Clause 22
Further Education and Training Bill [Lords]
1:15 pm
Phil Hope (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Skills), Department for Education and Skills; Corby, Labour)
I think that I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurances that he seeks. The clause updates the legislation dealing with how an industrial training board shows that it has the support of employers to raise a levy. The changes made by the clause will give an ITB the freedom to consult employers in its industry more widely. That might include consulting any organisation authorised to speak on behalf of its members who are likely to pay the levy, seeking the views of a sample of employers or approaching employers directly in combination with any of those methods. We want industrial training boards to choose the consultation process that bests suits their industry. In all cases, they will need to satisfy the Secretary of State that the process that they followed was reasonable.
I appreciate that this is a probing amendment, but it would mean that organisations that represent sections of an industry must be consulted when ascertaining the level of support for levy proposals. That would constrain an ITB’s freedom of action in doing what I have just described—deciding the method by which to demonstrate support. That would not be helpful to the ITB, because it would constrain its responsiveness and flexibility in demonstrating that support. However, the hon. Gentleman made an important point in moving the amendment, which is the question whether it would undermine the commitment of employers to the levy if we were to go down that route.
I assure the hon. Gentleman that both the existing industry training boards—the Construction Industry Training Board and the Engineering Construction Industry Training Board—have always placed, and will continue to place, great strength on their relationships with industry federations that represent the various subsections of their industries. Those will include representatives from those federations, and it is clear from what the ITBs have told us that they have no desire to reduce the input of federations in any way.
We need to be more flexible, because it is 25 years since the Industrial Training Act 1982, and over that period industry structures have changed. An increasing proportion of employers have chosen not to join the employer federations, which means that although the ITBs have evidence that employers who are not federation members support the levy—they know that, because they have asked people—the legislation does not allow that evidence of support outside the federation to be taken into account when an ITB is justifying its levy.
In future, provided that the ITB can satisfy the Secretary of State that it has taken reasonable steps to ascertain the views of those persons whom the Secretary of State considers are likely to be liable to pay the levy in consequence of the proposals, the ITB can go on to demonstrate that it has industry support for its levy proposals in the manner best suited to the industry. That will, of course, include consulting representative organisations. We are keen to ensure that in situations where no such representative body might exist for future ITBs—proposals are coming forward from industry on that—they would not be prevented from demonstrating that they have the support of the industry, even though they have no federation. This is a mechanism allowing those industries to do so.