I am grateful for the opportunity of raising a subject upon which I have already made written and oral representations to the Manpower Services Commission and to the Department, namely, the proposed closure of the Treforest skillcentre annexe. I hope that by focusing attention on this totally mistaken decision I shall, even at this late stage, obtain its reversal.

The present Government have looked at retraining in two ways since they assumed office. The first was an exercise carried out by Sir Derek Rayner, upon whose business acumen the Government heavily rely, and his remit was to look at the efficiency of the skillcentre network. It was proposed to close five skillcentres and five annexes, as The Times reported last December. Treforest was reported last December. Treforest was not among those recommended for closure. Therefor, it passed its efficiency audit, which is significant in itself and throws a curious light on the Government's later attempts to discredit it.

However, in December, in their theological fervour to save public expenditure regardless of the consequences, the Government told the Manpower Services Commission that it had to save 3,400 jobs, out of which the skillcentres had to save 520. Rayner had been abandoned in favour of Procrustes, and the Treforest annexe had to be included, quite literally, to make up the number.

By now, some reasons had to be discovered, and they were encapsulated in the Minister's letter to me of 5 March 1980 as being a combination of poor performance and over-provision in the area.

I should like to separate those two reasons and deal with them. First, what does "poor performance" mean? It certainly does not mean a shortage of applicants. The annexe had 72 places, and it was proposed to add another class of between 12 and 14 places, with the equipment already purchased and on site. Occupancy of places was always high and there was a waiting list. Surely the Minister cannot mean the quality of the training given by the staff. The pass rates were extremely high, and employers who took the graduates were very pleased with the quality they employed. Therefore, to attack their training would be an unwarranted slur upon the teaching staff. I think that what the Minister means by that clumsy phrase is the record of subsequent placings of the men in jobs having the requisite skill requirements.

The exact placement record is a matter of dispute. The staff at the skillcentre have produced higher figures for placing than the chairman of the Manpower Services Commission. Indeed, even the chairman had to have two goes at it, and his latest letter to me not only contradicts the union figures but his own earlier letter to such a radical extent that I wonder whether someone ought to have another go at revising it.

In the latest letter there is this memorable paragraph: We now have the 100 per cent. local follow-up for the September 1979 quarter which shows that of the 48 per cent. of trainees who responded unfortunately only 31 per cent. were using the skills in which they had been trained for any part of the work ". Frankly, I am not at all certain what that means, and it might even tax many who spend their lives studying the meaning of words.

My tentative conclusion is that it means that almost three-quarters of the trainees who responded to the inquiry have jobs calling for all or part of their skills. In any event, one cannot divorce this from the general economic climate which makes placements difficult—a difficulty compounded by the apparent friction between the employment services Division and the training services division in Wales, which seems to have led to a less than wholehearted placement policy.

Secondly, there is over-production of training places in the area. The implication is that the Cardiff centre will be able to cope with all the existing courses without its two annexes at Tremorfa and Treforest. That is not true. Of the courses being conducted at Treforest, only two are being redirected within the system, and neither of those will go to the Cardiff skillcentre. Three courses have been lost at Tremorfa and six at Treforest. These are being lost without replacement at any other centre. Since their occupancy is high, there is an obvious demand for them, which will now be unmet. Therefore, the second reason for closure seems to be quite unsound.

It is rarely enough to demonstrate that the reasons given for closing something are not sound. Indeed, it would never be enough for this Government, whose every move seems to be based on unsound reasoning. Therefore, I shall put forward some positive reasons why the Treforest annexe should be retained. These reasons are nothing to do with sentiment, although I am grateful that a Government training scheme existed in Treforest more than 40 years ago because it enabled my father, an unemployed miner, to be retrained as a painter. Nor are they based on the strong local support for its retention., as evidenced both in the local newspapers and by the very strong support given to the fight by the Taff Ely borough council.

The two reasons that I adduce are, first, the ostensible strategy of the Government, which says that job loss in obsolescent industry is inevitable and that we must switch to new industries. The Government counsel us not to be afraid of change, but how can that be unless men are given the opportunity to train in new skills? It would be cruel if the Government were to tolerate job loss without trying to create new job prospects.

The second reason is that there is an increasing need in this area for men to -acquire new skills. The Government and the Manpower Services Commission have concentrated on likely steel and colliery closures and have modified their proposals for skillcentre closures to take account of these. I beg the Government not to be oblivious to the job loss that is occurring constantly in our area.

This annexe is situated on the Treforest industrial estate, which is fast becoming an industrial desert. Since the beginning of this year nearly 1,000 jobs have been lost, either through whole factories closing or through existing employers shedding labour. By emptying this factory the Government will have added their direct contribution towards making this a ghost industrial estate. We cannot see an end to it, and without training facilities we will have no hope of taking advantage of whatever bright spots may occur in the future.

If the Government believe in a strong industry, and if they believe that workpeople have the adaptability and resilience to change their industrial circumstances, they will retain the annexe. If not, it will be because dogma has blinded them to the economic consequences of wasted potential and to the human tragedy. Therefore, I hope that even at this late stage the Government will think again about what I profoundly believe to have been a mistaken decision.