Industrial Training Levy (Construction Board) Order 1989 (Hansard, 20 February 1989)

§ Baroness Turner
My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for presenting the orders to the House. I am aware that orders of this kind are not controversial and that what is being proposed has already been the subject of consultation with all interested parties. However, training is very much on the agenda, not least because there is a Government White Paper on the subject which has yet to be debatedin full by your Lordships' House. Therefore, I should like to say a few words about industry training boards and the Engineering Industry Training Board and the Construction Industry Training Board in particular.
In my view, both those bodies are an advertisement for the tripartite ideal. Both consist of an equal number of industrialists and trade unionists with a number of educationists. Both have had considerable impact on their particular industrial fields. We often voice concern about the bad record in Britain of training and of skill shortages. How much worse the situation would have been had we not had statutory bodies such as the industry training boards?
460 The Engineering Industry Training Board needs to collect the levy—as does the CITB—in order to carry out the functions it performs. The EITB has done a great deal to change the image of engineering and to ensure, for example, that women are beginning to look to the industry for a career. It has worked with the Equal Opportunities Commission and in particular with that commission's campaign for Women into Science and Engineering (the WISE Campaign) to persuade women and girls that engineering is a suitable career. It has introduced its own Women and Technician Training Programme.
The provision of recommendations, specifications and support material for training in transferable skills, and the formal recognition of the completion of training to national standards, has always been an important part of EITB work. Engineering employment has declined over the years, but the decline to April 1988 was the lowest for a decade. It is hardly the fault of the EITB that increasing numbers of engineering graduates are entering commerce rather than industry. Unfortunately there has been a rapid rise in the proportion of first-class engineers entering financial and management services rather than engineering proper. That is because the rewards are so much greater but the EITB can hardly be blamed for that.
The Government now envisage a non-statutory role for industrial training boards. That is foreshadowed in the Government's White Paper and I understand that discussions are already proceeding on that basis. I believe that no evidence has been produced that they will fare better. It is important that there should be national co-ordination and that may well be lost if the roles are changed.
In my view, the Government should be careful about uprooting everything in their zeal for so-called radical reform. The bodies which are working well should be left to continue with their task and given additional support and encouragement.
I support the orders now before your Lordships' House. I wished to make those few remarks in support of the industry training boards on whose behalf the orders are laid.

§ Lord Rochester
My Lords, from these Benches I should like to join in thanking the noble Earl for the clear way in which he introduced the orders. They follow the usual pattern and my noble friends and I have no objection to them.
Much more significant than the orders is the fact that the Government have published their White Paper, Employment for the 1990s, as the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, has pointed out. It is plain from the White Paper that the Government's plans for sector training organisations have radical implications for the industrial training boards which remain, including the engineering and construction boards. The Government are looking to the boards to put forward proposals for moving as quickly as possible towards becoming independent, non-statutory training organisations fully supported by employers in their sectors. Such boards will not have the power to impose levies by statute.
461 I recognise the fact that this is not the time to enter into an argument about whether training is best organised on a statutory or voluntary basis. No doubt that issue will be discussed in next week's debate on the White Paper which will be introduced by the noble Baroness. I should like to join her in complimenting the Engineering Industry Training Board in particular on its achievements over the past 25 years.
It is significant that the Construction Industry Training Board considers that the arrangements proposed by the Government will not be effective in that industry unless they are underpinned by a statutory levy through which the costs of training to meet the industry's needs can be collectively shared. In its view, voluntary arrangements would result in reduced investment in training by employers with a consequent increase in skills shortages and spiralling wages costs.
For their part the Government have acknowledged that special considerations may apply in the construction industry. They have also acknowledged that there are particular training problems connected with a highly mobile labour force with many small firms involved in labour only sub-contracting.
On that subject, the key statement in the White Paper is that the Government will enter into consultation with each of the statutory industrial training boards and organisations representing employers in their sectors with a view to drawing up an agreed programme and timetable for becoming independent non-statutory bodies. I know from what the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, said in a debate last week that those discussions are now taking place. However, I should be glad to learn this evening when we may expect to hear the outcome of that process in the case of the construction and engineering boards.
In particular, it would be helpful if we could be given an indication of whether further levy orders of the kind we are now discussing are likely to be needed before successor bodies are in a position to take over the work of the present boards, presumably, when their term of office comes to an end in, I believe, 1991. Any further relevant information of that kind will be most welcome. Meanwhile, on behalf of my noble friends, I am happy to approve the orders now before us.

The Earl of Dundee
My Lords, I am grateful to your Lordships. Indeed, I join with the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, in the tribute she paid to the work of the ITBs, especially to the EITB. She mentioned how that board had very successfully increased the number of women who have been encouraged to become engineers.
The noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, mentioned the theme of the recent White Paper and rather questioned the advisability of shifting from a statutory to a non-voluntary basis, as proposed in the White Paper. Of course I do not believe that any useful purpose would come from discussing the matter now as it is not germane to the orders at which we are looking. However, I simply 462 make the comment which is obvious from the White Paper, that the kernel of it is to shift responsibility for training to employers.
The noble Lord, Lord Rochester, asked at what date matters will have developed to a more concrete form. I cannot give him a precise date but I understand that we shall have made substantial progress with consultations by July. He also asked whether, during the transition and before we have made a complete change, further similar orders to the one at which we are now looking will he necessary. I do not know the answer to that but I shall find out and let the noble Lord know.
With regard to the orders under discussion, I thank your Lordships for your approval of them and indeed they will help facilitate the work of the boards for the time being so that we can sensibly plan for a transition to more effective arrangements.