§ Mr. Knoxasked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a further statement on his review of industrial training boards; and what interim guidance he proposes to issue to the boards.
118W(2) how many women are at the present time unemployed in Pontefract, Castle-ford and Featherstone, respectively; what percentage rate of unemployment these figures represent; and what were the respective figures and percentages at 18th June, 1970.
§ Mr. Dudley SmithFollowing is the information available:
§ Mr. R. CarrI have considered this further since my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. John Page) on 28th January—[Vol. 810, c.155]. The work of the training boards is an important part of manpower policy generally, which includes the Government's direct training activities and the whole range of employment policies and services. I think it is right to consider the future of industrial training within this broader framework before concluding whether, and if so how, its present organisation should be modified. These are complex and important questions and I now anticipate that it will be some months before I am in a position to publish a consultative document.
In the meantime, the industrial training boards will have to submit further proposals to me for financing their activities and are looking to me for guidance. While I recognise that the circumstances of different industries and the state of progress of different training boards may justify some exceptions, I should like boards to develop their financial policies on the following lines.
Steps must be taken to control the cost of grant schemes and the administrative expenditure of boards more effectively. Better control and a more selective choice of training priorities should enable some reduction in levy rates to be introduced progressively. A proposal to increase the rate of levy will not normally be approved. Arrangements for "netting" levy payments against grant return should 119W be introduced generally. I shall look for a significantly greater exemption of small firms from levy schemes. As in the past boards will be expected to have consulted their industries before submitting proposals for my approval and to have borne in mind in framing their proposals the need to give employers, educational authorities and Colleges of Further Education sufficient warning of changes.
These steps, which some training boards have already taken, will I believe go some way to reducing the difficulties which have arisen in the operation of the Industrial Training Act and should help the boards to gain wider support for the development of their constructive work.