Industrial Training Boards (Hansard, 14 July 1989)

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Skelmersdale)
My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Young pointed out earlier this week, the statutory training system in general has not worked. Therefore, the chairman of each industrial training board has been asked to bring forward by the end of the month proposals for future arrangements that command the support of employers in the industry.

§ Lord Dormand of Easington
My Lords, is the Minister aware that on Tuesday, when industrial training boards were discussed in a parliamentary Question to which he has referred, the Secretary of State stressed that voluntary arrangements will be better than the former statutory boards? Indeed that has been confirmed in the Answer which the Minister has just given to me. The Secretary of State also said that that view was based largely on the change of attitude in industry. Will the Minister accept, as I think he must, that not every industry will meet the objectives that he thinks are necessary—that we all think are necessary—in that way? What will happen in those sectors of industry in which it is hoped that those arrangements will be made but in which they are not made, which may well be crucial sectors of our economy?

§ Lord Skelmersdale
My Lords, the evidence shows that employers will respond to the voluntary arrangements and many non-statutory training organisations already have the active support of employers. In addition, there are already many non-statutory training organisations outside what was the statutory board system which are supported voluntarily by industry and are able to provide relevant training services to industry's requirements.
Of course we are aware that every board will not go down the same route. We have not yet heard from all the chairmen, but it is quite clear that the construction industry and the engineering construction industry sector covered by the EITB have continued to support a collective funding system as a result of several factors, including the highly mobile workforce, the growth of labour-only subcontracting, the large number of small firms and the fluctuations in demand. Of course we are discussing these matters fully with the board 514 chairmen and consulting the industries on the way forward for those two boards.

§ Baroness Seear
My Lords, can the Minister really say that the Government have so much confidence in the work of the non-statutory boards, which after all have been in existence for some time, when his own department has published documents, which are on sale to the general public, showing how little industry has done in the way of training? How does he explain that apparent contradiction?

§ Lord Skelmersdale
Because, my Lords, the department has also published the results of a survey which was carried out last year which show that the majority of non-statutory training boards were indeed effective. A National Council for Industry Training Organisations has been formed to help pull the NSTO network closer together and to assist dialogue between the Government and the non-statutory training organisations.

§ Baroness Seear
My Lords, does that mean that the previous publication was therefore wrong?

§ Lord Skelmersdale
My Lords, we all know that employment is a changing picture.

§ Lord Dean of Beswick
My Lords, is the Minister aware that this morning I received a Westminster briefing from the Engineering Industry Training Board which states that the board's aim is to ensure that it is fully representative of all engineering employers and that trade unions and education interests are also represented? Can the Minister tell the House whether any direct consultations have taken place with the unions involved to find out what they think about the scheme and how their representatives will be selected? Bearing in mind that my own trade union, the Amalgamated Engineering Union, is by far the largest trade union involved in the manufacturing sector in this country, has it been consulted? Have the other trade unions been consulted? If not, why not? Without their co-operation the board will fail.

§ Lord Skelmersdale
My Lords, to answer the first supplementary question, no, I was not aware that the noble Lord had received that particular missive, which I have not seen. There are currently union representatives on the board. As I said, we are in consultation with the chairmen of boards, and I should find it inconceivable that the chairmen were not in consultation with their own board members.

§ Lord Campbell of Alloway
My Lords, is my noble friend aware that ever since the war there has been a serious shortage of skilled labour in certain identified skills? Is he also aware that before the development of modern technologies the Donovan Report adverted to the desperate need for improvement in this regard? Now, on reading the papers, is it not right for the demand for those particular skills which are again in seriously short supply to be met by those who wish to employ them, and for employers to provide training rather than have a form of government intervention, albeit in changed circumstances?

§ Lord Skelmersdale
My Lords, without getting into the 1965 Donovan Report, despite the conspicuous success of this Government in reducing unemployment—the number went down again last month—it is still at historically high levels. With historically high levels of unemployment, if the industrial training boards had in fact been working properly we should not be seeing as many skill shortages as currently exist.

§ Baroness Turner of Camden
My Lords, is the Minister aware that the construction industry training board, to which reference has been made, is extremely concerned about what happens in regard to resources? It wants to know what will happen if there is no statutory training levy. Its belief is that the needs of that industry will require a great deal more resourcing than the Government appear to think because it also has a health and safety obligation in the industry. Will the Minister be kind enough to answer that point?

§ Lord Skelmersdale
My Lords, the noble Baroness has somewhat confused me; I thought that I had answered that question. I said that we are aware that the construction industry has continued to support a collective funding system. Whether it will be identical to the present one or a future one that will eventually evolve, we do not know of course until we have heard from the chairman. I am well aware of the points that the noble Baroness has made.

§ Lord Mellish
My Lords, perhaps I may follow up the remarks of the Front Bench. The construction industry training board has been in operation for many years and has achieved enormous success. Let me ask a straight question. Am I to understand that the Government's proposals are to help the board to succeed further and that they will back it financially? Is it in fact the case that the construction industry board will not in any way be affected by government decisions?

§ Lord Skelmersdale
No, my Lords, I cannot give that commitment on behalf of the Government. All the boards will be affected by government decisions to some extent or another. I have said that the construction industry has continued and, for all I know, will continue to support a collective funding system. That collective funding system is spread across the whole of the industry. So long as it supports it, clearly that would be a sensible way forward for financing that particular board.

§ Lord McCarthy
My Lords, the Minister is a reasonable man. He says that the statutory system has not worked. Will he take the point that we are saying that the non-statutory system has not worked either, did not work before, and that is why a statutory system was brought in? What does he intend to do if it turns out that this non-statutory system does not work? Will he come forward with any further plans to increase training in this country, which he knows is much too low?

§ Lord Skelmersdale
Yes, my Lords, I do know that, but I do not think that this is the moment, when we 516 are again reviewing the statutory boards—I think I am right in saying that we last did it in 1984—to suggest that we or any government will fail. Clearly, if the situation changes—as I pointed out, employment law, conditions and everything else tend to change on a fairly fast track—we shall have to go back to the drawing board.

§ Baroness Turner of Camden
My Lords, does the Minister agree that although the situation may not be very good at the moment, it would have been a great deal worse without any statutory boards at all?

§ Lord Skelmersdale
Absolutely not, my Lords.

§ Lord Dormand of Easington
My Lords, will the Minister now answer my question which was repeated by my noble friend Lord McCarthy? What will happen in those parts of industry in which a voluntary organisation is not set up? Does he agree that there will be some parts where it will not happen? If the Government are to be so inflexible in this matter, will they at least agree to consider a code of practice?

§ Lord Skelmersdale
My Lords, I think that the noble Lord is asking us not for the continuation of the current statutory boards in some form or another but for new boards in other parts of the industry. The noble Lord shakes his head. I cannot answer off the top of my head. I shall have to consider this matter and, if he will allow me, write to the noble Lord.

§ Lord Dean of Beswick
My Lords, I am sorry to rise to my feet again. However, with reference to the construction industry training board, is it not a fact that the Government have already taken the decision quite recently to decentralise that board's activities and base them at local level against the declared wishes of the Building Employers' Confederation and the trades unions involved?

§ Lord Skelmersdale
My Lords, not so far as I am aware. As I said in my original Answer some 11 minutes ago, we are consulting with the chairman of each industrial training board. It would be next to impossible for any decisions to have been made in advance of our consideration of that consultation.