Industrial Training Levy (Construction Industry Training Board) Order 2009

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for explaining the two orders. We must surely all agree that to enable us to compete internationally and to emerge from the economic situation we find ourselves in, the safeguarding and enhancement of the skills of our workforce are vital, and not only in these industry sectors. Indeed, we on these Benches would like to see a massive expansion in the provision of real apprenticeships instead of simply, as this Government have done, proposing a statutory entitlement to them. We believe under the status quo that there is an excessive requirement for paperwork associated with certification and we would simplify the current inspection regimes. Among other measures, because training should be available to people of all ages, we would remove the age cap on funding. It is claimed in paragraph 10.1(i) of each of the two Explanatory Memoranda that in 2008 for every £1 raised in levy the respective industry training board calculated a return to the industry of £2.52 for the Construction Industry Training Board and £2.03 for the Engineering Construction Industry Training Board. Of these figures, the specific figures of £1.74 and 86p respectively are attributed to what is described as, in the case of the Construction Industry Training Board, "““productivity gains and completion values of apprentices””;" and, in the case of both boards, what is termed as, "““the provision of trainee recruitment and selection, advice on training, the provision of schemes for recording achievements and the development of industry standards””." Can the Minister explain how these figures were calculated? He will forgive my suspicion of figures which are specified to the nearest penny, which somewhat limits my confidence in them. I notice that, unlike the Construction Industry Training Board, the Engineering Construction Industry Training Board does not expect any return to arise from what the former calls, "““productivity gains and completion values of apprentices””." Why not? Indeed, what are completion values of apprentices? In its response to the Leitch review, World Class Skills, the Government said they would consider if, "““it would be beneficial to introduce new enabling legislation to make it easier for sector skills councils to introduce levy schemes where they consider that these would help improve skills and productivity in their sector, where a clear majority of employers in the sector support them, and where impact assessments are positive””." Given the chronic economic situation, what further consideration has been given to this recommendation and the encouragement of other industries to use levies? The Federation of Small Businesses expects 120 small firms to, "““go to the wall each day””." I note that the smallest companies will be exempt from the levy, but how does the Minister expect slightly larger companies—for example, with 20 to 40 employees—to fund their levy obligations? When these orders were debated in the other place—on Tuesday this week—my honourable friend Mr Hayes asked, among other things, what proportion of labour in the respective industries is subcontracted. The assumption, which was not disputed by the Minister, was that, for understandable reasons, those who subcontract tend not to provide training, at least to anything like the extent of those who employ people directly. The Minister was not at that stage able to answer, and offered to write to my honourable friend. I did not catch whether the Minister himself answered that point. I wonder whether, with the benefit of a couple of days’ notice, he is now in a position to give a response to that question. My honourable friend also asked about the extent to which the skills pledge is being observed by those who have signed up to it. The Minister in the other place was again unable to answer, and again offered to write, but said, "““more than anything, the pledge is a statement of intent and commitment and is a badge of honour amongst employers””." The Minister will appreciate that we are somewhat sceptical about statements of intent and badges of honour, and would be most interested to hear whether, with the benefit of notice of that question, he is now able to give us more tangible details of the levels of observation of the pledge. Finally, I have a couple of questions that concern another industry’s training board levy. I raise them because the Minister’s answers may be instructive regarding the Government’s intentions in a wider context. In view of our country’s brilliant successes this week in the Oscars—I do not think ““brilliant”” is too glowing a superlative—noble Lords will forgive me if I talk briefly about the film industry training board levy. First, following the success of that industry’s training board’s voluntary levy, can the Minister explain why it has been decided not to make that levy mandatory? It has been reported in the press that a number of concerns have been raised by those in the film industry about the lack of consultation before making the decision. What assurances can the Minister give that further changes will not be made without adequate consultation and, of course, due consideration to the economic climate?