Clause
5
Full-time
occupation
Mr.
Gibb:
I beg to move amendment No. 10, in
clause 5, page 2, line 41, leave
out ‘20’ and insert
‘16’.
The
clause defines the meaning of the phrase “full-time
occupation” as at least 20 hours a week. My first question to
the Minister is: on what basis was that figure derived? The
Government’s consultation paper states that no specific
questions were designed to consult on whether 20 hours per week should
constitute full-time employment, nor was there even a general question
on views of where the threshold should lie. The consultation sheet
simply asked whether those who are not in employment for a significant
part of the week should participate in full-time education. It would be
helpful to know why there was no consultation on the number of hours
that constitute full-time work for the purposes of the
legislation—why not, for example, 16 hours and 35
hours?
There was
specific consultation on whether full-time education should be set at
16 hours per week. Why should 16 hours per week constitute full-time
education, when 19 hours per week would not be regarded as full-time
employment? Why consult specifically on the definition of full-time
education, but not full-time employment? The issue is of real concern
to the Association of School and College Leaders, which said the
following in its briefing document on the
Bill:
“We are
concerned that to be ‘relevant’ and therefore covered by
the Bill, employment must be for 20 or more hours per week. We do not
think that it is right that employers should be able to employ people
on half-time contracts and be exempt from the duty to take account of
their training needs.”
7. 15
pm
Martin Ward,
the deputy general secretary of the Association of School and College
Leaders, said in his evidence to the Committee
that
“the figure that we
were looking at was more like 16”—
that is, hours of
work
—“than
20.”
He went on to
add:
“What
concerned us about a figure as high as 20 was that the not-so-good
employers...might subvert the system by offering a lot of 19.5
hour contracts.”——[Official Report, Education
and Skills Public Bill Committee, 22 January 2008; c. 58,
Q148.]
The amendment would change the figure from
20 hours to 16 in order to flush out from the Government the reasoning
behind the figure of 20, which is a slightly odd one to select, given
the prevalence of 16 elsewhere in legislation, particularly social
security legislation. For example, 16 hours is the threshold for the
working tax credit, so a 17-year-old could, by working 16 hours,
qualify for such a credit but not qualify as working full-time for the
purposes of the Bill, and therefore find themselves subject to pressure
to enter full-time education or training.
Debate
adjourned.—[Mr. Michael
Foster.]
Adjourned
accordingly at sixteen minutes past Seven o’clock till Thursday
7 January at Nine
o’clock.
| 
