Training (Hansard, 10 January 1995)

§ 4. Mr. Kevin Hughes
To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how much his Department is spending on training for work in 1994–95; and what the level of planned spending is in 1995–96 in today's prices.

§ Mr. Portillo
The figures are £693 million this year, and £560 million next year in 1994–95 prices.

§ Mr. Hughes
How does the Secretary of State justify cutting the training for work budget, when he knows very well that there is a skill shortage and business people are crying out for skilled workers? What does he say to the people in my area—more than 1,000—who will lose out because of his cuts?

§ Mr. Portillo
I do not believe that people in the hon. Gentleman's area will lose out. I am making better use of public money, and the number of people who will obtain jobs from training for work will increase. It is estimated that 100,000 will obtain jobs this year, 104,000 next year and 116,000 the year after. I am providing a new range of opportunities for the long-term 5 unemployed. Training is not the only thing: jobs matter more to the long-term unemployed than training for the sake of training. Moreover, the hon. Gentleman should not forget that the amount of Government spending on training will always be dwarfed—and rightly so—by the £20 billion that industry spends on it.

§ Mr. Barron
Does the Secretary of State recognise that, because of cuts in the training budget, training and enterprise councils and training providers do not know where they stand and that, consequently, employers cannot plan for the future? Is it not clear that our successful companies and successful competitive countries have built their economic efficiency by having minimum standards in training? Why do not the Government accept that the market alone cannot build economic efficiency and that they must take action to ensure that minimum standards are in place throughout the British economy? Why do we have a new study today saying that we are in a position of having to train people for the sake of it? Why do not the Government train people for jobs and train the economy to utilise those people?

§ Mr. Portillo
It is rather silly to say that people do not know where they stand, when I have just given the figures and when I gave the figures at the time of the Budget. People know exactly where they stand. Before the Budget, they already knew that we had announced a £325 million programme to improve the competitiveness of this country under the competitiveness White Paper. At that time, one of the things that we introduced was the modern apprenticeship scheme, precisely to ensure that people could acquire the skills, under the training of an employer, that employers needed.
The whole focus of the Government's policy is to ensure that employees' skills are the skills that business needs. The only people who can tell us what business needs are business people. That is why the main emphasis on training in the British economy will always be provided by industry and not by the Government. What the Government spend, however, must be spent well, and we will have more jobs for less money. The hon. Gentleman should be happy about that.