---

Education and Skills Bill

Perhaps there is another lunch in the offing. Amendment No. 70 and new clause 13 deal with duties on employers. As you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, clause 21 places a duty on employers not to employ a person unless they have taken reasonable steps to check that the person has made ““appropriate arrangements”” to participate in relevant training or education. The explanatory notes state that if an employer does not fulfil his duty under clause 21, clause 22"““provides for a local education authority to serve a penalty notice on the employer and sets out the circumstances in which the notice can be given.””" We had an interesting debate in Committee about the burden these duties will place on employers. Particularly pertinent to that debate was the evidence offered by Professor Alison Wolf of King's college, London. She told the Committee during an early evidence session that in her estimation,"““the negative impact that the Bill will have, by effectively destroying the labour market of 16 and 17-year-olds, is enormously underestimated. That might be justified if one were confident that they were going to be doing something that was extremely valuable. Since one is not, and since we know that on-the-job experience is demonstrably extremely valuable to people, I think we have to take the impact on the job market extremely seriously. I think the effect will be very serious and almost totally negative.””" The cost of employer checking is much higher in the Institute of Directors' estimation than the Government assume. The IOD says:"““Government figures estimate that the process of employer checking is a single exchange of paper between an employee and employer which will take ten minutes””" and therefore cost approximately £16.8 million nationally. It continues:"““In reality this process will actually require a mixture of discussion, checking, altering of work rotas and/or addressing employees' needs.””" The IOD projects that it will cost more than double the figure suggested by the Government. The top estimate is that it could cost up to £68 million a year. The administrative burden also accounts for what it calculates to be a 32 per cent. hike in the Department's imposition on business. That is entirely contrary to the Government's policy, articulated by the Minister, of reducing the administrative burden on businesses by 25 per cent. The consequential unintended impact of the clause could be the employers employ only people who are older than the proposed compulsory age—precisely the argument of Professor Wolf and others. That problem may be especially profound in respect of small and medium-sized businesses. I suspect that the very large organisations, as so often with bureaucratic and administrative burdens, have the capacity to absorb the extra costs in a way that small businesses simply do not. For example, a small training business that employs a 17-year-old to work in numerous different jobs will spend less time on tasks such as marketing and business and more on burdensome administration. It is therefore important to review the impact of the clause after 12 months. We must find out whether the Ministry is right and the Government's estimates are borne out or whether the IOD and Professor Wolf are more accurate in their estimation of the detrimental effects of the employment of young people on the costs of businesses in respect of checking their new obligations. We debated these issues in earlier stages of our consideration. In response to these concerns, the Minister for Schools and Learners sought to reassure the Committee by saying that"““if employers want to take on a young person for more than 20 hours a week in a situation when they are not providing their own accredited training, the young person will need to provide evidence that they have made arrangements to attend training or education before they can start employment. The employer will simply need to check that before allowing the employment to begin. If he does not, he will be failing to meet his duty. Employers will not be required to do anything further, such as calling the college to check that the young person has enrolled there; nor would they have an ongoing duty to check that they were attending the course…employers would not have to check the number of hours”” ––[Official Report, Education and Skills Public Bill Committee, 19 February 2008; c. 556.]" Our amendment No. 70 would put those assurance on the face of the Bill. Once again, we merely attempt to improve the Bill as a responsible Opposition should, given that we agree with the basic premise that we want as many 16, 17 and 18-year-olds to be involved in education and training as possible. By building those assurances into the Bill, we hope to limit the damage that the legislation might otherwise do to youth employment and to costs faced by businesses, particularly small businesses. That is also why we tabled new clause 13, which requires the Government to consult the CBI and the IOD as well as the British Chambers of Commerce, the Federation of Small Businesses in order to assess the effect that duties on employers have had in 12 months time and similarly the impact of the provisions on the employment market for 16 and 17-year-olds. It is absolutely right that we take a raincheck by making a judgment about the Bill's effect over time. That is what a responsible Government would do; it is what a responsible Secretary of State would want; so, once again, I cannot imagine that the Government will not embrace these suggestions—these amendments and new clauses—with relish. In Committee there was some dispute about the length of time it will take for employers to check whether the young people they employ are fulfilling their duties under legislation. In particular, there was a difference between the burden estimated by the Minister and, as I said, the much greater burden estimated by the IOD. Amendment No. 88—an important amendment, in our estimation—would amend clause 54. My hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton spoke about the importance of getting young people the right careers advice when we debated the matter in Committee. You will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that it is my considered view that it is critical, if we are to engage young people, that they are given appropriate guidance, so that they understand the merits of the various training and education options that confront them. I think that that will be best done by an all-age careers service, such as the ones that exist in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The Government do not currently agree, although I suspect that they might come round to our view over time. Our amendment is designed to clarify the functions of local authorities under clause 54. At the end of the day, the success of efforts to increase participation will be dependent, as Conservative Members have argued repeatedly, on inspiring young people with a new thirst for learning. Well-directed advice and guidance will play a vital role in that. In Committee, the Minister did not, by contrast, inspire any confidence that the current deficiencies of the Connexions service will be corrected as the service is transferred to local authority control. We support the work that Connexions does with troubled young people. It does an excellent job for that minority of young people with particular difficulties, but it is a Jack-of-all-trades. It is expected to do a great deal—to be an expert on sexual health advice and drugs issues, as well as on careers. Surely a dedicated service, sitting alongside Connexions, would do the job better. Back in 1997, the Dearing report concluded that good careers advice and guidance was essential to expanding participation in higher education. Lord Dearing recommended that careers advice should be integrated to form a single ““lifelong guidance service””, but the Government decided to fragment rather than to integrate careers advice, and abolished the careers service for young people and replaced it with Connexions, which has many jobs to do, as I said. That lack of focus has surely been damaging. In the joint memorandum on the Bill, all the main organisations involved in career guidance, including the National Association of Connexions Partners and the Institute of Career Guidance, expressed the concern that the local authority duty under the Bill are ““not specific enough””. It went on to state:"““Effective participation requires assistance with choices. Such advice and guidance must be about choices not merely of which learning option to follow, but why””," and that there must be clear progression beyond the age of 18"““into employment (either directly or via further training or higher education). The key is that choices about the relationship between learning and work—i.e. about career—should drive participation in learning.””" This business of high-quality advice and guidance is surely critical to the success of the Bill. Our amendment would place a clear duty on local authorities to provide such services, and it does so by placing that duty on the face of the Bill. Incredibly, there is no mention of careers advice in any of the four core functions of Connexions specified by the Minister in a letter to the Committee dated 8 May. Rather, it states that the information, advice and guidance given to young people should help them make"““positive choices about learning, raise their aspirations, equip them to make safe and informed health and lifestyle choices.””" It addresses none of the concerns raised by careers professionals. If the Minister agrees that effective participation is dependent on proper advice and guidance, he should once again take the sound advice of careers professionals, listen to the people at the sharp end, and support our amendment. I could speak at length about some of the other new clauses and amendments in this immense group. I could discuss, for instance, issues relating to the restricting of information and the right of students to own information, information-sharing, and sensitive data not being used to force participation. There are also real concerns about whether the current methods of storing information are fit for purpose—concerns that were raised with us during our evidence sessions by the Association of Colleges, which felt that the current Connexions database was not the best tool and was not adequate to perform the job that we expected of it under the new legislation. Those matters are important, but as time forbids me to explore them in the depth that the House deserves, I shall restrict myself to dealing with amendment No. 72. The amendment would enable clause 39 to define a ““reasonable excuse”” for non-participation. It would include"““circumstances in which a young person—""(a) is homeless,""(b) has health problems, including temporary illness, long term disability or ongoing mental health issues,""(c) has addiction problems,""(d) has secured a place on a course which does not start until the following month or the following term,""(e) is recovering from giving birth””." The background to the amendment is a discussion of the meaning of ““reasonable excuse”” during the Committee's evidence session on Tuesday 29 January. The Minister undertook to write to the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) outlining in more detail what would constitute a reasonable excuse under the Bill. Our amendment reiterates the circumstances outlined by the Minister in his letter of 1 February. We accept that, as the Minister said in his letter, the list is not exhaustive, but given that non-compliance with the Bill could ultimately result in a fine and a criminal record, we do not think it good enough for what is meant by ““reasonable excuse”” to be specified merely by guidance to local authorities. We think that it should be stated in the Bill, so that there is more clarity and confidence in relation to the enforcement process. Our desire throughout has been to protect the interests of young people, particularly vulnerable young people. The Minister said in his letter that it would be up to local authorities to interpret the concept of a reasonable excuse. There is a real danger of inconsistency between local authorities, and a consequent danger that the enforcement process will vary according to where people live. That would surely not be in line with the Government's ambitions and policies. I will end my speech now, so that the Secretary of State has time to respond. He will know that many of the organisations that have expressed anxieties about the Bill support our new clauses and amendments. Organisations such as Rainer, the Prince's Trust and Barnardo's seek to amend the Bill in precisely the way that I have described. In that spirit, I expect the Secretary of State, with alacrity and with some style, to accept the arguments that I have advanced.