,000 employees, including many smaller companies.

As the levy is set as a percentage of the payroll, it falls proportionately on small firms and large firms. The order sets an exclusion threshold, outlined in paragraph 5 of the schedule and article 6 of the order, expresses a sum in pounds sterling, which represents the threshold size of net payroll below which employers are excluded from payment of the levy.

An exclusion threshold has been in place for the construction levy since 1971, when it was set at £6,000. So it has moved a long way—from £6,000 to £60,000.

In 1993 and preceding years, the exclusion threshold was £45,000; however, for 1994, the Government are proposing that it be increased to £61,000. The Government's intention to increase the exclusion threshold has been known for some time. In 1992–93, the future of the Construction Industry Training Board was reviewed by the Government and on 23 February 1993, it was announced that the CITB would be reconstituted with effect from 1 May. The Government kept the training board dangling on a string, thereby destabilising its effect on employers.

The Minister decided that the CITB would continue in place for a further five years and would retain its statutory levy powers. The change in the exclusion threshold was announced by a junior Minister at the Department of Employment on 5 May 1993 when he said: We need to ensure that small firms are relieved of burdens and encouraged to grow. In future firms with combined payroll and payments to labour only sub-contractors of less than £61,000 a year will not be subject to the training levy". That was bad news for the construction industry.

The Construction Industry Training Board has consistently objected to the principle of exclusion on the grounds of equity and competition. However, it reluctantly accepted on 13 July 1993 the Government's rquirements to raise the threshold, and that was included in its proposals to the Minister. The CITB was worried that, if it did not accept the new threshold, the Government might close the board down, as they closed down the other 25 boards.

The Federation of Civil Engineering Contractors also expressed serious concern at the raising of the exclusion threshold to £61,000. In addition to concerns about equity, it said that the system is open to abuse and it would not be beyond the abilities of some companies to manipulate the figures in such a way as unreasonably to gain an exclusion from payment of the levy.

The Building and Allied Trades Joint Industrial Council, which brings together the Federation of Master Builders and the Transport and General Workers Union, is also opposed to exclusions from the levy. In its submission to Ministers dated 10 November 1992, it said: The current levy arrangements exclude firms with combined payroll and labour-only subcontracting payments of up to £45,000 per annum". We know that some firms work the lump and abuse the system. It continued: This seriously distorts competition. Such excluded small firms derive benefit from the training carried out by other firms, but can claim a grant for their own training. This is inequitable". The Transport and General Workers Union concurs with that view. The existence of the exclusion challenges the very principle on which the levy is based—that all the firms contribute equitably to the cost of training within the industry. Small firms get all the benefits of the schemes, but with none of the cost.

More than almost any other industry, the construction industry has a need for an equitable training levy. That is because of the short-term nature of much employment in the sector; the high geographical and company mobility of employees; the high levels of skills required in many sectors of construction; the exceptional health and safety risks to workers in the industry and the importance of ensuring high standards of safety for the public in construction projects.

The CITB estimates that the yield of the levy in 1994 will be £46 million compared with £54 million. That is a big loss to the construction industry and it will mean less training, for fewer people. The decrease is largely a consequence of the decline in construction employment due to the recession; the levy is a percentage of the payroll.

The CITB estimates that the raising of the threshold will represent a loss of income of less than £1 million, but certainly many hundreds of thousands of pounds. The existence of an exclusion threshold also serves to set an informal poverty trap for the industry, whereby firms that can expand to just above the threshold level are penalised for such growth by suddenly having to make payments for all their employees.

The proposed new exclusion threshold represents a fourfold increase on the level less than five years ago of £15,000, yet the training needs of the industry continue to grow. It cannot be right that, when long-term investment in the skills of the work force is so crucial to future recovery, the CITB should lose hundreds of thousands of pounds in income so that even more small firms should be excluded from making a modest individual—but significant collective—contribution to the industry's skills.

When the industry's funds for training are declining, the further erosion by the Government of the levy powers of the Construction Industry Training Board is to be deplored. The Transport and General Workers Union and the Federation of Master Builders are extremely concerned. I read out their comments to put on record every word they said, but they fell on the deaf ears of the Government.

The Opposition are disgusted at the way in which the people of the country and especially the youngsters, have been treated. The House should decide to make a hefty contribution to the construction industry, and every other industry, to retrain our people and to provide us with a well trained and skilled work force of men and women, irrespective of their creed or colour. We will get out of this pit only by investing.

We must build roads, railways, trams, trains, hospitals, schools, police stations and training colleges. That is how to get the country back on its feet. We will not get the country back on its feet by squandering money and looking for as many jobs as, we can get. The Conservatives are into every till in the City. They have been exposed.

The Government have been disgraced. For the past few weeks, they have been embarrassed to come to Westminster. I would not say that they do not know their asses from their elbows because they certainly do—[Interruption.] I said "ass" because I am talking to asses.

I have described what we have to put up with. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House come to this place and work hour after hour. We are telling the Government Front Bench to do its job. The Government should act honourably and pick up their morals.

5.20 pm

Mr. Henry Bellingham (Norfolk, North-West)

We have just heard an extraordinary tirade from the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Wray). He must be living on a different planet if he believes that the Government have not been investing in housing, roads and other construction projects. He should come and look around my constituency.

I have an interest to declare because the Construction Industry Training Board is located in my constituency at Bircham Newton. If the hon. Member comes to Bircham Newton, he will arrive on a new, electrified railway. He will see a local health authority which has new buildings and facilities which have been created over the past 10 years or so. The hon. Gentleman will see a brand new leisure centre in King's Lynn. He will see that a very large amount of money has been spent on new housing by the local authority and by different housing associations.

If the hon. Member for Provan comes to my constituency in two weeks' time, he will see a start being made on the new A47 bypass around Tilney High End and Terrington. That will be six miles, of dual carriageway bypass just outside King's Lynn. A huge amount of Government investment has gone into East Anglia. The hon. Gentleman should come and see it because it is so important from the point of view of the construction industry. During the recession, the Government have continued to invest in fixed capital formation by way of public projects. Had they not done that, the recession in the construction industry would have been much worse.

In that context, the staff at the CITB in Bircham Newton welcomed last year's announcement.

Mr. Wray

Would the hon. Gentleman like to come to my constituency to see the crime that is rife in the city? The city has a drug problem amounting to £188 million a year. There are 12,000 drug addicts. What kind of world is the hon. Gentleman living in? He is certainly not living in the same world that I am living in. Five thousand people in my constituency have never had a job and will never get a job unless we get rid of the Government. The hon. Gentleman should go and see it for himself.

Mr. Bellingham

As my grandmother came from Glasgow, I go there from time to time. If I were a Glasgow Member, I would be proud of my city and of the fact that, two years ago, it was European city of the year. I would not be talking Glasgow down, I would be talking it up.

The staff at the CITB were extremely relieved by last year's announcement. That sword of Damocles and uncertainty which had been hanging over the CITB had been extremely debilitating. Morale at the CITB had been suffering. The lecturers and other staff had no idea what the future held for them. That is why they were so grateful for the announcement last year.

Mr. Graham

Does the hon. Gentleman recollect that the Prime Minister guaranteed in the House that every school leaver would have a training place? However, in Scotland, more than 8,000 young people have not yet received such a place. How can we expect the Government to deliver the goods when they could not deliver the goods to our young school leavers? How can we get folk into training to rebuild the infrastructure?

Mr. Bellingham

I do not entirely disagree with the hon. Gentleman. However, he must bear in mind what the Government have done. When hon. Members say that they are going to vote against the draft order, they must bear in mind that the very fact that the levy has been continued means that organisations like the CITB can help to provide that guarantee. If that had not happened, the situation would probably have been far worse. Far from trying to suggest that the Government have not done enough on training, the draft order is all about the Government doing more than many people expect them to.

I have always supported the work of the CITB. The complex at Bircham Newton is a centre of excellence which probably has no rival. The commitment and dedication of the staff must be seen to be believed. The impact on the local economy is enormous, not just in terms of local services but in respect of the indirect jobs that have been created.

I did not need to be convinced about the importance of the CITB in west Norfolk and I needed no convincing about the principle of the levy. Construction is very different from other types of industry. There can be training in a factory complex or a plant. However, as construction is so widespread and dispersed, if we did not have a levy which brought money into an organisation such as the CITB, training standards would undoubtedly fall. Above all, there would be serious problems with safety standards.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Sir M. Neubert) explained, the construction industry is a very large employer. It employs 5.5 per cent. of the work force. However, it accounts for 60 per cent. of all deaths caused by falls, in spite of fast-rising safety standards. That statistic shows that if the levy and the CITB had not continued, that figure would undoubtedly be worse.

I welcomed last year's announcement and the fact that the then Secretary of State and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Technology accepted the arguments from both sides of the House. In that context, I thank my colleagues who helped me in my lobbying campaign.

On this point, I should also like to thank the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd), who has been extremely active. Whenever I have asked for his support and asked him to lobby on behalf of the CITB, he has been extremely supportive. I hope that he will visit the CITB in the near future. The campaign was an all-party campaign and it is unfortunate that today's debate has become a confrontation that will result in a Division. We are talking about good news today, which should be supported across the House.

My hon. Friend the Member for Romford referred to the problems caused by the recession. No industry has been harder hit by the recession than the construction industry. The downturn in housing and new starts in construction generally have had a very damaging effect. As a result, the number of new trainees on CITB schemes has fallen to 10,000. That is roughly one third down on the figure in the late 1980s.

That has meant that the CITB has been under pressure. Pressure has also arisen because the levy is raised on a payroll basis. As many firms have suffered a fall in their payrolls, it is hardly surprising that the levy funds have also decreased.

My hon. Friend the Member for Romford and the hon. Member for Provan have said that it is unfortunate that the threshold exists and that there are exclusions from the levy. I agree. It would be far better to have a blanket levy on everyone because among the firms that benefit most from the training schemes and the work of the CITB are the very small firms. It is interesting and telling that the Federation of Master Builders, which is represented in the House by my hon. Friend the Member for Romford, supports that point of view.

Many small builders resent paying the levy. I receive letters from small builders who want to know why they have to pay the levy. They want to know what the tangible benefits are. The levy is not popular. That the Federation of Master Builders firmly supports the idea of a blanket levy shows great foresight.

During the recession, the CITB was most imaginative. It was able to continue many schemes and build on its excellent work during the 1980s. It has been criticised for using its reserves in funding extra training places. However, that should be applauded. Over the years, the CITB has built up considerable reserves through its levy collections.

One argument was that its reserves were too high. During the recession, at least 2,000 of the 10,000 trainees participating in CITB schemes were funded by its reserves. As a result of that funding, we will have, I hope, enough trainees as the economy picks up and as employment in construction increases. There will also be courses and schemes at further education colleges and other centres as a result of that spending. If the CITB had not used its reserves in that way, the infrastructure of such courses might have collapsed.

Mr. Tony Lloyd

Over the past few years, the industry has lost half a million people. I have said before that it is normally estimated that only one out of every two people who leave the industry will go back to work; therefore, 250,000 skilled people have left the industry. Even though I applaud the way in which the board has marshalled and kepts its reserves, I must point out that we are not only failing to train enough people in the construction industry but falling further and further behind with every week that passes.

Mr. Bellingham

To some extent, I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Obviously, if there were an increase in training, the CITB in my constituency would expand. We must consider the complex at Bircham Newton and its schemes, and not just the immediate training places that are provided but some of the activities on which the money is spent. It is a huge operation. It would be extremely expensive to extend it in the way suggested by the hon. Gentleman and it would mean an increase in the levy. We must ask whether the Government's training budget is realistic. Bearing in mind the decline in the construction industry work force, the CITB should be applauded for maintaining such a high number of trainees—far in excess of the proportionate decline in the construction industry's work force.

I fall out with the hon. Gentleman when he criticises Sir Clifford Chetwood and accuses him of being complacent. About two and a half years ago, Sir Clifford Chetwood criticised the Government and said that they had not woken up to the fact that the recession was biting far more deeply in the construction industry than anyone realised. He is now much more supportive and he is saying that the economy is picking up and that many Government measures are the right measures. One can listen to Sir Clifford Chetwood because his approach has been completely fair throughout. When criticism was deserved, he was critical, but when praise was deserved, he gave it.

The CITB has progressed since the uncertainty was lifted. Uncertainty greatly damaged the moral of lecturers and other staff at Bircham Newton, but they are now concentrating on the task in hand and coming up with many new initiatives. Their initiatives over the past year represent a positive achievement. They have worked very closely with City and Guilds as an awarding body for non-vocational qualifications. More than 30 construction non-vocational qualifications are awarded by the CITE in co-operation with employers in the construction industry. That is very good news. On quality standards, the CITB puts great effort into helping companies to achieve BS5750 certification. More than 400 companies have been helped by a training programme at quality clubs which the board set up two years ago.

Continued investment in pre-vocational educational projects has enabled school children to use construction as a context for learning under the requirements of the national curriculum. There are now more than 70 projects at centres all over the country, and the CITB has been working closely with employers and other educational interests.

I have mentioned how crucial health and safety standards are. Any fatality in the construction industry is a tragedy. Over the past few years, there have been too many fatalities, but I wonder how many more there would have been had it not been for the work of the CITB and the constant emphasis on raising safety standards. The board has come up with a large number of initiatives, and it will continue to do so. The CITB has approached many employers in various occupational sectors. About 300,000 people are registered on industry record schemes, and that excludes those who have registered on the new construction NVQs. That is excellent progress.

I pay tribute to the CITB for using the past 12 months extremely wisely, bearing in mind all the problems that it faced as a result of the uncertainty of last year. That uncertainty has been lifted. It will now continue to exist for five years, instead of three. I welcome that because it will be able to plan for the future and build on the five specific aspects that I mentioned. At the same time, it will move forward in the context of a significantly improving economy with reducing unemployment. The CITB will have a critical role in ensuring that we have a well-trained construction work force.

Rather than regarding the debate as an opportunity for confrontation and a chance to criticise the Government, Opposition Members should give credit where credit is due, and credit is due to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who has done all that he can to make sure that the levy continues and that the CITB remains in existence. That is why I support the order.

5.36 pm

Mr. Alex Carlile (Montgomery)

The hon. Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham) has spoken eloquently from his special knowledge of the Construction Industry Training Board. I agree with everything that he said about the effectiveness of that board. I suspect, however, that the Construction Industry Training Board is one of the exceptions that might prove a rule. It appears that the rule now is that the Government oppose industry-specific training boards and industry-specific wages councils whenever they can get away with it, although they were not able to get away with their original intentions in respect of the Construction Industry Training Board.

It is welcome that the Construction Industry Training Board is to have at least another five years of existence; but, logically, everything that the hon. Gentleman said about the board, which has its headquarters in his constituency, can be applied elsewhere—for example, to the Agricultural Training Board. In Wales—this matter affects my constituency—the Agricultural Training Board is being run down. Its activities are being reduced from a high and active level to what might eventually become nothing much more than a residual level. The board might be driven to dealing with virtually only the aspects of health and safety that it can barely ignore, having regard to the fact that agriculture is even more prone to accidents than the construction industry.

It would be unsatisfactory to conclude the debate without registering our concern that, although the Government are prepared for the boards that we are considering to continue, they are nevertheless not prepared to apply the same logic to other industries.

One of the great advantages of the CITB—the hon. Gentleman highlighted it very well—is that it is focused and industry-specific. It understands everything about its own industry and it is able to undertake research and teach the teachers within its industry.

One of the disadvantages of having a multiplicity of agencies dealing with training—certainly, it is a problem that we face in Wales—is that there is not such necessary focus or specificity. For example, in my constituency we have the Powys training and enterprise council. We have Coleg Powys, the local FE college; the Development Board for Rural Wales; the Construction Industry Training Board; the Agricultural Training Board; the local education authority and others, all involved in training—a multiplicity of agencies which lose their focus in the generality of the training courses that they supply.

I add a comment. If the Minister were listening, she might take this point on board. I should like her comments later. One of the problems that we have with the multiplicity of training agencies is that it is extremely difficult to detect fraud. It is a fact that fraud is taking place in the training structure at present. Some of the companies and firms which are engaged to provide training courses are not doing so competently or even honestly. It is well documented that some organisations are simply fee-churning, taking as much money as possible for the minimum of training provided.

That does not happen in organisations such as the CITB. Of course, the CITB is scrutinised by its own industry. The hon. Member for Romford (Sir M. Neubert), who speaks for the Federation of Master Builders, made it clear that his organisation scrutinises as well as supports the work of the CITB. However, that form of focal scrutiny is not available in the generality of training that is available for most other aspects of working life.

Some time ago, a bright but cynical, frustrated and rebellious 16-year-old girl told me that the trouble with the people who taught her was that for the most part, with exceptions, they taught only to perpetuate their own jobs. That may have been an over-cynical view of the education that she was receiving. Nevertheless, it is probably true to say that education for its own sake is a minority pursuit which is attractive to only a few, and not necessarily all, of the brightest and the best.

I am sure that such cynicism drives away many young people like her from being trained to the careers, or even interests, in which they would make the greatest contribution to society. My view and that of my party is that it is extremely important to give the highest possible priority to that wide scope of training which fits people on the broadest possible basis for the jobs and careers which might be available for them.

I deliberately chose the example of a girl because the Minister referred earlier to apprenticeships for girls. Of course, she is right. It is extremely important that there should be equality of opportunity across virtually all walks of life. It may not be 100 per cent. possible—there may be some jobs which men cannot do—but there should be virtually 100 per cent. availability of training across all walks of life to enable those who may reject other forms of education to maximise their talents and their opportunities.

The continuing economic problems of the construction industry are easily described. It was a pleasure to hear the hon. Member for Romford making his third consecutive speech in a debate on this subject. If the hon. Member will forgive me for quoting his words, on 8 February 1993 he said: Small builders need work now. They are clinging on by their fingertips … It is just as well that the CITB exists, because if the responsibility had been left on a voluntary basis, there would unquestionably have been a very sharp reduction in training—even sharper than has been the case."—[Official Report, 8 February 1993; Vol. 218, c. 789.] Those words are as true today as they were one year ago.

Unemployment in the construction industry has continued to rise over the past 12 months. The statistics are stark. If one looks at unemployment in construction in 1989, it was 6.7 per cent.; in 1992, it was 17.6 per cent.; and in 1993—the latest available figures—it was 20 per cent. Those figures highlight the need for industry-specific training and are evidence that small builders—and, indeed, those who are able to obtain any work in the building industry, especially at the smaller end—are, to use the hon. Gentleman's words, still "clinging on by their fingertips".

How does one maximise the potential for ensuring that, in construction and elsewhere, training is not simply training for training's sake but training for jobs? There is a respected and growing body of academic opinion led by a leading economics professor from the London school of economics who, in an interesting TSB lecture on the subject, said recently that training without the removal of long-term unemployment was a complete waste of money.

What worries many hon. Members on this side of the House is that, although the Government have announced an increase in the number of training places—and anything that takes young people who have nothing better to do off the streets is very welcome, for reasons mentioned earlier in this debate—at the end of the training as it is structured at present too many young people, especially young men, enter a period of long-term unemployment from which some will never recover.

I do not subscribe to the unrealistic view that one can restore real full employment in this country—a situation in which everyone has a job. That is a vision, but not one that can be brought to fulfilment. What is possible is to bring back an element of fuller employment. The element that needs to be brought back is the one which means that practically no one faces long-term unemployment. The body of academic opinion to which I referred believes that there is no need for anyone, other than rare exceptions, to be unemployed for more than six months. The Government have not yet grasped the nettle of that issue or shown proof that they are dealing with the question of long-term unemployment.

Miss Widdecombe

indicated dissent.

Mr. Alex Carlile

No, the Government have not proved that they have found anything like a solution to the problem of long-term unemployment. One way of starting towards that solution—I recognise that one cannot solve the problem overnight—is to extend the principle of training levies, as my party advocated at the last general election and before. There may need to be exceptions for very small businesses which may not be able to afford such levies. Nevertheless, the imposition of training targets, reinforced by the power to impose levies when companies do not voluntarily meet proper training targets, is a sensible policy and a course which would greatly contribute to the reduction of long-term unemployment.

Sir Brian Hill, then the chair-elect of the Construction Industry Employers Council, said after the last Budget: Any hopes we had that this budget would help early recovery from the construction recession have been disappointed. In the short-term its effect will be to reduce further workload, jobs and to raise the costs. There is a myriad of similar quotations and opinion. The CITB tries to stem the tide of that trend, but it is bound to be fighting a losing battle if economic policies are not tuned to ensure that employment can be increased quickly in the construction industry.

The Minister must answer a number of questions when she replies to the debate. Is she satisfied with the state of the construction industry? If not, what are the Government going to do to stimulate the recovery in the industry? Is she satisfied that housing starts are meeting the need? If not, will the Government take steps to reduce the evident housing shortage and to stimulate the construction industry by increasing resources for that industry? There must not be a skills gap, and the CITB, with its specific focus, is the best-equipped body in the construction industry to deal with the skills shortage. Does the Minister think that the same principle might be applied elsewhere in British industry and commerce?

5.53 pm

Mr. Thomas Graham (Renfrew, West and Inverclyde)

I had not intended to speak in the debate, but after hearing some of the speeches I feel I must bring my wealth of experience to bear in the House.

When I hear Conservative Members speaking, I fear for the future of Great Britain. I certainly fear for our infrastructure, for our young people and for people who have to live in housing which the Government have allowed to deteriorate. In Scotland, damp housing is causing tremendous anxiety and places a huge burden on people who are on fixed incomes and who want to heat their houses. What do the Government do? They sit on their backsides and allow many people to become unemployed, when those people could be reducing Government expenditure and ensuring that folk have a better quality of life and a more healthy life.

Since 1978, I have been an executive board member of an organisation which has worked hard to create training places for young people in Scotland. The organisation has looked closely at the training needs in Scotland, but I am not here to put in an advertisement for that organisation, which is a voluntary and charitable organisation.

Something has deeply worried me since 1979, when I was a councillor in Strathyclyde, and I will speak about it in my rather nice English voice rather than my broad Scots accent, so the Minister can understand me. I travel around my constituency and around other parts of the country and I concur with a friend of mine, an exiled Scotsman who lives in America, who on his visits back here has seen a terrible deterioration in the country's road network. There are potholes in the roads, and every day I hear of constituents who have fallen and broken their ankles or legs because of broken pavements. Every day I hear of parents complaining that schools are leaking, or that the schools have no books.

Perhaps the Minister does not have eyes to see the problems, but many of us do. The infrastructure of the nation is falling apart in front of us. I should be delighted to take any Minister on a guided tour of my constituency, and I could show the Minister the problems clearly. We have allowed the building industry to deteriorate. Our European partners have more bottle and brains than we have, because those nations are investing in training. While we allow our training and infrastructure to run down, nations in Europe are investing in training, in their young people and in their infrastructure. That training is allowing their folk to gain experience in house building, in sewerage and in water supplies.

I want to make sure that my point is heard and felt. Our European partners—I call them partners, and not the enemy—in France, Germany, Spain and elsewhere are training their work forces. Their training levels have been kept up while this country's training and skill levels have been pushed down. If any major public works jobs were put on the market, we would fall back into the tendering scene. So instead of Scotsmen, Englishmen, Irishmen or Welshmen working on the jobs, it will be Spaniards or Portuguese because those workers will be the most skilled. They will be able to undercut British workers by being able to do the jobs faster and with better quality.

If the Government continue to run down our skill levels, we shall not be able to meet demands to improve our infrastructure. I am a working-class guy. My background is that I was trained as an engineer and I served an apprenticeship on Clydeside. I am not a graduate of any university, but I come from the university of life and the university of experience. That experience tells me that if I want to fix a door now, I need to do it myself. At one time, a skilled joiner would have come along and fixed it in five minutes, instead of me taking an hour to do it. We cannot become a group of do-it-yourself has-been specialists. We need proper training so that our folk can meet challenges.

If we want to build new schools, those schools could be built by the finest workers Britain can produce. We should have the skills to ensure that we do not just build a school, but that we build a school which will withstand the weather and will be comfortable for our young people to be educated in.

We are throwing the baby out with the bath water. The Government have got us into such an incredible mess, with a borrowing requirement of £50 billion which has really blown us out of the window. We seem to be chasing mistake after mistake. There have been the problems in the City, and a lot of money has been squandered. That money does not seem to be going to the right places. I am sure that the audience tonight could all cite cases where they know of where a construction job could come into being which could make our country a better place to live.

The other day, I went to a photo call for a local newspaper which was rightly campaigning about the environment. If a person drives along a road—particularly in a rural area—what does he see? Rubbish is dumped at the roadside by polluters, some of whom are the fly-by-night builders the Government are encouraging.

We should have proper areas where folk can dump rubbish. That is where we should put in the skills. If we go to the local council, it says, "We can't really do it, we haven't got the money." If the Government would provide the money, we would not have to see our cities, towns, and rural areas being devastated. We could provide skips, dumps and so on which could be controlled and at which skilled workers could work.

I raised a point about Scotland in an intervention in the Minister's speech. I know that we face the same problem everywhere in Great Britain as a result of the Government's lack of action and lack of commitment to the public sector. In Scotland we face a horrific situation. The Government have sought to reduce the standards for drinking water. So the folk in Scotland will be expected to drink water that is not so good as the water in Europe. It is unbelievable that Scotland, which is renowned for its surplus of water, is to be expected to drink water that does not reach the European standard. The Government have done a deal.

The Government themselves have told us that Strathclyde alone needs expenditure of £5 billion to bring the water supply up to standard. We also know that we need to spend a fortune on the sewerage systems in towns and villages throughout Great Britain. We can do that only if we have the trained work force to do the work. At present we can hardly cope with the plumbing in Westminster because we do not have the necessary skilled people. Perhaps the woman Porter could show us how to do it. She could fiddle anything by the looks of it.

We need to ensure that there is adequate training to meet the upturn.

Miss Widdecombe

So the hon. Gentleman acknowledges the upturn?

Mr. Graham

If the Minister wishes to intervene I will give way.

Miss Widdecombe

I should be delighted. Did I hear the hon. Gentleman acknowledge an upturn? Is he welcoming the recovery?

Mr. Graham

I am most grateful for that helpful intervention. I was referring to training for it if the upturn comes. I represent a constituency that has suffered raging unemployment. Factories such as the Talbot car factory at Linwood closed down 10 years ago, putting 5,000 people on the dole. The famous manufacturer of tyres, India Tyres, closed seven years ago, putting about 3,000 workers on the dole. I used to work at Rolls-Royce, where almost 3,000 workers are facing the dole.

I have seen a litany of factory closures and the decimation of the shipbuilding industry on the Clyde. I am desperate for an upturn, not for myself but for the people whom I represent. I wish to see apprentices, shipbuilders and plumbers back at work. I want to see Britain great again. The Minister should not think that I do not. My ambition is to see my young people get the full potential of their education. I want to see people living in decent houses. I want to see our people able to die in comfort and live in comfort from the cradle to the grave.

Make no doubt about it, Mr. Deputy Speaker: my wish is for Britain to be a good society and a caring and sharing nation. I do not want it to be one which is epitomised by the Government. They simply squander and fritter. I have made some remarks in the House on previous occasions about how I believe that the Government think. They seem to think so small that they have no vision. They have less vision than the people of Britain. I am sincere when I say that the next election—the European election—will show the door to the Tory party.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris)

Order. The hon. Gentleman is going wide of the training order.

Miss Widdecombe

We have been for a couple of hours.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. We have not been wide for a couple of hours. The hon. Lady spoke a couple of hours ago. If she had been wide of the order, she would have been out of order—but she was not out of order.

Mr. Graham

I am grateful for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I can only say that, perhaps because of my bulk, my vision and my brain are such that I feel sincere and genuine about what I am saying. I do not think that the Minister has been bad with me. I believe that she sincerely wishes to improve the lot of people. But she does not listen to the advice that she receives from the Opposition. She thinks that it is purely opposition. She does not see that we are offering constructive advice and suggestions.

I will finish on this note to the Minister. I believe that the Government's role is to plan as best they possibly can. If we are training young people or any people for that matter, we should not train them for the dole. We should plan for those people to finish their training and find a job. How do we get construction workers through their training and fit them into a job? The private industry is not meeting that need. I do not believe that it has the finance. we are talking about Britain's infrastructure. The Government can take effective decisions today which would start things moving tomorrow and which we could see starting next month.

I have mentioned roads, housing and hospitals. The Government could set up projects to look after the environment and improve our sewerage and water systems. Those are things that we know need to be done. I am sure that the Minister recognises exactly what I am saying. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) asked what was the point of training folk for the dole. I agree that there is no point, but I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman agrees with me that we want to improve our infrastructure, which we all know is falling apart. The only person who does not believe that it is falling apart is the "back to basics" Minister. The rest of the country is going back to the wall. When we try to move forward we fall into a pothole. Eventually, we shall have to swim to get across the road.

The recent flooding in England is disgraceful. We have been talking about floods for years. At what stage will the Government take preventive measures? Folk have been telling us for years that floods will happen. Do the Government use our construction industry—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman is not referring to training matters, and he should be.

Mr. Graham

I was going to say that we could have trained workers, fully fledged construction engineers and so on, in place working to prevent flood damage. But the Government do not plan. They lurch from crisis to crisis. We shall have an incredible problem in Britain because we will not be able to move for foreign workers building our houses and improving sewage works while our folk are unemployed. That will be because the Government have not given sufficient money to training or educating our young folk to deal with the crisis in Britain.

6.8 pm

Mr. Roger Godsiff (Birmingham, Small Heath)

I have listened with interest to the debate this afternoon. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) made a telling point when he said that training without a proper programme for employment was in many ways a waste of money. He was right.

The constituency that I represent in inner-city Birmingham has one of the highest rates of unemployment in the country. There are more than 7,000 male adult unemployed in my constituency. There is an enormous need in the constituency for infrastructure development. Apart from having one of the highest unemployment rates in the country, it is one of the most deprived areas of the country.

Like other hon. Members, I welcome the supposed reduction in unemployment in the past few months. The only problem is that no one believes the figures any longer. As everyone knows, in the past 14 or so years there have been more than 30 changes in the way in which the unemployment figures are calculated. Nobody believes the Government's unemployment statistics. It is a matter for regret but it is something over which the Opposition have no control.

However, I know for sure that more than 7,000 people in my constituency have no job. Many of them have been unemployed for a long time, and some school leavers will be added to their number. Very few of them have any prospect of finding a job.

Miss Widdecombe

indicated dissent.

Mr. Godsiff

The Minister shakes her head. I invite her to tell the 7,000 people in my constituency who are without jobs and the school leavers who will soon join the unemployment queue what will happen to them in the future. What are their prospects?

If the Government want to contribute to the country's long-term development, they should put aside other aspects of their policies and accept that it is vital to invest in skills. It is universally acknowledged that the countries which have a skilled, trained work force are those that succeed. No hon. Member, and certainly none of the acknowledged experts, will disagree with that.

It is vital that we have a trained work force to meet the challenges of the next century; but what have the Government done? They have halved the number of apprenticeships, which has resulted in the disappearance of more than 500,000 jobs in the construction industry—that figure applies to one industry alone. It is absurd that 500,000 jobs should go in an industry that is desperately important to the improvement of the infrastructure which, in many places—not least in Birmingham—is falling apart. [Interruption.] The Minister throws her head back and turns it from side to side, uttering an exclamation. I am more than happy to give way to her if she wishes to respond.

It is part of the arrogance that goes with being in power for 14 years that Ministers do not want to hear what the Opposition have to say. They believe that we are irrelevant and that only the Conservatives have a divine right to rule the country. Arrogance breeds contempt for democracy and, in the past few weeks and months, we have witnessed the Government's utter contempt and arrogance. They do not realise that they are answerable to Parliament and to the people; they believe that they have a divine right to be in power, running the country's affairs.

Miss Widdecombe

We have an electoral right.

Mr. Godsiff

That is true. You have an electoral right, but I was taught that in politics one should listen. You may not always agree with what you hear but, from time to time, you might find that your political opponents have something valid to say. With respect, I must say that the way in which the Minister is behaving now and the way in which she has behaved in the past two hours reveal her contempt for the points made by me, by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery and by my hon. Friends the Members for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) and for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Wray).

We are not claiming to be the repository of all wisdom, but we have a point to make. Many of our constituents do not have jobs and many of our future constituents will not have jobs. Like you, Minister, we are concerned about the country's future. We believe that we must create a skilled work force, and we will support any of your proposals that help to achieve that objective.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. There is a courtesy in the House whereby we refer to "the hon. Member" or "the Minister" rather than to "you".

Mr. Godsiff

I beg your pardon, Mr. Deputy Speaker; and I apologise to the Minister.

It is vital that we create a skilled work force, but the Government are not attempting to deal with the problem. As I said, the number of apprenticeships has been halved since the Government came to power and there has been a massive loss of jobs in the construction industry. At the same time, in constituencies such as mine, there is a desperate need for improvements to the infrastructure, for the construction of new homes and for improvements to school buildings and health facilities. The Government, however, are presiding over a country in which apprenticeships are declining and in which there is massive unemployment in the construction industry.

I listened with interest to the hon. Member for Romford (Sir M. Neubert) who is parliamentary adviser to the Federation of Master Builders. He spoke with great authority, but there was a contradiction in what he said. He painted a supposedly bright picture of the economy, but also mentioned the opinions of the organisation that he represents. That opinion is, in effect, that small builders are in a desperate plight, are on their knees and need help. The two pictures did not match. I have spoken to many small builders in Birmingham and I believe that the picture painted by the hon. Gentleman of their being in desperate need of help is the right one.

Most small builders are desperate for work. Many have held on for one year, if not for two years, in the hope that there will be an upturn. For many, there are no reserves left and there is no fallback position. If there is no increase in public investment in Birmingham and areas of great deprivation, small builders will go out of business. I do not care what the so-called official statistics are because I believe in living in the real world, not in the world of statistics concocted by Government Departments—their statistics have been conveniently massaged. I am interested in the real world, and in that world many small builders face losing their businesses because there are no more orders.

Opposition Members do not seek merely to score cheap political points against the Government. We are trying to express a genuine concern and to ensure that we have a skilled work force for the future. I hope that the Government have listened to the valid points made not only by Labour Members but by members of other parties, especially by my very good friend the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery. I hope that they will not view our comments with contempt in the belief that only they can be right.

We owe it to future generations to provide them with the opportunity of employment, of obtaining skills and of leading a fulfilling life. If we are not prepared to address the need for a skilled, trained work force, I fear that the future of Britain will not be bright and that the country which at one time led the industrial revolution in the world will be relegated to the status of a third-world country.

6.19 pm

Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey)

I begin by congratulating the Minister on upholding what seems to be becoming a fine old tradition of opening debates on training levels with a short speech. I was interested to note that there only were two other speeches from the Government Benches, from the hon. Members for Romford (Sir M. Neubert) and for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham), both of whom have specific interests in training. The hon. Member for Romford is a representative of the Federation of Master Builders and the hon. Member for Norfolk North-West has a constituency interest—the siting of a Construction Industry Training Board college in his constituency. They both hinted that they did not agree with the Government's voluntary approach to training and they agreed that there must be intervention in the market to ensure that training takes place.

I associate myself with the passionate comments of my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Wray), for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham), and for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Godsiff) about the useful and effective intervention that planning for training has and the disaster that occurs if it is left to the market.

I was contemplating the meaning of the Secretary of State's recent speech, in which he claimed that going "back to, basics" in the labour market would bring us success, with special reference to our debate on training, and I came across something that may enlighten us. It is a book called "The British Common People 1746 to 1946", a classic of its kind, by G. D. H. Cole and R. Postgate and it gives an account of one of first apprenticeship systems in the country: the parish apprenticeship system.

That system was introduced at the beginning of the 19th century to try to deal with some of the effects of rapid industrialisation. The book states: many thousands of children from London and other large towns having become inmates of pauper institutions were shipped in droves to the new factory areas, there to be bound apprentices to some cotton Lord who undertook to feed and clothe them in a barrack built specially for their occupation. It states that that kind of bonded slave labour died out rapidly as soon as local supplies of child labour became available; for the factory owners soon found that 'free' labour which they could engage and discharge at will came cheaper than pauper labour which they were bound to maintain throughout the period of apprenticeship, whether trade was good or bad. That "back to basics" theme still exists in the Government's training policies today.

In many ways, it is remarkable that we are having a debate at all after 14 years of a Government who are notable only for their dogmatic adherence to laissez-faire economic doctrines. Indeed, the period has seen the abolition of no fewer than 21 of the 23 industrial training boards, leaving only the two that we are considering in the debate.

Conservative Employment Ministers come and go, with all due respect to the hon. Lady, but they all intone the same dogma: the state must get out of the way of the private sector, voluntary private provision is always better than statutory provision and the market will, as their gurus always predict, provide whatever the circumstances. We knew what nonsense that was before they tried it and now we have the evidence to prove it. As a result of their neglect and incompetence, Britain now has the worst-trained work force in the European Community. Training has been starved of resources and has suffered a £1.5 billion cut before the past election and has a budget which will continue to decline following the two Tory tax raising budgets of 1993.

Worst of all, the privatisation of 54 skillcentres led to their complete collapse when Astra, the brave, new, private company which was supposed to do a better job than the state ever hoped, went quickly and spectacularly bust, taking all the training opportunities with it.

While that makes the case for statutory provision more eloquently than hundreds of speeches ever could, Astra' s collapse deprived thousands of people of access to any training at all, at a time of historically high and persistent mass unemployment. In addition we have seen a 60 per cent. reduction in apprenticeships in manufacturing between 1979 and 1990—a castastrophic fall, which has condemned hundreds of thousands of young people to a life on the dole. Britain cannot hope to complete in an increasingly high-tech world with the low skills base which we have inherited from 14 years of leaving it to the market.

As Sir John Cassels, formerly at the Manpower Services Commission, said in 1990: left to itself, the market will function in such a way as to cause a great deal of harm to the interests of young people, companies and taxpayers. How right he was, and what a pity it is that the Government have chosen not to admit to the wisdom of those statements and act on them.

That is why the Labour party believes that the retention of the two remaining training boards is desirable at the margin; but, to be effective, it must be accompanied by the creation of a national strategy for training with the work done by the boards being improved and extended to other areas of the economy. We shall vote against the orders because we feel that training provision is inadequate at all levels and is failing the economy.

However, some aspects of the structure of the boards point to the way ahead, some of which were pointed out by Conservative Members in speeches that praised the boards. The work of both boards amply demonstrates the advantages of a collective approach to training, based on co-operation and financed by a levy on employers. It is an approach which we should like to see extended and one which would allow for counter-cyclical measures to be taken in a recession—planning, in other words. At a time when companies are shedding labour and may have insufficient work to justify taking on trainees, special measures could easily be taken to protect training and to ensure that there would be no skills shortages once the recession ends.

That is precisely what the CITB did in 1992 when it spent £6.5 million on doubling the number of entrants to the industry's youth training scheme in the midst of the recession. Before we congratulate the boards too much, we must realise that they managed only to raise the number of places from 5,000 to 10,000. Such planning and counter-cyclical activity is done as a matter of course by our industrial competitors.

The collective active approach which would allow a national strategy of training to be developed and delivered, including adequate provision of the right skills and real achievement in equal opportunities policies, would also allow us to plan for a flexible and well-trained work force. That approach would prevent firms from poaching already trained people and would guarantee that training occurs. That would ensure, importantly, that every firm would accept responsibility, either for financing or for providing training, so there would be no freeloading in an a deregulated industry. That approach would also guarantee the quality of training, and would provide an efficient way in which to deliver high-quality, meaningful and recognised qualifications.

The two boards that we are discussing today ensure the continuing collection of statistics for their industry and their work also include developing databases of trained practitioners for prospective employers to consider. They also do valuable careers advice work to attract school leavers into their industries. Unfortunately, this important work is not going on elsewhere in the economy.

We believe that there was an implicit recognition of the superiority of this interfering in the market, over leaving the market to decide for itself which decimated training last year, in a Government press release announcing the retention of the CITB last year. Hon. Members will recall that, when the House last debated these orders, the CITB was subject to its periodic review. Many of us feared that it would be abolished in yet another spasm of free market frenzy. Significantly, the Government backtracked when faced with the overwhelming support of the construction industry for the board and the levy on employers which finances its activity. Rather than abolish it, the Government reconstituted it for five years.

To reconcile that flight from Thatcherite orthodoxy the then Under-Secretary of State for Employment, the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. McLoughlin), commented in the official press release: Whilst it remains government policy that sector training arrangements should normally be non-statutory, the government is persuaded that different considerations apply in the building and civil engineering industries. Those different considerations" turned out to be the casualisation and deregulation of the industry, which has led to a massive increase in subcontracted labour, making it cheaper and more economically rational to poach than to train. Of course, we all know that the outcome of that is a catastrophic collapse in training to the detriment of the whole economy.

Yet, the Government's "back to basics" policy in the labour market is to casualise and deregulate the rest of the British work force. By their own logic, that implies a massive extension of the training board system or a further catastrophic collapse in our already dismal training record.

That press release and the decision to retain the CITB are recognitions of the fact that the Government simply cannot leave the provision of training on a voluntary basis to the whims of the free market. I note that the Engineering Construction Industry Training Board is also currently subject to review and I await its fate with interest.

It is frightening to realise how far behind our major competitors we are in training. In 1989, the then Secretary of State for Employment, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), now the chairman of the Conservative party, where I hear he is doing a wonderful job—

Ms Marjorie Mowlam (Redcar)

He has not had enough training.

Ms Eagle

Yes, he has not had enough training.

He reacted to a major report "Training in Britain—a study of funding activity and attitudes" by saying: It's mindboggling—we still have a mountain to climb. Five years later, we are still in the foothills and our attempts to scale the peaks have been fatally hampered by a guide who thinks that it will be easier if we all find our own way up.

I do not care a jot for the fate of the Conservative party. Indeed, I hope that it follows the example of its Canadian counterpart into well-deserved oblivion at the next general election. However, I care about our young people and the future of our country. I know that training is vital to ensure the future prosperity of both. As the youngest Labour Member and the youngest woman in the House perhaps I have the advantage over some hon. Members in that I still remember what it was like to be young.

It angers me more than I can say that I regularly meet people in the mid to late twenties who have never worked, and not for want of trying. Their prospects of working are still not improved. The fact that entire generations of our young people have been written off, fobbed off with Mickey Mouse training schemes, denied benefit, and blamed for their predicament by this Government is a matter of record and a serious indictment of Government policies.

I cannot stand the poverty of this Government's ambitions for our young people. They are content to jeopardise all our futures in pursuit of a profoundly mistaken dogma which has brought us nothing but mass unemployment, economic failure and a breakdown of social cohesion. They are content not to strive for the gold medal in training provision and to unlock future prosperity for Britain, but instead settle meekly for the wooden spoon. It is time to end the experiments with voluntarism. It is time to admit that they have not worked. It is time to create a real and serious national strategy for training.

6.34 pm

Mr. Widdecombe

This has been an interesting debate, if a somewhat wide-ranging one. I am surprised to hear the Opposition say, first in the person of the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) and then in the person of the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle), that they intend to oppose the orders and to divide the House.

That statement has been made by Labour Members who, throughout the debate, have stood up and said that they represent the "working class". I would not use that phrase because I find it patronising, but they have. [Interruption.] It does not matter how they pronounce the word "class". I think that the hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham) would not say it quite like his colleagues. I look forward to hearing how an hon. Member with his slender majority can explain to his constituents why he will vote against these orders and cause the training boards in question to have less funds for training.

Let us work through what would happen if these orders were defeated. We know that it will not happen because Conservative Members will ensure that the measures are not defeated. What are the Opposition trying to cause to happen by voting against the measures? First, the industry training boards concerned would be able to raise a levy of under 1 per cent. only, because they would not have permission to go ahead with more. Therefore, they would need to use their reserves to maintain a training programme.

Nevertheless, it would lead to a massive reduction in training, a reduction in apprenticeships and a reduction in the adult training work force. It would contribute to skills shortages. There would be no advance towards training for the recovery and for emerging from recession, which several Labour Members told us that they consider, rightly, to be important. There would be redundancies and the board would lose highly skilled staff. If that is the outcome that Labour Members want to achieve by defeating these orders, I look forward to hearing how they will explain that in detail to their constituents.

Mr. Tony Lloyd

First, I will take the Minister outside afterwards and explain to her how this place works. If the Government were to agree with us that the orders should be withdrawn, we would expect them to table orders making proper allowances for those boards. The hon. Lady makes an excellent point in justifying the existence of the training boards in all those industries where the Government abolished them. Does she agree that training was stopped in those areas?

Miss Widdecombe

Given the arrangements that are in place for training within the construction industry and the engineering construction industry, if the boards are not allowed to raise the sums that they wish to raise in order to deliver training that they assess to be necessary, we shall face the situation that I have just outlined. The hon. Member for Stretford says that if the Opposition defeat the order, the Government will come back and do something different. [Interruption.] What we have done is what the industry—

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes)

Order. We need a little training here, or at any rate a reminder that seated interventions, particularly when they are constant, are not acceptable to the Chair.

Miss Widdecombe

I am delighted that such training is being given to the Opposition.

We are doing what the boards have asked us to do. That is what we endeavour to deliver in the House tonight. If Opposition Members are seriously trying to defeat the order, they are going against the wishes of the boards, whom they have been lauding as necessary. Of course they can vote against it, because they know that they will be defeated. That is precisely the sort of irresponsible attitude that has cost them four elections and which causes them to sit in the thoroughly deserved position of the Opposition Benches, where they will stay.

I have been challenged to talk about Astra. The hon. Member for Wallasey stood at the Dispatch Box and said that the collapse of Astra has denied training to hundreds of people. It has done no such thing. It did not have a monopoly. When various branches of Astra were closed, it became the immediate duty and responsibility of the training and enterprise councils to provide replacement training through other providers.

We made a point of asking the TECs concerned whether there were difficulties in finding that training provision. The reason why we asked that was because of Opposition assertions that many people would be without training. We have not received any indication from those TECs that they have had difficulties.

Mr. Tony Lloyd

Will the Minister tell us a little more about Astra? When she asked the TECs whether they could find training places after the collapse, did she also ask them to give details of the way that they conspired with Astra to cheat? They were making up non-existent trainees and inventing non-existent jobs for them. All that is well documented. Has the Minister done a single thing to bottom out those allegations?

Miss Widdecombe

We have no evidence of cheating by TECs. What we do have, and what it is right that we should put into place, are proper audit procedures. We audit what the TECs supply, what they claim for and what the outcomes are of what they are claiming for. That system is in place.

Mr. Lloyd

If the Minister is so confident that the auditing procedures are accurate, why has a recent report been highly critical of the TECs and waste? But more importantly, it is well known and well documented that Astra was fiddling. I can provide the information, but the Minister has already had it. Why has she not asked the TECs what went on? When the TECs were happy to allow that to take place and public money was corruptly being abused by that company, why did the Government not ask those questions?

Miss Widdecombe

I part company from the hon. Gentleman. What I was trying to indicate, and my reply was precise, was that there was no evidence of cheating by TECs. The hon. Gentleman has just asked me how TECs could allow that to take place. I do not think—there is no evidence to suggest it—that there has been deliberate malpractice by TECs. But where anything of that sort arises, and where there is ever any evidence to suggest that public money may have been misused, or that the value for public money may not have been met, that is something worthy of investigation, which would come up through the ordinary audit procedures.

Mr. Lloyd

We are making a little progress. Let me ask specifically whether the Minister accepts that Astra cheated. If so—there is no doubt that it did—why did she not undertake any investigation into what took place? It was public money. It was our money—taxpayers' money. She should have looked after it for us.

Miss Widdecombe

I have already said to the hon. Gentleman that we have audit procedures that trace the money that TECs use, and what it is used for. Those audit procedures are in place.

Mr. Tony Lloyd

rose—

Miss Widdecombe

If the hon. Gentleman cannot understand that when I have said it three, four, or even five times, I do not think that a sixth intervention will take him very much further forward. I should like to answer the rest of the debate, including the points that he has raised.

Several hon. Members

rose—

Miss Widdecombe

No. I am sorry, but I should like to make progress.

The one thing that has come through consistently as a theme from the Opposition tonight has been a picture of gloom and doom about employment and training prospects for young people. I must tell the Opposition that if they had adopted the reasoned tone of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Godsiff) and said that they wanted to put proper training in place and that they have criticisms about some of the things that are happening, that would be a rather different story.

National vocational qualifications are new. I would be the last to say that there is no further refining or improving to be done. It is quite obvious that there must be. But that is very different from saying that the whole of the Government's strategy and training programme is a Mickey Mouse set-up.

Mr. Tony Lloyd

What strategy?

Miss Widdecombe

The hon. Gentleman, from a sedentary position, which I understood that Madam Deputy Speaker had forbidden, asked, "What strategy?" I shall tell him. The reason why I want to tell him is not because I do not think that he does not know, but because I want to put on the record exactly what the Government are doing, not only for the young people of this country, but for those of later years. [Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker

Order. Any hon. Member who has the Floor is entitled to be heard. It is getting to the point where I am finding it difficult to hear because of mutterings on the Benches. That is not good enough.

Miss Widdecombe

What do you, Madam Deputy Speaker, expect? There are no arguments from the Opposition. Indeed, when the hon. Gentleman started his speech, I thought that I was hearing him reading the same speech that he gave last year. There were no new ideas coming out.

The Government's training strategy is to develop a system of several routes to be available to young people when they leave school, which are then continued throughout life. We want a system where matching vocational training and vocational qualifications run alongside the more recognised route of academic qualifications. What worries me about those who pour scorn on NVQs, and those who deride the skills revolution and the training programme, is that they are encouraging young people and, more importantly, their parents to think that those qualifications and courses—the vocational as opposed to the academic route—are somehow second-class or worthless. They are neither.

At a time when we are trying to encourage parents to look seriously at vocational as well as academic qualifications, it is grossly irresponsible to try to portray NVQs as some sort of unmitigated failure. Even in the critical reports that have emerged recently, there has been a recognition and encouragement of, and total support for, the overall strategy of NVQs.

The skills revolution is recognised by the construction industry. It will be our policy to pursue that skills revolution. But it would be far more beneficial for the people of Britain, for our work force and development, as well as for those who have to teach and train within it, if we could at least go forward with a positive attitude, rather than trying to persuade every young person that there will be no training and no jobs when they leave school. Neither of those statements is true.

We heard many statistics earlier—

Mr. Graham

Will the Minister give way?

Miss Widdecombe

I am longing to come back to the hon. Gentleman, but will certainly give way.

Mr. Graham

Is the Minister reiterating that we are guaranteeing every school kid wherever a training job? By the way, Minister, just for your information, I understand that my boundaries will be changed and that my seat might be safer.

Miss Widdecombe

What we guarantee young people is that there is a choice. They can stay on in education, but the Opposition always pour scorn on that option. It is a solid choice, because 77 per cent. of young people choose to do, or they can find work, and 13 per cent. do that. They can also take up a training place. I have consistently given the House the figures relating to the number of young people who wait more than eight weeks for those training places. That number is going down and I now believe that it is controllable, although I look forward to further improvements. That is the essence of our guarantee.

I want to draw attention to one Government training scheme, Investors in People, which has not been mentioned in the debate. I look to the Opposition to support it, so I shall study their reactions to my remarks carefully. That scheme is designed to train every person within an organisation, whether management or worker, whether he is a full-time, casual or part-time employee. It is geared to train those people in the aims and objectives of their business and to bring on their personal development. It is centred on NVQs level 3. No such programme has ever been introduced by any Labour Government. It is light years ahead of what many of our competitors are practising in Europe.

I have been waiting to see the nods of welcome for that scheme from the Opposition. The hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde almost managed to nod, but he changed his mind quickly when he saw that none of his colleagues was doing the same. We should all welcome it.

I want NVQs developed to the extent where it should be possible to have two people at a university, one of whom got there via the ordinary academic route while the other gained his place through work-based training and competence. I will not argue that there is no such thing as a further necessary refinement to NVQs. It is a bit of an insult to the lead industrial organisations, however, to those within the Business and Technician Education Council and those connected with City and Guilds to pour scorn on NVQs, which those people may have developed.

Mr. John Spellar (Warley, West)

The hon. Lady said that she was waiting for a reaction from the Opposition, but I suppose that we have been absolutely stunned into silence by her statement that we are light years ahead of all other European countries. I do not believe that anyone, even those who have greater faith in the Government's training schemes than we do, believes that we are light years ahead of the German training system.

Miss Widdecombe

As Hansard will show, I did not say, "all other countries". I actually said, "many of our competitors … in Europe". Few of our competitors have the equivalent of our defined national education and training targets. They were the subject of a debate a few weeks ago when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education made it clear, target by target, how the Government were managing to achieve the targets set not by us, but by industry. It knows what targets should be set.

Mr. Spellar

Can the Minister tell us which of those major countries we are ahead of?

Miss Widdecombe

The trouble with the hon. Gentleman—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] I will. The hon. Gentleman interrupted just as I was getting to the point that I was trying to make. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] If hon. Members really want to hear the answer, they should listen.

As I was just explaining, we are light years ahead in setting defined targets and having a system of matched vocational qualifications and academic training. The hon. Member for Warley, West (Mr. Spellar) is perfectly right to pick out Germany as a leading example in Europe. What is the essence of the German system? It is designed to run vocational qualifications alongside educational ones. They are given equal esteem. Vocational qualifications are not considered as second class or second choice, but that is what the Opposition have suggested, patronisingly and rudely throughout the debate. They have suggested that those who do not opt for the academic route have chosen a second-class option.

The essence of the German system is respect for NVQs. If we want to compete with Germany, it is time that the Opposition caught up with that sentiment. It is time that they welcomed the measures that we have taken to introduce NVQs.

Mr. Tony Lloyd

rose—

Miss Widdecombe

If the hon. Gentleman is about to welcome the NVQs, I will willingly give way; if he is going to whinge, I will not give way.

Mr. Lloyd

Despite what the Minister believes, the Germans do not have NVQs. They operate a high-quality vocational training system. Many people enter it after they have already completed high-quality academic training. The Minister said that industry supports the current levy system. Can she confirm that it was Ministers from the Department of Employment who told the CITB that it has to raise the small firms exemption? It was not the other way round.

Miss Widdecombe

As usual, the hon. Gentleman has not even bothered to understand the workings of the system. Once NVQs are fully developed, it should, of course, be possible for people to take them after they have undergone academic training and for them to feel no shame about working for that qualification. However, as long as the Opposition portray NVQs as a second-class, low-grade alternative to academic training, people are not likely to want to take such a qualification. That will make the job of making that transfer from academic training to NVQs even harder.

Dr. John G. Blackburn (Dudley, West)

Does my hon. Friend accept that NVQs are one of the greatest sources of blessing and that hundreds of thousands of people have benefited from that training? Would she care to reflect on where she was on 19 November, when she presented an award for an NVQ to a company in the constituency that I have the honour to represent?

Miss Widdecombe

I will take my hon. Friend's word that that ceremony took place on 19 November, because my memory is not so exact. I remember the occasion, however, and I congratulate the firm.

In the short time left, I wish to answer the hon. Member for Stretford, who asked me about Scotland. He expressed a great deal of derision and asked me whether I knew what would happen in Scotland, because he said that he did.

Mr. Tony Lloyd

I did not say anything about Scotland.

Miss Widdecombe

Yes, he did. He said in so many words that what we have proposed will not apply to Scotland. The trouble with the hon. Gentleman is that he is anxious to rush in without ascertaining the facts, whereas I am a bit wiser. In case he has forgotten, he mentioned modern apprenticeships.

Model schemes will be developed by industrial training boards and industrial training organisations to cover Scotland. My hon. Friends in the Scottish Office will meet to consider carefully how best to develop corporate and comparable arrangements in Scotland, based on SVQs, Scottish vocational qualifications. That is the answer for which the hon. Gentleman asked.

The hon. Gentleman said that young people have nothing to look forward to except long-term unemployment. He should note that one quarter of those unemployed leave the register within one month, half leave it within three months and two out of three leave the register within six months. He should stop spreading doom and gloom. He should start putting heart into our young people. He should welcome what we are doing and cringe with shame at the lack of ideas from the Opposition.

6.59 pm

Mr. Campbell-Savours

The Minister might like to care to listen to what I have to say. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because she was pressed on the issue. She seems to be having an argument with the Whip at the moment about why she sat down early. We want to know why there has not been a full investigation into what happened in Astra. She was asked that specific question by my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd).

The Minister said that auditing arrangements were in place to allow auditors to follow the use of public moneys by training organisations. If so, are we to presume that the people who are responsible for auditing the TECs are equally responsible for going to what remains of Astra to establish precisely what did happen concerning the phantom trainees and the other schemes that it established for the purpose, in effect, of robbing the taxpayer? The Minister herself identified the fact that taxpayers' money was used, and was not fully accounted for in that particular case. Perhaps the hon. Lady will, in the one minute that remains, say whether auditors will examine what happened in the Astra case.

Miss Widdecombe

With the leave of the House, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will explain how the comments made by two Labour Members can be compatible. The hon. Member for Wallasey said that as a result of Astra's collapse, hundreds of people will no longer receive training—but the hon. Member for Stretford said that training was not real, it was all Mickey Mouse stuff, and we were putting taxpayers' money into nothing. Does the hon. Lady want to maintain a Mickey Mouse set-up, or are we to accept the hon. Gentleman's version? Which is it?

Mr. Campbell-Savours

I am here to ask questions, not answer them. I put this to the Minister the fourth time. Will an investigation be undertaken of what happened at Astra? The hon. Lady has 30 seconds left to answer from the Despatch Box.

Miss Widdecombe

I might be more impressed by the hon. Gentleman's intervention if he had been present for the debate, which he was not.

It being Seven o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to order [14 January]:—

The House divided: Ayes 320, Noes 272.

Division No. 80]	[7.00 pm
AYES
Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)	Batiste, Spencer
Aitken, Jonathan	Beggs, Roy
Alexander, Richard	Bellingham, Henry
Alison, Rt Hon Michael(Selby)	Bendall, Vivian
Allason, Rupert (Torbay)	Beresford, Sir Paul
Amess, David	Biffen, Rt Hon John
Ancram, Michael	Blackburn, Dr John G.
Arbuthnot, James	Body, Sir Richard
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)	Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)	Booth, Hartley
Ashby, David	Boswell, Tim
Aspinwall, Jack	Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Atkins, Robert	Bowden, Andrew
Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)	Bowis, John
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)	Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)	Brandreth, Gyles
Baldry, Tony	Brazier, Julian
Banks, Matthew (Southport)	Bright, Graham
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)	Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Bates, Michael	Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

Browning, Mrs. Angela	Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)	Grylls, Sir Michael
Budgen, Nicholas	Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Burns, Simon	Hague, William
Butcher, John	Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Butler, Peter	Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Butterfill, John	Hampson, Dr Keith
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)	Hannam, Sir John
Carrington, Matthew	Hargreaves, Andrew
Carttiss, Michael	Harris, David
Cash, William	Haselhurst, Alan
Channon, Rt Hon Paul	Hawkins, Nick
Churchill, Mr	Hawksley, Warren
Clappison, James	Hayes, Jerry
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)	Heald, Oliver
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)	Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey	Hendry, Charles
Coe, Sebastian	Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Colvin, Michael	Hicks, Robert
Congdon, David	Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.
Conway, Derek	Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)	Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John	Horam, John
Cormack, Patrick	Hordem, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Couchman, James	Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Cran, James	Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)	Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)	Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)	Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)
Davis, David (Boothferry)	Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Day, Stephen	Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Deva, Nirj Joseph	Hunter, Andrew
Devlin, Tim	Jack, Michael
Dickens, Geoffrey	Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Dicks, Terry	Jenkin, Bernard
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James	Jessel, Toby
Dover, Den	Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Duncan, Alan	Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Duncan-Smith, Iain	Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)
Dunn, Bob	Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Durant, Sir Anthony	Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Dykes, Hugh	Key, Robert
Eggar, Tim	Kilfedder, Sir James
Elletson, Harold	King, Rt Hon Tom
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter	Kirkhope, Timothy
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)	Knapman, Roger
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)	Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)	Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)	Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Evennett, David	Knox, Sir David
Faber, David	Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Fabricant, Michael	Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas	Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Fanner, Dame Peggy	Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)	Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Fishburn, Dudley	Legg, Barry
Forman, Nigel	Leigh, Edward
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)	Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)	Lidington, David
Forth, Eric	Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman	Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)	Luff, Peter
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)	MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger	MacKay, Andrew
French, Douglas	Maclean, David
Fry, Sir Peter	McLoughlin, Patrick
Gale, Roger	McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Gallie, Phil	Madel, Sir David
Gardiner, Sir George	Maginnis, Ken
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan	Maitland, Lady Olga
Garnier, Edward	Major, Rt Hon John
Gill, Christopher	Malone, Gerald
Gillan, Cheryl	Mans, Keith
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair	Marland, Paul
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles	Marlow, Tony
Gorman, Mrs Teresa	Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Gorst, John	Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)	Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)	Mates, Michael
Greenway, John (Ryedale)	Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Mellor, Rt Hon David	Speed, Sir Keith
Merchant, Piers	Spencer, Sir Derek
Milligan, Stephen	Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)
Mills, Iain	Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)	Spink, Dr Robert
Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)	Spring, Richard
Moate, Sir Roger	Sproat, Iain
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James	Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)
Monro, Sir Hector	Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Montgomery, Sir Fergus	Steen, Anthony
Moss, Malcolm	Stephen, Michael
Needham, Richard	Stem, Michael
Nelson, Anthony	Stewart, Allan
Neubert, Sir Michael	Streeter, Gary
Newton, Rt Hon Tony	Sumberg, David
Nicholls, Patrick	Sweeney, Walter
Nicholson, David (Taunton)	Sykes, John
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)	Tapsell, Sir Peter
Norris, Steve	Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley	Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)
Oppenheim, Phillip	Taylor, John M. (Solihull)
Ottaway, Richard	Temple-Morris, Peter
Page, Richard	Thomason, Roy
Paice, James	Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)
Patnick, Irvine	Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Patten, Rt Hon John	Thumham, Peter
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey	Townend, John (Bridlington)
Pawsey, James	Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth	Tracey, Richard
Pickles, Eric	Tredinnick, David
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)	Trend, Michael
Porter, David (Waveney)	Trotter, Neville
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael	Twinn, Dr Ian
Powell, William (Corby)	Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Rathbone, Tim	Viggers, Peter
Redwood, Rt Hon John	Waldegrave, Rt Hon William
Renton, Rt Hon Tim	Walden, George
Richards, Rod	Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)
Riddick, Graham	Waller, Gary
Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm	Ward, John
Robathan, Andrew	Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn	Waterson, Nigel
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)	Watts, John
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)	Wells, Bowen
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)	Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)	Whitney, Ray
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela	Whittingdale, John
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard	Widdecombe, Ann
Sackville, Tom	Wiggin, Sir Jerry
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim	Wilkinson, John
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas	Willetts, David
Shaw, David (Dover)	Wilshire, David
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)	Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian	Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)	Wolfson, Mark
Shersby, Michael	Wood, Timothy
Sims, Roger	Yeo, Tim
Skeet, Sir Trevor	Young, Rt Hon Sir George
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)	Tellers for the Ayes:
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)	Mr. David Lightbown and Mr. Sydney Chapman.
Soames, Nicholas

NOES
Adams, Mrs Irene	Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Ainger, Nick	Bell, Stuart
Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)	Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Allen, Graham	Bennett, Andrew F.
Alton, David	Benton, Joe
Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)	Berry, Dr. Roger
Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)	Betts, Clive
Armstrong, Hilary	Blair, Tony
Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy	Blunkett, David
Austin-Walker, John	Boateng, Paul
Banks, Tony (Newham NW)	Boyes, Roland
Barnes, Harry	Bradley, Keith
Barron, Kevin	Bray, Dr Jeremy
Battle, John	Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Bayley, Hugh	Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret	Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Burden, Richard	Harman, Ms Harriet
Byers, Stephen	Harvey, Nick
Cabom, Richard	Henderson, Doug
Callaghan, Jim	Heppell, John
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)	Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)	Hinchliffe, David
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)	Hoey, Kate
Campbell-Savours, D. N.	Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
Canavan, Dennis	Home Robertson, John
Cann, Jamie	Hood, Jimmy
Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)	Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Chisholm, Malcolm	Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Clapham, Michael	Hoyle, Doug
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)	Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)	Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Clelland, David	Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Clwyd, Mrs Ann	Hutton, John
Coffey, Ann	Ingram, Adam
Connarty, Michael	Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)	Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Cook, Robin (Livingston)	Jamieson, David
Corbett, Robin	Janner, Greville
Corbyn, Jeremy	Johnston, Sir Russell
Cousins, Jim	Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)
Cox, Tom	Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Cryer, Bob	Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Cummings, John	Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Cunliffe, Lawrence	Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)	Jowell, Tessa
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John	Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Dafis, Cynog	Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)
Darling, Alistair	Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)
Davidson, Ian	Khabra, Piara S.
Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)	Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)	Kirkwood, Archy
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)	Leighton, Ron
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)	Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Denham,John	Lewis, Terry
Dewar, Donald	Litheriand, Robert
Dixon, Don	Livingstone, Ken
Dobson, Frank	Lloyd, Tony (Stratford)
Donohoe, Brian H.	Llwyd, Elfyn
Dowd, Jim	Lynne, Ms Liz
Dunnachie, Jimmy	McAllion, John
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth	McAvoy, Thomas
Eagle, Ms Angela	McCartney, Ian
Eastham, Ken	Macdonald, Calum
Enright, Derek	McFall, John
Etherington, Bill	McKelvey, William
Ewing, Mrs Margaret	Mackinlay, Andrew
Fatchett, Derek	McLeish, Henry
Faulds, Andrew	Maclennan, Robert
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)	McMaster, Gordon
Fisher, Mark	McNamara, Kevin
Flynn, Paul	McWilliam, John
Foster, Rt Hon Derek	Madden, Max
Foster, Don (Bath)	Maddock, Mrs Diana
Foulkes, George	Mahon, Alice
Fraser, John	Mallon, Seamus
Fyfe, Maria	Mandelson, Peter
Gapes, Mike	Marek, Dr John
Garrett, John	Marshall, David (Shettleston)
George, Bruce	Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S).
Gerrard, Neil	Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John	Martlew, Eric
Godman, Dr Norman A.	Maxton, John
Godsiff, Roger	Meacher, Michael
Golding, Mrs Llin	Meale, Alan
Gordon, Mildred	Michael, Alun
Gould, Bryan	Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Graham, Thomas	Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)	Milburn, Alan
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)	Miller, Andrew
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)	Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Grocott, Bruce	Moonie, Dr Lewis
Gunnell, John	Morgan, Rhodri
Hain, Peter	Morley, Elliot
Hall, Mike	Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)
Hanson, David	Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Hardy, Peter	Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Mowlam, Marjorie	Skinner, Dennis
Mudie, George	Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Mullin, Chris	Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)
Murphy, Paul	Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)
O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)	Snape, Peter
O'Hara, Edward	Soley, Clive
Olner, William	Spearing, Nigel
O'Neill, Martin	Spellar, John
Orme, Fit Hon Stanley	Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)
Parry, Robert	Steel, Rt Hon Sir David
Patchett, Terry	Steinberg, Gerry
Pendry, Tom	Stevenson, George
Pickthall, Colin	Stott, Roger
Pike, Peter L.	Strang, Dr. Gavin
Pope, Greg	Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)	Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)	Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)	Tipping, Paddy
Prescott, John	Turner, Dennis
Purchase, Ken	Tyler, Paul
Quin, Ms Joyce	Vaz, Keith
Radice, Giles	Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold
Randall, Stuart	Walley, Joan
Raynsford, Nick	Wardell, Gareth (Gower)
Redmond, Martin	Wareing, Robert N
Reid, Dr John	Watson, Mike
Rendel, David	Welsh, Andrew
Richardson, Jo	Wicks, Malcolm
Robertson, George (Hamilton)	Wigley, Dafydd
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)	Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)
Roche, Mrs. Barbara	Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)
Rogers, Allan	Wilson, Brian
Rooker, Jeff	Winnick, David
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)	Wise, Audrey
Rowlands, Ted	Worthington, Tony
Ruddock, Joan	Wray, Jimmy
Salmond, Alex	Wright, Dr Tony
Sedgemore, Brian	Young, David (Bolton SE)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Shore, Rt Hon Peter	Tellers for the Noes:
Short, Clare	Mr. Eric Illsley and Mr. Peter Kilfoyle.
Simpson, Alan

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved, That the draft Industrial Training Levy (Construction Board) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 18th November, be approved.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER then put the Question on the other motion requiring to be decided at that hour:—

The House divided: Ayes 320, Noes 267.

Division No. 81]	[7.16 pm
AYES
Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)	Biffen, Rt Hon John
Aitken, Jonathan	Blackburn, Dr John G.
Alexander, Richard	Body, Sir Richard
Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)	Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Allason, Rupert (Torbay)	Booth, Hartley
Amess, David	Boswell, Tim
Ancram, Michael	Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Arbuthnot, James	Bowden, Andrew
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)	Bowis, John
Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)	Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Ashby, David	Brandreth, Gyles
Aspinwall, Jack	Brazier, Julian
Atkins, Robert	Bright, Graham
Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)	Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)	Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)	Browning, Mrs. Angela
Baldry, Tony	Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Banks, Matthew (Southport)	Budgen, Nicholas
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)	Burns, Simon
Bates, Michael	Butcher, John
Batiste, Spencer	Butler, Peter
Beggs, Roy	Butterfill, John
Bellingham, Henry	Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Bendall, Vivian	Carrington, Matthew
Beresford, Sir Paul	Carttiss, Michael

Cash, William	Haselhurst, Alan
Channon, Rt Hon Paul	Hawkins, Nick
Churchill, Mr	Hawksley, Warren
Clappison, James	Hayes, Jerry
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)	Heald, Oliver
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)	Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey	Hendry, Charles
Coe, Sebastian	Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Colvin, Michael	Hicks, Robert
Congdon, David	Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.
Conway, Derek	Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)	Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)	Horam, John
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John	Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Cormack, Patrick	Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Couchman, James	Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Cran, James	Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)	Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)	Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)	Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Davis, David (Boothferry)	Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Day, Stephen	Hunter, Andrew
Deva, Nirj Joseph	Jack, Michael
Devlin, Tim	Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Dickens, Geoffrey	Jenkin, Bernard
Dicks, Terry	Jessel, Toby
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James	Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Dover, Den	Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Duncan, Alan	Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)
Duncan-Smith, Iain	Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Dunn, Bob	Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Durant, Sir Anthony	Key, Robert
Dykes, Hugh	Kilfedder, Sir James
Eggar, Tim	King, Rt Hon Tom
Elletson, Harold	Kirkhope, Timothy
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter	Knapman, Roger
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)	Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)	Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)	Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)	Knox, Sir David
Evennett, David	Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Faber, David	Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Fabricant, Michael	Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas	Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Fenner, Dame Peggy	Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)	Legg, Barry
Fishburn, Dudley	Leigh, Edward
Forman, Nigel	Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)	Lidington, David
Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)	Lightbown, David
Forth, Eric	Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman	Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)	Luff, Peter
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)	MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger	Maclean, David
French, Douglas	McLoughlin, Patrick
Fry, Sir Peter	McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Gale, Roger	Madel, Sir David
Gallie, Phil	Maginnis, Ken
Gardiner, Sir George	Maitland, Lady Olga
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan	Major, Rt Hon John
Garnier, Edward	Malone, Gerald
Gill, Christopher	Mans, Keith
Gillan, Cheryl	Marland, Paul
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair	Marlow, Tony
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles	Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Gorman, Mrs Teresa	Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Gorst, John	Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)	Mates, Michael
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)	Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Greenway, John (Ryedale)	Mellor, Rt Hon David
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)	Merchant, Piers
Grylls, Sir Michael	Milligan, Stephen
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn	Mills, Iain
Hague, William	Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie	Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)	Moate, Sir Roger
Hannam, Sir John	Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Hargreaves, Andrew	Monro, Sir Hector
Harris, David	Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Moss, Malcolm	Spring, Richard
Needham, Richard	Sproat, Iain
Nelson, Anthony	Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)
Neubert, Sir Michael	Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Newton, Rt Hon Tony	Steen, Anthony
Nicholls, Patrick	Stephen, Michael
Nicholson, David (Taunton)	Stern, Michael
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)	Stewart, Allan
Norris, Steve	Streeter, Gary
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley	Sumberg, David
Oppenheim, Phillip	Sweeney, Walter
Ottaway, Richard	Sykes, John
Page, Richard	Tapsell, Sir Peter
Paice, James	Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Patnick, Irvine	Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)
Patten, Rt Hon John	Taylor, John M. (Solihull)
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey	Temple-Morris, Peter
Pawsey, James	Thomason, Roy
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth	Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)
Pickles, Eric	Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)	Thurnham, Peter
Porter, David (Waveney)	Townend, John (Bridlington)
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael	Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)
Powell, William (Corby)	Tracey, Richard
Rathbone, Tim	Tredinnick, David
Redwood, Rt Hon John	Trend, Michael
Ronton, Rt Hon Tim	Trotter, Neville
Richards, Rod	Twinn, Dr Ian
Riddick, Graham	Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm	Viggers, Peter
Robathan, Andrew	Waldegrave, Rt Hon William
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn	Walden, George
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)	Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)	Waller, Gary
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)	Ward, John
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)	Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela	Waterson, Nigel
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard	Watts, John
Sackville, Tom	Wells, Bowen
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim	Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas	Whitney, Ray
Shaw, David (Dover)	Whittingdale, John
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)	Widdecombe, Ann
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian	Wiggin, Sir Jerry
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)	Wilkinson, John
Shersby, Michael	Willetts, David
Sims, Roger	Wilshire, David
Skeet, Sir Trevor	Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)	Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)	Wolfson, Mark
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)	Wood, Timothy
Soames, Nicholas	Yeo, Tim
Speed, Sir Keith	Young, Rt Hon Sir George
Spencer, Sir Derek
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)	Tellers for the Ayes:
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)	Mr. Andrew Mackay and Mr. Sydney Chapman.
Spink, Dr Robert

NOES
Adams, Mrs Irene	Berry, Dr. Roger
Ainger, Nick	Berts, Clive
Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)	Blair, Tony
Allen, Graham	Blunkett, David
Alton, David	Boateng, Paul
Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)	Boyes, Roland
Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)	Bradley, Keith
Armstrong, Hilary	Bray, Dr Jeremy
Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy	Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Austin-Walker, John	Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Banks, Tony (Newham NW)	Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Barnes, Harry	Burden, Richard
Barron, Kevin	Byers, Stephen
Battle, John	Caborn, Richard
Bayley, Hugh	Callaghan, Jim
Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret	Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Beith, Rt Hon A. J.	Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Bell, Stuart	Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Benn, Rt Hon Tony	Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Bennett, Andrew F.	Canavan, Dennis
Benton, Joe	Cann, Jamie

Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)	Hoyle, Doug
Chisholm, Malcolm	Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Clapham, Michael	Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)	Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)	Hutton, John
Clelland, David	Ingram, Adam
Clwyd, Mrs Ann	Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Coffey, Ann	Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Connarty, Michael	Jamieson, David
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)	Johnston, Sir Russell
Cook, Robin (Livingston)	Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)
Corbett, Robin	Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Corbyn, Jeremy	Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Cousins, Jim	Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Cox, Tom	Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Cryer, Bob	Jowell, Tessa
Cummings, John	Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Cunliffe, Lawrence	Kennedy, Charles (Ross.C&S)
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)	Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John	Khabra, Piara S.
Dafis, Cynog	Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)
Darling, Alistair	Kirkwood, Archy
Davidson, Ian	Leighton, Ron
Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)	Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)	Lewis, Terry
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)	Litheriand, Robert
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)	Livingstone, Ken
Denham, John	Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Dewar, Donald	Llwyd, Elfyn
Dixon, Don	Lynne, Ms Liz
Dobson, Frank	McAllion, John
Donohoe, Brian H.	McAvoy, Thomas
Dowd, Jim	McCartney, Ian
Dunnachie, Jimmy	Macdonald, Calum
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth	McFall, John
Eagle, Ms Angela	McKelvey, William
Eastham, Ken	Mackinlay, Andrew
Enright, Derek	McLeish, Henry
Etherington, Bill	Maclennan, Robert
Ewing, Mrs Margaret	McMaster, Gordon
Fatchett, Derek	McNamara, Kevin
Faulds, Andrew	McWilliam, John
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)	Madden, Max
Fisher, Mark	Maddock, Mrs Diana
Flynn, Paul	Mahon, Alice
Foster, Don (Bath)	Mandelson, Peter
Foulkes, George	Marek, Dr John
Fraser, John	Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Fyfe, Maria	Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Gapes, Mike	Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Garrett, John	Martlew, Eric
George, Bruce	Maxton, John
Gerrard, Neil	Meacher, Michael
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John	Meale, Alan
Godman, Dr Norman A.	Michael, Alun
Godsiff, Roger	Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Golding, Mrs Llin	Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)
Gordon, Mildred	Milburn, Alan
Graham, Thomas	Miller, Andrew
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)	Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)	Moonie, Dr Lewis
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)	Morgan, Rhodri
Grocott, Bruce	Morley, Elliot
Gunnell, John	Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)
Hain, Peter	Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Hall, Mike	Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Hanson, David	Mowlam, Marjorie
Hardy, Peter	Mudie, George
Harman, Ms Harriet	Mullin, Chris
Harvey, Nick	Murphy, Paul
Henderson, Doug	O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)
Heppell, John	O'Hara, Edward
Hill, Keith (Streatham)	Olner, William
Hinchliffe, David	O'Neill, Martin
Hoey, Kate	Parry, Robert
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)	Patchett, Terry
Home Robertson, John	Pendry, Tom
Hood, Jimmy	Pickthall, Colin
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)	Pike, Peter L.
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)	Pope, Greg

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)	Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)	Steel, Rt Hon Sir David
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)	Steinberg, Gerry
Prescott, John	Stevenson, George
Quin, Ms Joyce	Stott, Roger
Radice, Giles	Strang, Dr. Gavin
Randall, Stuart	Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Raynsford, Nick	Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Redmond, Martin	Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)
Reid, Dr John	Tipping, Paddy
Rendel, David	Turner, Dennis
Richardson, Jo	Tyler, Paul
Robertson, George (Hamilton)	Vaz, Keith
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)	Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold
Roche, Mrs. Barbara	Walley, Joan
Rogers, Allan	Wardell, Gareth (Gower)
Rooker, Jeff	Wareing, Robert N
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)	Watson, Mike
Rowlands, Ted	Welsh, Andrew
Ruddock, Joan	Wicks, Malcolm
Salmond, Alex	Wigley, Dafydd
Sedgemore, Brian	Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert	Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter	Wilson, Brian
Short, Clare	Winnick, David
Simpson, Alan	Wise, Audrey
Skinner, Dennis	Worthington, Tony
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)	Wray, Jimmy
Smith, C. (Isl'on S & F'sbury)	Wright, Dr Tony
Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)	Young, David (Bolton SE)
Snape, Peter
Soley, Clive	Tellers for the Noes:
Spearing, Nigel	Mr. Peter Kilfoyle and Mr. Eric Insley.
Spellar, John

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved, That the draft Industrial Training Levy (Construction Board) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 18th November, be approved.