The
Committee consisted of the following
Members:
Abbott,
Ms Diane
(Hackney, North and Stoke Newington)
(Lab)
Beresford,
Sir Paul
(Mole Valley)
(Con)
Brennan,
Kevin
(Minister for Further Education, Skills, Apprenticeships and
Consumer Affairs)
Burt,
Lorely
(Solihull)
(LD)
Carswell,
Mr. Douglas
(Harwich)
(Con)
Hayes,
Mr. John
(South Holland and The Deepings)
(Con)
Heppell,
Mr. John
(Nottingham, East)
(Lab)
Jack,
Mr. Michael
(Fylde)
(Con)
Kaufman,
Sir Gerald
(Manchester, Gorton)
(Lab)
McGovern,
Mr. Jim
(Dundee, West)
(Lab)
Mitchell,
Mr. Austin
(Great Grimsby)
(Lab)
Morgan,
Julie
(Cardiff, North)
(Lab)
Owen,
Albert
(Ynys Môn)
(Lab)
Palmer,
Dr. Nick
(Broxtowe)
(Lab)
Thurso,
John
(Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)
(LD)
Wright,
Jeremy
(Rugby and Kenilworth)
(Con)
Eliot Barrass, Committee
Clerk
attended the
Committee
The following also
attended, pursuant to Standing Order No.
118(2):
Crabb,
Mr. Stephen
(Preseli Pembrokeshire)
(Con)
Fourth
Delegated Legislation
Committee
Tuesday 9
March
2010
[Mr.
David Amess in the
Chair]
Draft
Employee Study and Training (Qualifying Period of Employment)
Regulations
2010
10.30
am
The
Minister for Further Education, Skills, Apprenticeships and Consumer
Affairs (Kevin Brennan): I beg to
move,
That
the Committee has considered the draft Employee Study and Training
(Qualifying Period of Employment) Regulations
2010.
It
is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning,
Mr.
Amess.
The
draft regulations are provided for by section 63 of the Employment
Rights Act 1996, as amended by section 40 of the Apprenticeships,
Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009. From 6 April 2010, that section
will confer on eligible employees the right to ask their employer for
time to train. The change has widespread support, including from the
Confederation of British Industry and the Trades Union
Congress.
The
provision will initially apply to employees in organisations with 250
or more employees, and from April 2011 it will be extended to apply to
employees in organisations of all sizes. We are implementing the right
in two stages, so that small and medium-sized organisations have more
time to prepare to implement it. The draft regulations provide that
only individuals who have been in continuous employment with their
employer for at least 26 weeks are eligible to make a request for time
to train under the new procedures.
The decision to set that 26-week minimum has been
taken after careful reflection and primarily for two reasons. First,
we think it is right that employers should be required to consider requests
only from people with whom they have established a working relationship.
Secondly, when the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Bill
was being considered by the House, concern was expressed that such a
new right might cause further administrative burdens on organisations.
The Government understand that concern, which is why the right to request
time to train has been closely modelled on the flexible working arrangements,
including alignment with the point at which an employee can make requests
under those arrangements, so that entitlement accrues at the same point.
That will allow organisations to introduce the new arrangements with
a minimum of adjustment to their existing systems. It is also the case
that employers will be required to consider only one request from an
employee in any 12-month period.
It is worth
mentioning that the 26-week condition does not prevent or limit
employers from considering an employees training and
development needs at any other time, if that is what they wish to do.
The right is not one that is conferred on employees at the expense
of
their employers, but one that is intended to be of mutual interest.
Requests made under the right must explain how the employees
performance is expected to improve as a result of training and how it
will benefit the employers
business.
Mr.
Michael Jack (Fylde) (Con): Given that those whom the
right will benefit will be aged over 18 or 19, can the Minister tell
the Committee what discussions have been held with providers of further
education to ensure that sufficient additional capacity is to be
available, as I imagine that some of these people would be net extra in
terms of the volume of training currently
undertaken?
Kevin
Brennan: The measure does not require the employer or the
state necessarily to pay for the training. The employees themselves may
want to support their training by going to a private training provider
or an FE college to undertake the kind of training that is necessary.
Good employers may already have in-house provision and arrangements for
training that they would like their employees to follow. I therefore do
not think there is necessarily a capacity constraint on the system in
terms of supply of training that should cause us concern. No doubt, the
right hon. Gentleman has something in
mind.
Mr.
Jack: I am more than grateful to the Minister for giving
way a second time. Had he read the report of the Environment, Food and
Rural Affairs Committee, which I had the honour of chairing, on the
rural economy, he would have noted the point we made about post-19
training and the dearth of available capacity for those in employment
in a rural situation who wish to avail themselves of new skills to
enhance their ability to contribute to their existing business or even
to develop new opportunities. The basis of my question was whether
there is sufficient capacity to accommodate those who wish to take up
the right that the regulations would confer upon
them.
Kevin
Brennan: I should be delighted to read that Select
Committee report, which I am sure makes compelling reading. As Skills
Minister, I should be happy to look at that question in the context of
the rural economy. The Government have done a huge amount to support
in-work training for individuals through the Train to Gain programme,
which has played a significant role in helping people who are already
in work into training; it applies and is available equally to those
working in the rural economy. The regulations relate to the right to
request time for training to an employer and do not deal with the
supply of that training, which is something that I will be happy to
look at in the context to which the right hon. Gentleman, in his
eminent role as the Chair of that Select Committee, has drawn to my
attention.
Mr.
John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con): The
Minister is dealing with a point that I had intended to raise later in
my own exciting contribution to the debate. There are suspicions that
Train to Gain has a big deadweight cost. Will the Minister tell us the
Departments latest figure for the deadweight cost of Train to
Gain?
Kevin
Brennan: I hesitate to stray too wide of the regulations,
Mr. Amess, as I can see from the look on your face that you
would not tolerate that. I look forward to the hon. Gentlemans
contributionhis speeches are always exciting. I suspect that he
might be referring to the report by the Public Accounts Committee and
the National Audit Office on Train to Gain. The report said that the
programme was having a successful impact. It gave some disputed views
on be the possible level of so-called deadweight costs associated with
the Train to Gain because what employers say they would be prepared to
engage in to support training is not always the same as what happens in
practice. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government will soon
give our detailed responses to the figures contained in that
report.
Dr.
Nick Palmer (Broxtowe) (Lab): I apologise for missing the
first minutes of my hon. Friends remarks. Does he agree that an
application for time off for training would in practice need to be
serious enough that the applicant can identify a potential provider of
the training? If applicants merely said that they wanted time off to
look for a provider, the employer could reasonably say, Well,
come back when youve found one. In fact, we would be
creating an additional market to which we could reasonably expect
providers to
respond.
The
Chair: Order. Before the Minister replies, I should point
out that the discussion is going much wider than the statutory
instrument before the Committee I hope that the Minister will not be
tempted to go into detail on that
point.
Kevin
Brennan: I shall not be tempted to go into detail,
Mr. Amess, and will simply say
yes.
Mr.
Jack: On a point of order, Mr. Amess. The
slightly wider area that has been raised in the debate is dealt with in
the accompanying memorandum. Will you give us guidance on how wide we
can go, given that the skills pledge and Train to Gain, to name but two
relevant measures, are mentioned in the explanatory
memorandum?
The
Chair: I have been advised that any debate should be
specifically on the right to training, rather than any wider
matters.
Kevin
Brennan: Thank you for that wise guidance, Mr.
Amess.
The
commercial advantages that accrue to companies that undertake to
improve the skills of their work force have been established pretty
conclusively. We know also that many employers take the training needs
of their staff extremely seriously. As employees exercise the new
right, it will, we hope, encourage more employers to get more involved
in training, to involve their staff more in strengthening their
business and to derive the benefits. At the same time it will spur many
employees themselves to think about and take responsibility for their
own training needs. The draft regulations mark an important step toward
making sure that the future skills needs of employers and employees
alike are met effectively. I commend them to the
Committee.
10.39
pm
Mr.
Hayes: What a delight it is to serve under your
chairmanship, Mr. Amess, sagacious by its nature, as are all
your contributions to our
affairs.
The
draft regulations set out the length of time that an employee must have
been employed to qualify for an entitlement to training. The employee
would make an application under the new statutory right to request to
spend time undertaking study or training. Under the regulations, an
employee must have been employed for 26 weeks, which is the length of
time envisaged when Bill that became the Apprenticeship, Skills,
Children and Learning Act 2009, which introduces the new right, passed
through the Commons.
As the
Minister will know, I served on the Committee stage of that Bill. We
debated the matter at some length. We made it clear that Conservatives
support the right because we support the maxim that lies behind it: we
need a more highly trained and highly skilled work force if we are to
maintain our competitiveness. There are, however, aspects of the
statutory instrument and the accompanying notes into which I wish to
delve.
The CBI and
the TUC, as the Minister mentioned, support the provisions, although
the Institute of Directors raised concerns that deserve amplification.
Clause 39 of the Bill, which became section 40 of the Act, deals with
those matters. The measure is not uncontentious, because of the costs
associated with the provision of the right. That is why the IOD
commented as it did. I will come to the specific points it made in a
moment.
The
Time to Train consultation document published last
year, talks about giving employees
a right to a
serious conversation with their employer about their skills
development.
The Conservatives
agree with that right. Proper training is essential in any business. A
business that fails to train and develop its staff will not be
successful. Sometimes, however, an employees desire to be
trained is not recognised by the employer, or the employer does not
have in place an adequate training plan for staff. Most employers do,
but we know of occasions when employees feel frustrated because their
desire to develop their skills and to improve their competencies is not
recognised adequately within their
firm.
The
need to improve access to training unites the whole House. It is a
cross-party matter. The impact assessment states:
Over
a third of people with poor literacy and numeracy receive
benefits...compared with less than one in ten of those with better
skills.
We know that good
skills enable people to get jobs, to keep jobs and to improve their
status once they are in employment. As the explanatory notes state,
three options were considered in the consultation: doing nothing,
employing a voluntary approach and legislating for a right to time to
study. The IOD says:
the merits of
pursuing a voluntary approach were not adequately
explored.
Perhaps
the Minister could tell us why he thinks the IOD came to that
conclusion and to what degree the voluntary approach was
explored.
The
IOD
continues:
No
evidence was presented to support the implication that employers are
not open to training requests, deny employees the opportunity to
discuss training needs or do not treat requests seriously. Employees
already have the right to request trainingthere
is no bar to these conversations whatsoever... Skills are crucial
to the UKs future competitiveness, but so is the maintenance of
a low regulatory environment in which business and enterprise can
flourish. The introduction of a right to request training is not simply
the wrong solution, it adds to the pipeline of impending regulations
that will add to the administrative burden on employers. This is
undesirable in any case. In the middle of a recession, it is
spectacularly unhelpful.
What further
consideration has the Minister given to the impact of the provisions in
the light of current economic circumstances? When we first debated
them, the prevailing economic context was rather different. It is
important that the Minister avail the Committee of the further work
that, I have no doubt, he has demanded of his Department to measure the
impact of the provisions in current circumstances. It would be
unthinkable not to have commissioned that work and equally undesirable
not to make the refreshed modelling available to the Committee before
it makes any judgment on the statutory
instrument.
The
IOD goes on to point out that many businesses hold regular appraisals
for their employees, during which employees training needs are
discussed. It therefore suggests in its brief to
Governmentdebated during the passage of the 2009 Act to which
the regulations
referthat
Where
employers already offer documented annual appraisals which include
discussion of training needs, such provision will constitute grounds
for fulfilment of the right to request training obligations...Without
such a change those employers that already provide opportunities to
discuss training needs will become subject to repeat requests for
training: a burden that penalises those organisations that already have
existing provision for training
discussions.
Will
the Minister say how such employers will be dealt with under the order?
I mentioned at the outset that some businesses do not do as well as
they might in this respect, but most do. It would be nonsense to cut
across existing good practice: we want to build on that, rather than
contradict it or even produce something that is parallel. Neither an
overlap with existing good practice nor something that inhibits it is
desirable. Will the Minister say how that will be dealt with in the
light of the IODs remarks?
Data from
the Learning and Skills Council show that business invests about
£39 billion a year in training. The CBI survey found that 89 per
cent. of firms have a training and development planwhen I said
most I was understating the case somewhat. The CBI,
therefore, wishes the legislation to be clear
that,
Where
a firm already has good arrangements for discussing training in place
(eg annual performance reviews), training needs can be dealt with
through these existing arrangements without recourse to
legislation.
It
is important that the Minister assures businesses and members of the
Committee that the Government are sensitive to the perfectly proper
caveats articulated by the IOD and the
CBI.
Lorely
Burt (Solihull) (LD): I am following the hon.
Gentlemans argument closely. In the explanatory notes, the
Government make the point that, where a good
employer has all the right procedures in place and is conducting the
training that is improving productivity and making the business more
prosperous, nobody will want to invoke the procedure set out in the
regulations, because such needs are already provided for. Does the hon.
Gentleman agree that that should be the case? If it is not, would
applications under the regulations therefore be of concern and possibly
vexatious?