| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Moved, That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Industrial Training Levy (Engineering Construction Industry Training Board) Order 2008. 7th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.—(Baroness Morgan of Drefelin.)
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: This has become an annual ritual. For about eight years I have welcomed these orders for these two training boards because we believe that the concept of the levy grant was a good one that has resulted in very considerable benefits to the two industries. It is slightly amusing that the Minister indicated that the Government were currently pleased with the how the scheme was working and that it had been extended to the film industry in December 2007—and that industry voted in favour of having a levy grant system.
There is a slightly plaintive paragraph in the impact assessments. Paragraph 9 in both reads:
“Ministers have acknowledged that to insist on non-statutory arrangements is unrealistic and have agreed to retain a statutory ITB subject to regular review”.
I think that there may be a touch of the Leitch agenda in the slight change in mood, which is not reflected in the impact assessment. Nevertheless, the system has worked very well. For the CITB, the Minister quoted a figure of £1.90 for every £1 invested, and for the Engineering Construction Industry Training Board, she quoted £2.11, whereas the impact assessment quotes £2.22—a slight increase on her figure, although I am not sure that it really matters.
There is some indication of the mountain that we have to climb in terms of skills. I note from the impact assessment that there are in the region of 75,000 to 80,000 employers in the construction industry, yet only 16,000 employers have apprentices. Of those 16,000, 14,600 are small and medium-sized businesses and probably have one or two apprentices at most. Therefore, we have to climb a huge mountain if we are to approach the aspiration of world-class skills held by the Government and the noble Lord, Lord Leitch.
As I said, we very much welcome the orders. As the Minister indicated, it is interesting to see the degree to which the Construction Industry Training Board is now running construction skills. I have had quite a lot to do with some of its programmes and I very much welcome what it is doing with the various programmes that it is getting up and running.
I have three questions for the Minister, although they may overlap. How do these training arrangements fit into Train to Gain? Do the two industries have to pay twice? They have to pay by levy for training
26 Feb 2008 : Column GC146
Lord Jones: The Minister always presents her speeches persuasively and I, for one, thank her for her presentation. During a long parliamentary life, it has become clear to me that all is not well in the training industry, if you can call it that. It appears that every five or six years each Administration sets out reform measures, but we never seem to hit the target. Therefore, I wished the proposals of the noble Lord, Lord Leitch, well, and I certainly welcome these orders. I wish only to ask a few questions.
Can the Minister indicate how many employers are levied in our country? Do we know how many employees might be grouped under the heading of “engineering” when at work? How large in employer terms is the engineering industry? It is certainly one of our most vital remaining industries in Britain.
Do we have any idea how well the engineering construction board is progressing? Is its efficiency assessed? By whom? Who is taking the temperature? Who is watching and assessing the board? My guess is that it is rather a good board. Our last great employer of skilled employees in Britain is the aerospace industry. There are tens of thousands of employees in that great manufacturing industry. How well does the board serve the needs of our great aerospace industry?
My noble friend mentioned apprenticeships, and we both know that that is the future for what remains of British manufacturing. We know that the orders are vital to the future of British manufacturing. How many aerospace apprentices are training under the aegis of the engineering board? It would be helpful to know that. Also, is it possible to know how many apprentices are training under the aegis of the Construction Industry Training Board?
I know that my noble friend is a busy and conscientious Minister, so it is just possible that she has not read the obituary column in the Independent today. If she has not, why not? After successfully coping with these orders, my noble friend might want to read the obituary of Sir Maurice Laing. The sub-heading reads:
The article is mildly revelatory and may help the Minister with future orders.
Baroness Verma: I thank the Minister for introducing the orders. My notes, in contrast to hers, are very short. I agree with the Minister that, for us to be a world-class, competitive economy, the skills base
26 Feb 2008 : Column GC147
Both in construction and in engineering some exemplary training can be found, particularly at level 3 apprenticeships. While there is some sense in consulting more widely among employers, it may become a disincentive for some employers to join the representative organisations that sign up to the pledge of training, which in turn may mean that it is harder to measure how much support there really is for employers wishing to join representative organisations. Can the Minister say what impact the Further Education and Training Act 2007 will have on the way in which the industrial training boards consult to establish consent for future levies?
The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford, mentioned an explanatory memorandum covering the film industry, stating that an order to establish an ITB covering the sector came into force on 7 December 2007. That arose from work undertaken by the sector skills council in that industry. I would be interested to hear from the Minister about the lessons that can be learnt from that success in building consent for a new voluntary training levy. Are other sectors to follow? Can the Minister shed light on the successes that the film industry has had so far? Can the Minister clarify the impact that the Further Education and Training Act 2007 will have on the way in which the industrial training boards consult to establish consent for future levies? Will the extension of training levies be considered when the Government review the impact of the skills pledge in 2010?
Can the Minister expand on the Government’s plan to concentrate more strongly on level 3 skills? Will the focus remain on level 2 skills? Finally, can the Minister say at what point employers are exempt from having to sign up to the skills pledge? I know that the Minister elaborated on that, but it is still slightly unclear to me.
Baroness Morgan of Drefelin: I thank noble Lords for taking part in this short but important debate and for the support for the orders that resonates around the Committee. We can all see the valuable work that the training levies allow. I have been asked a lot of specific questions. If I do not pick them all up, I will write to noble Lords in detail and read Hansard to ensure that we have covered all the questions.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, asked whether the employers levied are paying twice. It might be helpful to say that both boards are in discussion with the department about how they can benefit from Train to Gain. They will not have to pay twice. It is important to get that on the record. The noble Baroness rightly picked up not a change of tone but a very vigorous commitment to promote employer-led training through the experience of the Leitch review and Train to Gain. This applies to the next order as well. Being new to the department, I assure her that
26 Feb 2008 : Column GC148
I shall try to deal with some of the questions that my noble friend has levied, if I can make that pun. He asked about the engineering industry, particularly apprenticeships in the aerospace industry. In the engineering construction industry there were 1,400-plus apprentices in training in 2006 and 200 completions. I shall have to get back to him on aerospace. In the construction industry there are around 30,000 apprenticeships in training. The largest groups are in bricklaying, carpentry and joinery, painting and decorating, bench joinery and solid plastering.
My noble friend asked who assesses the Engineering Construction Industry Training Board. That is an important question. He has a way of putting his finger on the key issues. The boards are brought to account through their annual report to their industries, which is also laid before Parliament. The employers signify satisfaction by their agreement to support the levy proposals through the consultation process that has to go on.
The Engineering Construction Industry Training Board is concerned with the erection, maintenance and dismantling of process plants, oil installations and power stations. It is not relevant to the aerospace industry. It has 60,000 people working in the sector and there are 1,400 apprentices in training.
The noble Baroness, Lady Verma, asked a very important question about the Further Education and Training Act. The changes in that Act are not aimed at weakening the role of the federations of employers. They are intended to bring the Act in line with the employment landscape for the 21st century. Although employers are not necessarily signing up to the federations in the numbers that they did in the past, the federations will still have a central role, but it is important to allow the industrial training boards to operate a levy in the way that best suits the industry. They will have to use other ways of involving employers that are not in federations. The changes to the Industrial Training Act have been made at the request of the industrial training boards on behalf of the employers and their industries. We are very much working with employers, aiming to be employer-led and maintaining strong consultation and communication between employers.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: Will the Minister clarify the situation? I think I am right in saying that, as a result of the Further Education and Training Act, the only difference is that the boards do not have to come to Parliament every year to ask it to renew the order, as we have been doing today. This is therefore the last occasion that we shall be doing this. Equally, the concept of the industrial training board remains. I take it that the statutory framework, which stems from 1981-82, remains the same—that is, where an industry voluntarily requires a training board, it may have one, as has happened with the film industry. In the background, with Leitch, there is also a slight indication that post-2010, if companies do not come up with the training pledge, there may be some other form of statutory encouragement to training.
26 Feb 2008 : Column GC149
Baroness Morgan of Drefelin: I do not want to take us to a debate about post-2010, because we aim to achieve a lot more, so we aspire to make any further statutory levy unnecessary. There are two differences in the Act. We have talked about the three-year change. Perhaps I was being obscure or opaque, but because the number of employers joining federations, which is the traditional method of consultation, is going down, there is a need to create an additional method of consultation to ensure that training levies are acceptable to and supported by employers. That is a small but important change in addition to the three-year change.
Baroness Verma: I do not want to drag the point but my understanding is that employers will be signed up to the levy. The worry will be how you measure that they are providing the training that is required of those sectors if they are not signed up through the federations. Maybe we cannot monitor that, but perhaps the Minister can let me know about that later.
Baroness Morgan of Drefelin: That is a very important question. I will look into it and write to the noble Baroness and pick up the points raised by my noble friend.
I thank noble Lords for taking part in this discussion and for further support for employer-led training, supported financially through the levy system.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Industrial Training Levy (Construction Industry Training Board) Order 2008
6 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills (Baroness Morgan of Drefelin): I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Industrial Training Levy (Construction Industry Training Board) Order 2008. 7th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.—(Baroness Morgan of Drefelin.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Regional Learning and Skills Councils Regulations 2007
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills (Baroness Morgan of Drefelin) rose to move, That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Regional Learning and Skills Councils Regulations 2007.
The noble Baroness said: I commend these draft regulations, which were laid before Parliament on 14 November 2007 and approved in another place on
26 Feb 2008 : Column GC150
The Act contains provision relating to the restructuring of the Learning and Skills Council. Section 2 inserts a provision into the Learning and Skills Act 2000 requiring the Learning and Skills Council to establish regional learning and skills councils for each area of England specified by the Secretary of State. These will replace the 47 local councils which have been abolished under Section 3 of the 2007 Act. By “local councils”, I do not mean local authorities. When I first read my brief, I thought, “That doesn’t quite sound right”.
The draft regulations make provision about regional councils of the Learning and Skills Council for England, including matters such as membership, the appointment of members, the delegation of regional council functions, and regional council proceedings. They are the first set of regulations to be made using the power in Section 18A(2) of the Learning and Skills Act 2000 as inserted by Section 2 of the 2007 Act.
The case for change was already made during the passage of the Act—I know that noble Lords were very much involved with that. Since its creation in 2001, the Learning and Skills Council has found it increasingly necessary to operate at a regional level and within a regional context. In response to this, the LSC has already set up nine regional offices as part of its executive structure, supported by informal regional committees, which were established under paragraph 1(1)(b) of Schedule 3 to the Learning and Skills Act 2000.
Today’s draft regulations make provision about regional councils as a statutory part of the LSC’s structure, with boundaries that will match the geographic areas of the nine government office regions. The proposals form one strand of an overall package of measures to streamline the LSC’s accountability structure. They aim to bring consistency between the non-executive structure and the new internal staffing structure that the LSC has now put in place, while bringing savings of £40 million, which will be redirected to front-line services.
These changes to the LSC’s executive and non-executive structures will strengthen its capacity to commission, with partners, the learning and skills infrastructure needed across the regions and meet our aspirations to improve the skills of the population to ensure a world-class skills base by 2020.
We are continuing with these plans in the light of the recent machinery of government announcement on 16-19 funding, and the Education and Skills Bill which is passing through Parliament in another place. The decision to transfer 16-19 funding to local authorities has signalled a major change for the LSC. These changes will take time to implement and the LSC will remain responsible for funding all forms of post-16 education and training outside higher education for some time.
26 Feb 2008 : Column GC151
We will look for the LSC to build on its achievements, and to play a key role in ensuring that a wide range of skills provision is available to support business needs.To do this, it must have a strong and robust accountability structure in place which enables the LSC to work effectively with partners at all levels to ensure that the system continues to deliver on the new and challenging targets which we have set.
During the past few months, we have also published the LSC grant letter, setting out our priorities for the next three years, which will require a strong executive and non-executive LSC structure to maintain delivery. The grant letter made it clear that the LSC needs to operate strongly at national, regional and local level to achieve government's objectives. For example, the grant letter identifies delivering an expanded train-to-gain service through closer working with regional development agencies as one of the LSC’s top priorities.
These draft regulations also need to be set in the context of the review of sub-national economic growth that was published last year. It recognised that regions and localities need to play a vital part in ensuring that they can continue to benefit from economic growth. These regulations are necessary to fulfil the policies that underpin the restructuring of the LSC and make provision for the establishment of the operation of regional councils. I commend them to the Committee. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Regional Learning and Skills Councils Regulations 2007. 2nd Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.—(Baroness Morgan of Drefelin.)
Lord Jones: I thank the Minister for her exposition. I support the regulations. It is clear that a world-class skills base by 2020 is a most necessary objective for Britain with regard to keeping what is left of, for example, her manufacturing base. It is good to know that the councils have been given leadership in the form of setting out a strategy for the years immediately ahead. Can my noble friend indicate the salary that will be paid to council chairmen? Salaries might vary, but what sort of salary and how many days, if such it shall be? Are any female chairmen yet in post? What might a member of a council be paid? Could the Minister expound on the interface between the colleges of further education and these councils? Is there any likelihood that the relationships will be good?
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I welcome these regulations and thank the Minister for explaining them. They are a follow-up to the Further Education and Training Act that passed through this House last year and embody the shift from the 47 local learning and skills councils to the nine regional learning and skills councils. The noble Lord, Lord Jones, may be interested to know that they will be backed up by 150 local partnerships in which FE colleges will undoubtedly play some part. The Explanatory Memorandum that accompanies the regulations explains that the immediate costs will be about
26 Feb 2008 : Column GC152
I have three questions. One is trivial and perhaps shows my ignorance of the way these regulations are drafted. The Council with a capital C that is referred in the regulations is, I take it, the national Learning and Skills Council, but there is nothing in the regulations that spells that out. We normally get a little paragraph that tells us that the “Council” is the Learning and Skills Council. Perhaps it is unnecessary because it is spelt out in the Act, but I take it that it is the “Council” mentioned here.
My second point is more substantive. The old local learning and skills councils had 750 non-executive members. They spanned business, local authorities, further and higher education institutions, trade unions, voluntary bodies and other local interests. These regulations do not specify any requirements for representation or membership. Members are to be appointed by the national Learning and Skills Council and approved by the Secretary of State, and the chairman is to be appointed by the Secretary of State. Will nothing spell out that these councils must be reasonably representative of different bodies within the region? It would seem appropriate for people from business, local authorities, the further and higher education sector, trade unions and the various voluntary bodies to be represented on these regional councils. Will there be further regulations or will guidance be issued? Will anything further be done? There is a danger that the whole thing could become a self-perpetuating oligarchy, with all our friends being reappointed in these positions. How do we stop that happening?
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |