| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Equally, many of us are agreed that the most satisfactory form of such work has training attached to it. Learning by doing through an apprenticeship, with its formal off-the-job training, is the most satisfactory outcome for these young people, as discussed in the debates on the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Layard, a couple of days ago. In our previous Committee session, we discussed the degree to which the Government are now trying to raise the profile of apprenticeships and increase the number of young people going into them. Over the next two or three years, we shall see a major push with the national apprenticeships service, which will be the subject of next year’s education and skills Bill. Nevertheless, there are fears that small and medium-sized employers, in particular, will pull out of providing jobs for young people because of the training obligations that this Bill will impose on them, unless—again, as discussed in the debates on the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Layard—there is some carrot to encourage them to pursue this route.
We support the general tenor of these amendments: we need a review of how the arrangements will work. On the other hand, to have a review within one year of their coming into force is much too soon. It will take some time for the Bill’s provisions to settle down. Nor is it necessary to have an annual review after three years. We want to see what effect the Bill’s provisions might have on the employment, particularly apprenticeships, of young people and how far the mix of all the proposals, including those in next year’s Bill, are effective. Some evaluation of the measures in the Bill, however, is sensible. It would be more satisfactory to have an evaluation of their effects after three or four years, especially the degree to which young people are taken into employment by small and medium-sized businesses.
Lord Adonis: The CBI said in its briefing for noble Lords before Second Reading that it supports the Government’s proposals to raise the participation age as a necessary step to improving attainment and reducing NEETs. It is not fair to say that employers at large are against the Government’s proposals. On the contrary, the CBI has supported the thrust of our policy. Of course, the CBI, like all employers, is concerned to see that we limit to the minimum our bureaucratic impositions. I note that the CBI’s response to the Bill highlighted its concerns that we engage effectively in raising basic educational standards, rightly highlighting literacy and numeracy. Ensuring that the education system attains higher standards and that more young people are employable and better able to take advantage of education and training beyond 16 is a big concern of the Government.
Amendment No. 115, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, would require a review of the Bill’s impact on employers and the employment prospects
3 July 2008 : Column 443
Employers ultimately stand to gain from this legislation by getting more skilled candidates who are better able to do their jobs. However, we will continue to assess the implications of our policy in conjunction with other government departments once these provisions come into force. The DCSF already produces a statistical first release each year that provides information on the youth labour market, broken down by various dimensions such as employment, unemployment and inactivity and the education and training status of young people. For the past three years there has also been a more comprehensive review of the youth labour market and its interaction with the education and training market as part of cross-government work with DWP and BERR.
There will be a range of analysis on the implementation of raising the participation age and on the youth labour market carried out by my department and other government departments as we move towards 2013 and beyond. We do not believe that it would be appropriate to set this out in primary legislation, although that would encompass many of the objectives outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Verma.
Amendment No. 117 is on consultation with employers. We absolutely agree that it will be crucial for employer groups to be fully consulted and involved as this policy moves towards implementation for it to be a success. We have given commitments to consult employer groups when developing guidance for employers to ensure that it is clear what is expected of them and that the guidance is easy to use and understand. As I said, we will continue to assess the implications of our policy for employers in conjunction with other government departments once these provisions come into force. My department and other government departments already produce information on the youth labour market, which will help us to consider how policy impacts on the labour market as we move towards 2013 and beyond, but we do not believe that it is necessary to set out requirements to keep these matters under review in primary legislation. I hope that with those assurances the noble Baroness will be satisfied that we will monitor the legislation’s impact in a way that she would wish.
5.15 pm
Baroness Verma: Of course, we all want to see wider participation but, as the noble Lord recognised, the CBI has concerns about the impact on business. SMEs will be put under great pressure when implementing the legislation, which is why I raised this concern. We want to minimise impacts on those businesses. I thank him for his response and, as always, I shall read
3 July 2008 : Column 444
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 22 [Financial penalty for contravention of section 21]:
Baroness Sharp of Guildford moved Amendment No. 115A:
The noble Baroness said: I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 116A and 116B. Clause 22(1) states:
this whole section is about employers—
which concerns providing information about whether young people are employed and carrying out the relevant training—
This probing amendment seeks to do two things. First, it is concerned with the exercise of discretion of a local authority. Clause 22(1) states “the authority may”. We wish to insert the words “if it so wishes”. That obviously means “may”, but we wished to explore the meaning of the subsection by means of a probing amendment. How far is a local authority going to be obliged to do it? It is not clear how they will find out if employers are not allowing access to training and education when they should be. Do we have to rely on the Connexions tracking service? Who will tell it when employers are not fulfilling their part? What happens if the employer ignores the penalty notice? Is the local authority required to take it to court?
This clause raises real problems for local authorities. By and large, they are anxious to encourage and help small and medium-sized businesses in their area, yet imposing a penalty on them for not doing what they are supposed to under the Bill could sour relations between local authorities and small and medium-sized businesses.
I understand that “may” means that the local authority has discretion. In particular, we have been talking about the impositions on small and medium-sized businesses, some of which may not realise the requirements. Perhaps in the first place it is a question of guidance. We need a bit more clarity about precisely who will do the tracking, who will tell small and medium-sized businesses that they are not doing their job and who will provide the information to local authorities. How far do local authorities have to pursue this? Clause 22(1) states,
Do they have to chase them up on that?
Somewhat similar issues arise over Amendment No. 116A, which is to Clause 25. Clause 25(2) states:
“The employer must, so far as is reasonable having regard to the matters mentioned in subsection (3), permit the person to participate in training or education in accordance with those appropriate arrangements”.
3 July 2008 : Column 445
that is, the duty to participate in education or training—
- “the circumstances of the employer’s business ... the effect of the person’s absence from work on the running of that business”.
Subsections (2) and (3) appear to give employers loopholes. They seem to imply that, in those circumstances, it is not reasonable if an employee spending one or two days a week on a training course is really going to inconvenience the employer. We need to be very clear on whether the employer has a duty. If those are circumstances where the employer does not have a duty, who adjudicates? How far does that affect local authorities’ duties under Clause 22 to impose a penalty?
There are also implications in Clause 27, which would be amended by Amendment No. 116B. We need much greater clarity for employers and local authorities as to how that should be evidenced to the local authority and what sort of adjudication process there should be if the employer calls into play the let-outs in Clause 25. Local authorities need to be able to ensure cross-border transfer of data. Given that the young person’s place of employment may well be in another host authority, whose responsibility is it? This reiterates all the data and logistics arguments that we have had on other clauses. I would be grateful if the Minister could provide more clarification on these parts of the Bill. I beg to move.
Baroness Verma: My Amendment No. 116 is in line with those tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp. It attempts to limit local authorities’ powers in relation to the employer. The duty created by Clause 2 falls on the relevant young person. Clause 10 obliges the local authority to promote the fulfilment of that duty. It seems clear that this is the core relationship in the enforcement of the Government’s plans. If the Bill is passed as it stands, there will need to be a huge increase in bureaucracy to deal with all the interweaving relationships it envisages. Subsection (4)(b) would seem to compel a local authority to establish a new duty to chase employers of young people with whom they have hitherto had no contact. Our amendment would restrict the duty of local authorities to follow up the young people who have been their responsibility. Perhaps the Minister could explain how he sees the provision working in practice. Will it not lead to a huge crossover of information by local authorities as they pass on details about young people who have found employment across the boundaries of local government areas? I hope that our amendment will be recognised as an attempt to make the workings of the Bill more efficient.
Lord Lucas: I join the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, in her puzzlement about how Clauses 22 and 23 are meant to work. What sources of information can a local authority draw on to reach the required conclusions? As far as I can see—perhaps there is a provision elsewhere—a local authority would need information from the Revenue to know who was employed. The basic fact it would have to establish is that someone is employed by a particular employer. When I have employed
3 July 2008 : Column 446
Lord Elton: I would like to clear my mind on a matter which we discussed previously about cross-border responsibilities. I recall the duty to ensure that a young person is complying with his duty under Clause 2. It refers to a young person belonging to a local authority area, which I understand means the local authority in whose area he lives. In Clause 22(4)(a) we find that we are dealing with two classes of young persons: one who belongs to, or lives, in an area; and one who does not live in that area but whose workplace is there. In other words, referring to my earlier illustration, a young person may live in the area of local authority A but work in that of local authority B. The duty of ensuring that information is provided about the arrangements for the education of that person falls on local authority B, but it is local authority A that needs the information for the purposes of ensuring that the young person is fulfilling his duty. We all want to know the arrangements for the transfer of the information from B to A and how they are expected to know which should have it.
5.30 pm
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: I, too, am getting more and more puzzled by the minute, reading about the duty imposed in these clauses. The CBI has made it clear that its main worry is that employers will be put off by these differing arrangements, particularly those under Clauses 21 and 22. A particular concern was well underlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp. Clause 22 states that,
But then there are specific exemptions that will almost certainly mean that it will not be reasonable to impose a penalty, whatever the reason. We need rather more clarity about what is proposed so that we do not end up with something that puts employers off being involved in this scheme.
Lord Adonis: I shall first deal with the content of the amendments and then with some of the questions raised. I can give absolute satisfaction to the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, in respect of her Amendments Nos. 115A and 116B. The word ‘may’ in Clauses 22
3 July 2008 : Column 447
Amendment No. 116 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, limits the circumstances in which local authorities could take action against an employer who was not fulfilling its duty. We believe it would introduce new bureaucracy, not reduce it. At the moment, where employers are not providing accredited training, they will be required to check that 16 to 17 year-olds who wish to work for more than 20 hours a week are participating in accredited education or training. If an employer was not fulfilling its duty, this amendment would limit the circumstances in which local authorities could take action against it only to those cases where the failure to check concerned employees resident within their area—we are getting into the A and B of the noble Lord, Lord Elton. Any failure by the employer to check in respect of new employees resident outside the local authority’s area would not be covered.
Although they could contact the employees’ local authorities and ask them to take action, if there were a large number of employees to whom the failure to check applied, that could be a very bureaucratic and time-consuming task for the local authorities. They would potentially need to contact a number of other authorities, having first ascertained in which authorities the young people were resident. The employer which would then need to respond to penalty notices issued by more than one authority—and in urban areas, that could potentially be several authorities. This amendment would unnecessarily complicate the system, which is designed to ensure that employers play their part in enabling and encouraging young people to participate in education or training.
I make two points on Amendment 116A, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, which would remove the reference to,
from the requirement on the employer to permit the young person to participate in any arrangements for education or training, should they want to change arrangements after they start work. First—this also deals with the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Howe—Clause 25 concerns only arrangements for education or training entered into after a young person has started the employment in question; they are to do with changes in training arrangements. For those who are being employed with training arrangements as part of their employment, the judgments will be made by employers as to what are the appropriate training arrangements at the point of employment. Those considerations come into effect only for changes to training arrangements made after the young person has started employment.
In respect of changes in arrangements made for education or training after a young person has started employment, it is right that a reasonable judgment should be reached on, first, the needs of the young person to fulfil the duty to participate; secondly, the circumstances of the business; and, thirdly, the effect of the young person's absence from work on the running of that business. The reference to,
3 July 2008 : Column 448
in that context implies that the employer should be reasonable in seeking to accommodate the young person's change of education or training arrangements with reference to the need for them to participate, alongside the circumstances of the business and the effect of the young person’s absence from work on the running of that business.
I should have thought that the House would want us to see that judgments were reasonable, taking account of the needs of employers, for precisely the reasons to do with the needs of employers that have been rehearsed throughout our debates.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, asked how a local authority would know that an employer was not doing its duty. He said that he thought that might be necessary to examine tax returns and Inland Revenue data of one kind or another. The three main ways that a local authority will have that information are, firstly, the returns that all schools make to Connexions at the end of year 11 on their subsequent plans. As a result of those returns, Connexions at the moment and local authorities in the future, know about proposed destinations, including employment destinations, of almost all people. That could give them the information that they need about whether a young person is engaged in sufficient education or training. The second source of information will be engagement with young people themselves who are not participating and discovering, for example, that they are employed full-time without training. The third is through contacting employers in the course of other functions, where they may discover the young people are working without participating in learning.
There are established routes, of which the most important is the fact that Connexions already knows the proposed destinations of almost all year-11 leavers, which would enable a local authority, where it regarded it as reasonable to do so, to take enforcement action against an employer.
On the question raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, as to who adjudicates the enforcement of Clause 25, the local education authority would issue an enforcement notice if the employer did not fulfil their Clause 25 duty. An enforcement notice may require the employer to vary the terms and conditions of employment, or permit the employee to take time off. I hope that that deals with the issues raised.
Lord Elton: I understand from what the Minister says that in what perhaps I may go on calling the out-of-area employer case, if someone lives in local authority area A but has employment touched by Clause 22 in area B, local authority B will learn from Connexions that contravention is taking place that may trigger Clause 22 action because Clause 21 duties are breached by the employer. This information will come from Connexions. From what I understand the Minister to say, when people working for Connexions in local authority A chase up what happens to school leavers, they will go into local authority B and say, “Did you realise that you have a factory down the road with three students under this scheme and they are not getting any training; they are getting only work experience?”.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |