---

Further Education and Training Bill [HL]

This is intended to probe the new arrangements for compulsory levies. I understand that the clause is designed to remove an unnecessary technicality for the industrial training boards to prove a consensus has been reached that the levy should continue. Can the Minister explain why this adjustment has become necessary now, or, if it has always been apparent, why it has taken 13 years for it to be put right? An illogical and inefficient requirement may seem in isolation no more than a minor irritation, but it is the cumulative effect that imposes such a debilitating drag on our productivity and effectiveness. I hope that this clause will indeed streamline procedures to the benefit of everyone involved. I am glad to see that Clause 24 is also designed to reduce bureaucracy; the length of the levy durations going from one to three years is a sensible step. Perhaps I may take this opportunity to ask the Minister to confirm that these clauses are not indicative of any government intention to impose another compulsory levy order on business. Currently, Section 11 of the 1982 Act requires that where the amount of the levy payable by any employer will exceed a specified level, the Secretary of State must be satisfied that one of three conditions is met. The first condition is that the board has industry consensus for its levy proposals. However, the boards can only show this consensus by consulting organisations, such as employer federations and trade associations, that represent employers in their industries who are likely to be liable to pay the levy. The two current industrial training boards—the Construction Industry Training Board and the Engineering Construction Industry Training Board—have expressed concern that over the past 25 years more employers are not choosing to join these organisations. Assuming this continues, without changes to the current system there is a real risk that the ITBs will not be able to demonstrate support, despite the 2006 CITB survey of employers in the construction industry showing that 70 per cent of employers who are not federation members support the continuation of the levy. The current legislation recognises these organisations as the only means for the boards to demonstrate employer support for the levy proposals. We on these Benches do not believe that an increase in compulsory levies is the way forward—certainly not when questions remain about how much constructive business involvement there is in the courses that would have to be funded. Instead, I hope that the Government will look at ways to encourage voluntary levies. The UK film industry’s voluntary decision in August last year to confirm a levy on its membership shows what the possibilities are when an industry is properly involved in the training of its future employees.