| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
During the debate in May, concerns were expressed in relation to the position of British citizens living in Ireland who may wish to enter into regulated transactions with Northern Ireland political parties. I believe that my noble friend Lord Rooker promised to write to noble Lords, but it appears that the letter has not got through, so I will try to touch on the questions that were raised. In particular, the noble Lord, Lord Laird, asked about those who live in the border areas and consider themselves to be British and not Irish. I would not wish to presume to know the status or nationality of the individuals to whom he refers. Nevertheless, the legislation is clear: they can donate and take part in regulated transactions, which include loans, to a Northern Ireland political party if they are on a UK electoral register or if they are Irish citizens and can satisfy the conditions relating to verification. I reiterate that British citizens, whether they live in Ireland or elsewhere in the world, must be registered on a UK electoral register in order to enter into a regulated transaction with a political party in the
25 Jun 2008 : Column 1509
The noble Lord, Lord Laird, raised a similar point in relation to organisations based in Ireland. Again, I would not wish to presume on the status of these organisations, but would draw his attention to paragraph 4 of the order which, among other things, refers to an “authorised participant” as being a body,
- “which keeps an office in Ireland or Northern Ireland, being an office from which the carrying on of one or more of its principal activities is directed”,
- “any unincorporated association of two or more persons which does not fall within any of the preceding paragraphs, but which carries on business or other activities wholly or mainly in Ireland”.
That seems to be a fairly broad definition that it will be possible for the organisations to which he referred to fall under.
The broad principles regulating loans to Northern Ireland political parties were approved by the House last month. This order simply sets out the practical details required to give full effect to those principles, and as I mentioned earlier, the provisions contained in the order simply mirror those already in place for regulating donations to Northern Ireland political parties. This order will ensure the successful extension of the political donations scheme to cover loans, and in so doing, represents an important step forward in increasing accountability in the funding of political parties in Northern Ireland. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 16 May be approved. 21st Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.—(Lord Tunnicliffe.)
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord once again for bringing forward the order in a clear way, and in particular for paying attention to the loose ends, if I can put it like that, left over from our debate in May which the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, has not had time to answer in detail. I am sure that he would have done so tonight had he been here. We had a lengthy debate in May and a number of serious queries were raised, not because of the proposals but to make sure that the detail and the control mechanisms were in place.
I am by no means an expert in detailed administration, but having looked through the order before us, it is clear that the Government and the department have taken a lot of trouble to try to cover every possibility. It is one thing in England, Wales and Scotland to make this work, but when you have two countries with a border between them, something the other three countries of the United Kingdom do not have, it becomes more difficult. I am sure that, in principle, this will work. It will be positive in funding parties and getting them adequate access to each other across the border, which I believe is right. I hope that one day we will have an Irish party, Fianna Fáil perhaps, organised in Northern Ireland. The Conservative Party is already there. One day, perhaps even the Labour Party will
25 Jun 2008 : Column 1510
Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, we on these Benches fully support the order and think it is absolutely right that loans be subject to the same protocols as donations.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, I rise now to ask the question which, carelessly and prematurely, I was on the point of asking a little while ago. The first line on page 3 of the order refers to bodies,
I am a bear of very little brain, but I do not know what “or another member State” means.
Lord Tunnicliffe: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, for his warm welcome of this order. We have worked very hard at getting the right balance here. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Smith, for his support. “Another member State” is a member of the EEA, which is the European Union plus Switzerland and one other Scandinavian state. The crucial drafting, which is to stop brass-plate type institutions evading all these regulations, is the second part of Article 4, which refers to bodies,
- “which keep an office in Ireland or Northern Ireland being an office from which the carrying on of one or more of its principal activities is directed”.
The prescribed bodies are, among others:
The order envisages a company that is properly registered in Northern Ireland. However, whatever the other subtleties of incorporation can mean within the EU situation, both conditions must be met, not one or the other. I withdraw my previous statement: “another member State” refers to members of the European Union, not the EEA. I hope that that covers the point.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, the momentary hesitation on the government Front Bench as to whether the phrase “or another member State” refers to the EU or the EU plus the EEA causes me to question again whether those words are by themselves enough. Unless it is a term of art, familiar to all constitutional lawyers, it seems curious that what “another” alludes to has not been described in the text.
Lord Tunnicliffe: My Lords, I am in between recovering from three years on the Merits Committee and trying to learn in two days about Northern Ireland. I apologise for my hesitancy. It is apparently defined in the Interpretation Act 1978. It is regularly used in statutory instruments. Its definition is crystal clear. I apologise for getting it slightly wrong.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
25 Jun 2008 : Column 1511
Education and Skills Bill
8.36 pm
House again in Committee on Clause 1.
[Amendments Nos. 5 to 8 not moved.]
Clause 2 [Duty to participate in education or training]:
[Amendments Nos. 9 to 13 not moved.]
Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 14:
The noble Lord said: My purpose in tabling the amendment was merely to have another opportunity to listen to the Minister, this time explaining to me in slightly greater depth than I understand why the period of 20 hours has been chosen, why there is an insistence on full-time education rather than a mix with part-time employment, and where he would put Alan Sugar and his van full of car aerials. In general, I look for enlightenment. I beg to move.
Baroness Morris of Bolton: I endorse everything that my noble friend said. We also have amendments in this group: Amendment No. 29 is a probing amendment on the issue of full-time occupation. The clause defines full-time occupation as “at least 20 hours” a week. 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 seeking views on 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 constituting full-time work for the purposes of the legislation. Why could it not, for example, be 16 or 35 hours?
There was specific consultation on whether full-time education should be set at 16 hours per week. Why, then, should 16 hours constitute full-time education when 19 hours per week would not be regarded as full-time employment? Why consult specifically on defining full-time education but not full-time employment? It seems that while those in full-time education are able to undertake appropriate learning opportunities that do not necessarily lead to a qualification, those in a full-time occupation must undergo relevant training or education—in other words, leading to a relevant qualification or course of study that is of use to the employer but not necessarily of interest to the young person.
We wish to make it possible for people to choose what training or education to take; after all, they may well have an eye on their prospects, not just their current employment. I am sure that all of the Committee can agree that that sentiment sits well with the aims of the Bill. The use of “relevant” means that the study must lead to accredited qualifications. The Government seem to have a prejudice against non-accredited learning,
25 Jun 2008 : Column 1512
My parents had a small cake shop in Farnworth, in the north-west. The young people they employed received first-class training, but it was not accredited. When my parents could, they allowed the young people to go off on day release; when they came back they spent a great deal of time trying to put right the college learning which had no practical application when they were working. Our amendments, therefore, are designed to assist the Government by improving the Bill to take account of in-house training.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: We have some sympathy with these amendments, particularly Amendments Nos. 30, 32, 34 and 113. We share the desire of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for more clarification on what constitutes full-time and part-time—for example, why the figure is 20 hours—and that sort of thing. The CBI and the Institute of Directors made it quite clear, in the briefing that we received from them, that in-house training does not necessarily have to lead to accredited qualifications but often involves much learning of skills. They are somewhat wary of all learning having to be accredited. We are getting into a culture of accreditation. As the Minister may know, there is quite a lot of criticism of Train to Gain, where, in many cases, the problem is that employers are doing no more then they did before but are bringing in the assessors so that they can accredit their people with an NVQ level 1 or 2 and claim money from Train to Gain.
In Alison Wolf’s essay on this issue she emphasises the fact that these days many 16 and 17 year-olds—the top 10 per cent of the 25 per cent who are not participating in education post-16—may not receive formal training but are learning many useful skills. Her great fear is that the duties imposed on employers under the Bill will cause them to shy away from employing young people of 16 and 17, so that these young people will no longer acquire the “learning by doing” skills that they had gained from such jobs.
Having talked with the noble Lord, Lord Layard, who is not in his place at the moment, I think that the really important route to try to develop is apprenticeship—we are probably all agreed on that. Yet if apprenticeships are not available, the danger is that those young people who do not go into jobs will be on what are termed programme apprenticeships in colleges. Those are fine: you train off the job and, if you are lucky, you get a little work experience. However, the employers do not find programme apprenticeships at all satisfactory, and we know that very well from all the information received from them. Alison Wolf is really worried that the young people who had been getting quite useful “learning by doing” training will now get a really unsatisfactory second best.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: It is an odd grouping of amendments which brings together the question asked by my noble friend Lord Lucas about how many hours constitute part-time or full-time and the issue of accreditation. It is worrying that accreditation is being
25 Jun 2008 : Column 1513
I chair the quality and standards committee for the City and Guilds of London Institute. We were recently shown statistics for failure rates in different qualifications. The figure for the plumbing qualifications was particularly interesting. There is quite a high failure rate. We asked for more detail on why there was such a high failure rate and were shown a spread of the different items of the course and what was failed. While the plumbers were doing wonderfully on their practical plumbing and could fix your boiler, put in a central system or fix your leaking tap, they could not write essays. Because the course is accredited and leads to a qualification, the excellent academic standards that come into play as soon as one starts accrediting require that they have to be able to write. I think that most noble Lords in this Committee would agree that, when you call for a plumber when your heating is not working, you do not mind whether he can write an essay about your plumbing; you would quite like him just to fix your boiler.
8.45 pm
A distinction should be made between practical, on-the-job training and accredited courses, which inevitably involve a test and an exam where educational standards come into play and people have to answer questions, write essays and tick boxes. I hope that the Government will be a little flexible—we are asking for another area of flexibility—in allowing for good on-the-job training that does not include an accredited qualification with all that that brings in its train alongside their quite proper wish for more accredited qualifications.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Children, Schools and Families (Lord Adonis): I am glad to have the opportunity to spell out more fully our position on accreditation, because, as ever, it is too complex to be reduced to a few sentences, as I was trying to do in our earlier debates. I shall then deal with the threshold between part-time and full-time.
All part-time education and training needs to be accredited to qualify under the Bill, because it is important that young people gain qualifications to help them progress in their career. It is important, too, as a guarantor of quality, because employers could otherwise offer any education and training regardless of the quality, and it would count without there being any external check on the process. However, full-time education and training under Clause 4 does not have to lead towards an accredited qualification, because we wish to allow for other categories of education that might be provided, including home education, independent school education—as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, keeps reminding me, they do not have to offer just accredited qualifications—and non-formal education. In practice, the Learning and Skills Council funds mainly accredited learning, but other forms of learning may be publicly funded through other local authority funding streams. That may include, for example, the parenting classes about which we spoke earlier. It is possible for parenting classes funded by local authorities not to be accredited but still to attract local authority
25 Jun 2008 : Column 1514
Why have we set the bar at 20 hours? More than 90 per cent of young people who say that they work full time as their main activity work for more than 20 hours. Some 93 per cent of those who say that they work part time while studying full time work for 20 hours or fewer. Taking those two factors into account, 20 hours seemed to us the right threshold. By contrast, if we had drawn the line for full-time work at 16 hours, as suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, it would catch around 15 per cent of those who study full time and work part time. So it was on the basis of what we regarded as a reasonable assessment of the impact of existing patterns of working and studying that we introduced the threshold that we did. I should mention that, with one day a week in training, work plus training would occupy most of a young person’s week—around four days—at the 20-hour threshold. If the threshold was much lower than this, the young person would not be occupied for most of their time and it would reduce the potential benefits. We have taken all those factors into account when deciding that the 20 hours was an appropriate threshold.
Lord Lucas: I am grateful to the Minister for that elucidation. He is allowing himself to pursue a structure that is too rigid and will not really adapt itself to what individuals need. But that is part of a larger problem. For now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Walmsley moved Amendment No. 15:
( ) have signed, and be participating in, a learning and support contract entered into with a local education authority to provide personalised support leading to future participation in accredited education or training.”The noble Baroness said: I shall speak also to Amendment No. 50 in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Sharp of Guildford. I will also make a brief comment about the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, Amendment No. 56, which is in the same group.
Our two amendments would widen the options that the local authority has to offer a young person by adding a learning and support contract to the opportunities that the young person can take up in order to fulfil the duty to participate. These learning and support contracts are very important. They contain a tailored package of support, as well as specifying the education element. This should enable a young person to take advantage of the right that we all in this Committee want them to have: the opportunity to develop their learning and skills. These contracts also involve their parents or carers. This is important, since the parents or carers can keep a young person motivated. Motivation, as we all know, is all, if you want to succeed.
A learning and support contract does not only have those two important elements; it is a two-way street as regards commitment, concerning those who participate
25 Jun 2008 : Column 1515
Such a contract should always be tried before any enforcement procedure is commenced. We will debate that issue later in our discussions. It is the sort of intervention that should be commenced as early as possible—not just when enforcement triggers it—and before attitudes are entrenched. It would help to rebalance a bill which leans far too far in the direction of compulsion and penalties. No amount of papers entitled, Raising Expectations, can correct that.
The Bill contains any number of “reasonable excuses” for not participating. These could be excuses for the less committed local authority to get out of providing the support necessary. We do not really want to have to rely on those; they could mean that a lot of young people not participating could easily do so, given the right package of help from the local authority.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |