Industrial Training (Hansard, 11 July 1972)

§ Mr. Chichester-Clark

My right hon. Friend has received memoranda from the Confederation of British Industry and the Trades Union Congress concerning various aspects of the Government's proposals for industrial training. We have also discussed these representations with the two bodies. I give below extracts from the memoranda of the two organisations, setting out their views on incentives for training. My right hon. Friend is currently considering the various opinions which have been expressed on our proposals, and he hopes to announce conclusions on the main issues before the House rises for the Summer Recess. 301W CBI: "In its review of the new proposals a great deal of comment has reached the CBI. Most of this has concerned the future of Industrial Training Boards. Support for the ending of the present levy/grant systems has been widespread although a significant amount of comment has suggested that to stop them simultaneously and abruptly in all industries may be ill-judged. Concern has been expresed in many quarters about the adequacy of the NTA's estimated budget of £25 to £40 million. The CBI shares this concern, even if the selective grants to be made by the agency are to be directed mainly to the encouragement of training over and above firms' individual needs in areas where there are actual or anticipated shortages. The mechanics of such an arrangement would be difficult and, when combined with the other fields in which continued financial support would be required, there will not be enough money within the proposed budget to enable effective grants to be given. These other fields will have to be negotiated between ITB's and the NTA, but they should include continued support for existing long-term training grant commitments; the establishment and support of group training schemes; first-year apprentice and technician training; and a number of ITB training facilities which are valued by their industries. There is also an urgent need (as we have pointed out in our recent statement—"Supply and Demand in Higher Education") to give substantial financial support to encourage the provision of more industrial training places for sandwich course students. TUC: "No scheme is acceptable which reduces the importance of levy/grant and at the same time does not provide for a means of inspection of the volume of training and the level of standards adopted by firms in the industry. In any scheme of the latter type, there should be provision for financial penalties to be imposed on employers who do not fulfil their training responsibilities. This does not preclude further development of Board's advisory services nor does it mean that ways should not be found of refining levy/grant schemes or exploring other financial mechanisms. In the longer term, there is a case for introducing a payroll tax on all employers, large and small, from which they could seek some relief if they could show on their tax return that they had fulfilled their training responsibilities. This is being examined further by the General Council particularly in the context of the TUC's proposed National Manpower Board. Basically, however, the principle that employers must be prepared to make a substantial contribution to training to meet their needs is supported by the General Council and from this perspective, the Government's intention to end levy/grant schemes after 1972–73 and to replace them with a very limited system of selective grants from public funds is retrogressive.