Unemployment: Over-50s

Lord Young of Norwood Green Excerpts

Tuesday 9th March 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

I am pleased to be able to confirm to the House that, where an employee is on furlough, they can take part in training, volunteer for another employer or organisation or work for another employer if contractually allowed.

[Lord Young of Norwood Green (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, what efforts are the job coaches and service centres making to assess the current skills of over-50s and to ensure the necessary retraining to enable re-employment? I hope that the House will recognise the enormous efforts being made by job coaches and service centre staff. The system might need some improvement, so the Kickstart idea is a good example.

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

I think that I have already covered the issue of reskilling and training. The key to getting people back to work is to have the work coach make an assessment and build an action plan that gets people back to work, along with the efforts that we are making to influence employers. I am grateful to the noble Lord, as will be the whole DWP staff, for his endorsement of their excellent and committed work.

Universal Credit

Lord Young of Norwood Green Excerpts

Thursday 12th November 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

I understand the noble Earl’s point, but as I said, we have put out a raft of additional support. I could read it out, but it would take the whole 10 minutes, if not longer. I understand his point, but the Government are taking action to make life better for people.

[Lord Young of Norwood Green (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for recognising the important contribution of the £20 a week increase. Does she also recognise that the increase in housing benefit rates has made a significant contribution to reducing poverty? Does she agree that we should recognise the contribution made by the key workers in the DWP? The case managers, job coaches and all the staff have coped with a 600% increase in universal credit claimants since March, of which there are now 8.2 million. We should also recognise the contribution of its chief executive, Neil Couling, who has given dedicated and inspirational leadership to ensure a successful digitalisation programme which enabled the DWP to cope with the massive increase in claimants.

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

The noble Lord acknowledges the significant increase in universal credit claimants, and I understand the importance of the issues he raises. He also acknowledged the key people at the DWP, not least Neil Couling and the whole executive team that works with him, who have done a sterling job and will continue to do so.

Benefits: Reductions

Lord Young of Norwood Green Excerpts

Thursday 1st November 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Norwood Green (Lab)]

My Lords, I too congratulate my noble friend Lord Bassam on introducing this debate, and I echo the tributes that have been paid to Lady Hollis.

I want to focus on a couple of aspects, and start by quoting from the Times on 15 October. Paul Johnson is director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies—not exactly a left-wing organisation, so a reputable source, I trust the Minister will agree. He focused on the allegation that universal credit is a poll tax moment. At the end of the article, he says:

“The same point pertains here as to the recent two-child limit in means-tested benefits. The idea is that nobody will lose in cash terms as they transition on to universal credit They will be protected. Again, only new claimants, or people who have a change in circumstances, will lose relative to the existing system.


Whatever one thinks of the long-term effects, that doesn’t look like it will create a poll tax moment What might create such a moment, though, is the third issue—the administration of the system. That is already creating some problems when new claimants move on to universal credit. There are all sorts of risks here, but perhaps the biggest are likely to arise as up to two million families presently receiving tax credits and benefits transfer across to the new system”.


I trust the Minister is listening. The article continues:

“Under current proposals, they will actively have to reapply. The transfer won’t happen automatically. If they don’t reapply, they will lose their benefits, including any transitional protection. The scope for large numbers of people to end up losing benefits in unintended ways is clearly huge. That is what should be keeping ministers awake at night.

It is hard to overstate just how big a change universal credit will be. It will create millions of winners and losers. Any poll tax moment, though, is most likely to occur for administrative reasons. The first priority for avoiding such a moment should be to ensure that existing claimants transfer as easily and seamlessly as possible”.


That is what I want to focus on, because it is fundamentally important. I am not one of those who is calling for the scrappage of universal credit; to be honest, that way lies madness. I do not believe that going back to the previous system would be feasible. I could not help reflecting that, if there was someone else who I would have liked to be in the Chamber, it would be the noble Lord, Lord Freud—who, after all, was one of the main architects. It would have been interesting to hear his reflections.

Like many people, I welcome the cash injections in the Budget: I have to say that they were necessary. Not only Members on this side of the House, but those on the other side, were saying how much they were needed and that the Osborne formula had gone too far. I would like confirmation from the Minister about the waiting time—it was once six weeks, was reduced to five weeks and now is going to be reduced to three weeks. I am sure I read about that somewhere, but could not find it.

Politics is about the language of priorities and choices. I cannot help reflecting on something in the Budget that is important. Raising the tax threshold is good; it is hard to argue against that. It was interesting to hear the analysis, which has been referred to by a number of noble Lords today—namely, that it benefits more people at the middle and top end, and those at the lowest end benefit the least. If the Government really want to help those people—and I think that they probably do; I am going to give them the benefit of the doubt, although I am probably out of keeping with many of my comrades here—then the best thing they could have done was to raise the national insurance threshold. That would have had a bigger impact.

I will turn briefly to the Library briefing—another superb document. Sometimes they are so weighty that they overwhelm you, but with this one they have obviously discovered that less is more, and it is really helpful. The briefing quotes from a report by the Resolution Foundation, which points out that once universal credit is in a,

“steady state we expect working families to be, on average, £625 a year worse off”.

The report continues that this means that, overall, universal credit is set to be,

“almost £3 billion a year less generous than the tax credit system it replaces”.

I am sure that the Resolution Foundation is not making that up, and it is a concern.

To return to the question of transition, the noble Baroness, Lady Jenkin, said at the beginning of the debate—and it was not a throwaway remark—that DWP staff need more training. They might do; I am sure that they would benefit, but that is not the problem and the challenge that they face. I happen to be in contact with somebody who actually works for the DWP, and I recommend that the Minister goes and talks to the staff—not the job coaches, but the staff who are dealing with claimants on a day-to-day basis. They are under enormous pressure. They want to do the best they can; they are dealing with complex cases, but often find that they have to give a small amount of time to those cases because they have to go on and deal with the others. It is a really serious problem: people sometimes literally break down in tears because of the pressures they face. I could not help smiling when I heard recently that a regional manager came round and thanked them. That was it. What the regional manager ought to have done was sit down with them for half an hour and ask them what challenges they were facing.

The most important thing that the Government need to do, if they do not want universal credit to be seen as universal discredit, is to ensure that that transition takes place in an orderly way, so that people feel confident about the change to universal credit. So much of the analysis by the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, who is not now in the Chamber, was ideological and unfair, in my view; but that is a debate for another time. He said that there was going to be some kind of a pause. There should be, because you need to give time to ensure that the DWP staff are ready to cope with that enormous workload. I would welcome the Minister’s response to that point.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Buscombe) (Con)]

My Lords, I join all other noble Lords in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, on securing this debate. It gives me great pleasure to respond. Once again, I pay tribute to the life of Lady Hollis. I have already said once before that she and I were opponents back at the beginning of this century. That said, I will never forget the hug that she gave me when I was appointed to this position. The noble Lord suggested an annual debate in her honour. No doubt he will take that matter up with the usual channels.

This is a Government who support families. Our welfare system supports those who are vulnerable and helps people into work. Let me dispel the idea that we are not providing financial support for families: this country spends more than any other developed nation on family benefits. Through our employment success—with 1,000 more people in work on average each and every day since 2010—we are creating a great working nation. Let us not forget that, under the last Labour Government, the number of households in which no one had ever worked almost doubled. Every time Labour is in government, it leaves office with unemployment higher than when it entered office, so ripping the heart out of families across the country, denying people the dignity of work, and removing aspiration from a generation. This was a consequence of the Labour Party’s mismanagement of the economy and its perverse welfare system. It was a system that, through a complicated mix of benefits and tax credits, created effective tax rates of more than 90% for some and cliff edges at 16, 24 and 30 hours, thereby discouraging further work and punishing families for doing the right thing. This was a broken system that did not support families: rather it trapped people out of work.

As noble Lords will know, under the last Labour Government, 1.4 million people spent the best part of Labour’s last decade on unemployment benefits. This resulted in the benefits bill soaring by £84 billion in today’s prices, a rise of more than 60% in real terms. As my noble friend Lady Jenkin said, vast sums of money were being spent, while people were being locked into a life on welfare. This was why we had to introduce a benefits freeze. The system was simply not sustainable. We even had people claiming more than £100,000 a year in housing benefit. This meant that households were contributing £8,350 a year—up by nearly £3,000 from 1997-98—to fund the welfare system. How does that help families and how is it fair?

In stark contrast, this Government have helped more than 3.3 million more people into work since 2010. On average, that is 1,000 more jobs each and every day, and the vast majority of these are full-time, permanent roles. I want to stress that: they are not zero-hours contracts and they are not part-time. We have created more new jobs in the UK since 2010 than France, Spain, Ireland, Netherlands, Austria, and Norway combined. Youth unemployment has more than halved under this Government. There are now 964,000 fewer workless households in the UK since 2010, close to a record low. This means there are 637,000 fewer children growing up in workless households since 2010. This is the best support that we can provide for families, because—I say this to the noble Lord, Lord Bassam—work is the best route out of poverty, including getting people out of in-work poverty. Children in households where all adults are working are around five times less likely to be in poverty than those in workless households. Compared with 2010, there are now 1 million fewer people in absolute poverty, including 500,000 fewer working-age adults and 300,000 fewer children.

Work sets children up for the future. Children who grow up in workless families are more likely to be workless themselves as adults, compared to children with working parents. I say to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth and the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, that it is a tough choice, but the same considerations and choices faced by people not in receipt of benefits should also be faced by those claiming benefits—those able to work.

We are not complacent and I do not accept any reference to us being a department in denial. I find that a shocking statement, referencing the 83,000 people who work tirelessly in the Department for Work and Pensions. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Young of Norwood Green, for his reference to those brilliant people. We do all we can to support them, and we must do more, because they do an amazing job throughout the United Kingdom. While there are almost a million fewer workless households than in 2010, there are still 3 million where no member of the household is in employment. We want to help those people.

The two-child policy has been referenced as a reason why many people are in poverty. That policy was brought in only in April 2017. It is important to stress that it is not retrospective and that we have child benefit, which continues for each and every child. While there are almost 1 million fewer workless households, the department has great ambitions to return many more people to work, such as our target to increase the number of disabled people in work by 1 million. It can be done. We currently have more than 800,000 job vacancies across the country. These great ambitions are the reason why we created universal credit, in recognition that the punitive legacy system took opportunities from families, creating—I repeat that extraordinary quote from my noble friend Lord Farmer’s brilliant speech—

“a shadowland of complete welfare dependency, with some saying, ‘I cannot afford to work’”.

Instead, we want to give people the dignity of work and we have changed the welfare system to give people a hand up rather than a handout.

As we have heard, universal credit is an up-to-date system that replaces six benefits with one monthly payment and ensures that work pays. The taper system means that people can take on more hours and part-time seasonal work, as the benefit adjusts to their earnings. There are no cliff edges. I am proud that work transforms lives, because it helps to improve the well-being of families—their health, and their children’s prospects and preparation for later life. Of course, it improves their chances of building a pension through, for example, automatic enrolment. We will help an extra 200,000 people in work and empower people to work an extra 113 million hours a week. Those in work under universal credit earn on average £600 extra a year. That is how we will deliver a sustainable welfare system.

Make no mistake, we are supporting families that need support. This country spends more than any other developed nation on family benefits. Through universal credit, around 1 million disabled households will receive an extra £110 on average per month through more generous support. Universal credit pays up to 85% of childcare costs, compared with 70% under legacy, regardless of the number of hours worked, unlike tax credits. This provides the extra cash boost to pay for childcare and allows people to work extra hours.

Working families in England can also claim up to 30 hours’ free childcare for three and four year-olds from support from other government departments. This has helped drive profound cultural change in this country, with 1.6 million more women in work since 2010. As a working mother, I know so well that most women really want to work and stay connected. I agree with my noble friend Lady Pidding that universal credit unlocks work opportunities for everyone, unlike the legacy system—and, yes, we will not stop the rollout of UC.

We know that work does not just pay financially—it does much more than that, it provides people with a sense of purpose, identity and personal achievement—all those things that we in your Lordships’ House experience and perhaps sometimes take for granted in our own lives. It also helps with physical and mental health as it tackles loneliness head-on. It allows people to develop their skills and transform their lives. That is what this Conservative Government are doing, and we are doing it through universal credit.

We will make a success of universal credit by being an open department that listens. In response to my noble friend Lord Sherbourne, who is so right, it is important that we listen. We are travelling the country to speak to experts, workers and those on UC to understand where the system can be improved. That is quite right. As the noble Lord, Lord Young, said, we need to keep listening and travelling the country. This year, my ministerial colleagues and I have met with over 500 colleagues, charities and stakeholders; visited over 50 jobcentres, service centres and pension centres; tabled 35 Written Ministerial Statements and appeared 15 times in front of Select Committees.

As a Government we have listened to concerns and responded. This week, the Chancellor announced significant changes in the Budget that will make a huge difference to working families and those moving to universal credit. For those in work, we have put an extra £1.7 billion a year into work allowances, increasing the amount that hard-working families can earn before universal credit is tapered away. This provides 2.4 million families with an extra £630 a year. This is a pay rise of 7% or more for these workers, showing that hard work pays off. This measure will increase the incentive to enter work and focuses support on some of the most vulnerable—parents, disabled people and carers, as referenced by the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley—who may face greater barriers to entering employment.

We will also support those moving to universal credit, especially the vulnerable. My noble friend Lord Farmer asked about the £1 billion package announced by the Chancellor in his Budget. This will provide two additional weeks of legacy out-of-work benefits for people moving on to universal credit, providing claimants with extra money during the five-week period before receiving their universal credit payment. I think that is possibly where the noble Lord, Lord Young of Norwood Green, suggested three weeks. People will receive an extra two weeks of benefits to help them with a more seamless transition from legacy on to universal credit. This is extra money that does not have to be paid back. It will provide 1.1 million people with an average one-off additional payment of £200, on top of the two additional weeks of housing benefit announced in autumn 2017 and put into place this year.

We think that about 700,000 people have been missing out on their benefits under legacy. We have worked that out to be to the value of about £2.4 billion. There will be a significant change in how people find out about what they can receive, because they will have constant contact with, and will work together with, their work coach.

We have gone further in the Budget to support families. We will support those in debt by reducing the normal maximum deduction rates from 40% to 30% of a person’s standard allowance. This will have a huge impact, helping over 600,000 families at any one point when rollout is complete. It will provide them with on average £295 extra a year as their debts are repaid over a longer period.

With particular respect to the self-employed, I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, that we will support new businesses by opening up a 12-month grace period before the minimum income floor comes into effect. In 2023-24, around 130,000 self-employed households will benefit from exemptions from the minimum income floor, giving them the opportunity to grow a successful business. This is alongside extending new enterprise allowance contracts, which provide support for those out of work to set up a business and become self-employed. This will add to the 45 new businesses a day that have been created since the introduction of the scheme in 2011. We have listened, we have acted and we continue to listen.

Next month, universal credit will be in place in every jobcentre in the country, and this autumn we will bring forward regulations to deliver the managed migration phase of universal credit, to move people without a change of circumstances. These are positive regulations which allow us to protect 500,000 people’s severe disability premium at the point of migration; and deliver transitional protection for those we move, to ensure that at the point of moving those who are manage-migrated do not lose a penny. We will take a measured approach to delivering managed migration. It will start later: this is not a pause but we will be taking longer to introduce the managed migration, because we need to do test and learn to make sure that we get the system right. The process will start later in 2019.

[Lord Young of Norwood Green]

The Minister says, “It is not a pause, we will take a little longer”. Will she just clarify that? What does she mean exactly?

[Baroness Buscombe]

Let me clarify: we are not stopping the rollout. The rollout for all people coming on to universal credit will be completed by the end of December 2018, and they will continue on universal credit. The system will carry on and all those new people will come on, but we are not going to start moving people from legacy benefit over to the universal credit system until July 2019. We want to spend the first six months of next year building a system that works, through a process of test and learn, to make sure we get it right for those people. I promise that we will work with all our stakeholders to make sure that people do not fall through the cracks. I think the noble Lord has a family interest in this, in terms of jobcentres. The reality is that everybody is working hard to make this enormous change we have undertaken work to the best of our ability. I hope that that explains it.

In response to my noble friend Lady Wyld, I say that our migration processes will be co-designed with stakeholders, as I just said, to ensure that we have listened and understood claimants’ experiences. That obviously relates very particularly to people with disabilities—we want a process that works well for everyone. We are focusing on building safeguards for vulnerable claimants and ensuring we have all the necessary information to ensure a smooth transition with uninterrupted support. We will target support to the most vulnerable, as referenced by my noble friend Lord Shinkwin, and will focus on working to support those with mental difficulties. To ensure that the most vulnerable claimants are supported, we have improved the learning journey for our work coaches, which includes training to work with people who suffer from mental health issues. We have also increased the number of disability employment advisers who can provide additional support.

It is important to add that we are working holistically across government, including the Department of Health, the Department for Education and the ministry of housing. It is very important that all our systems work together for the benefit of all, so no more than 10,000 people will be moved in the first six months of the preparation phase for the managed migration. Let me say that this side of the House will not play politics with these regulations, as I am sorry to say we all know the Labour Party did earlier this year when they voted against the £1.5 billion of support we announced at the 2017 Budget. I confirm for the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, that we will lay the managed migration regulations very shortly. Pausing or scrapping universal credit—whichever is the Labour Party’s policy; we are not quite sure at the moment—will not support the families that Labour purports to stand for.

I hear what the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, said about universal support. We are working hard on universal support—our new partnership arrangement with Citizens Advice is an example of that—and we continue to work with local authorities. In terms of affordable credit, we will work with stakeholders on a feasibility study on a no-interest loan scheme—something that was announced in the Budget.

I will try in the last moments to answer one or two more questions. Her Majesty’s Treasury published a cumulative distributional analysis alongside the Budget in October 2018, which shows that government policy continues to be highly redistributive. In 2019-20, the 10% of households with the lowest incomes will receive over four times as much support in public spending as they contribute in tax on average, while the 10% of households with the highest incomes contribute over five times as much in tax as they receive in public spending. I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Livermore, and the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, and their analysis was wrong. There has been no sudden increase in in-work poverty. The chances of a working family being in poverty are broadly the same as they were in 1997.

In terms of housing support, we are working hard. A number of noble Lords referenced housing. We are working closely with the department of housing to improve what we can do to support new builds, as well as supporting those in social housing.

We spend £50 billion on benefits to support disabled people and those with health conditions—a record high—and £9 billion in real terms since 2010, so I do not recognise all the references to cuts. We are doing an extraordinarily difficult job. My noble friend Lord Sherbourne referenced the word “hard”. It is very hard to get this right, because we are working with millions of people on a daily basis across the United Kingdom to support them.

We stand to provide opportunities for families across the country, through the opportunity to work, and through a sustainable, fair welfare system—fair to those claiming through it and those paying for it, fair because we support vulnerable families as compassionate Conservatives, and fair to those who can work by rewarding hard work.

Welfare Reform and Work Bill

Lord Young of Norwood Green Excerpts

Monday 14th December 2015 Lords Chamber

Tabled by

[Lord Young of Norwood Green]

68: Clause 2, page 1, line 16, after “target,” insert—
“( ) information about the uptake of apprenticeships broken down by region, age, ethnicity, disability, sector, qualification and level,( ) a report by the UK Commission on Employment and Skills on the quality of apprenticeships being provided,”

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con)]

I say to the Opposition Chief Whip that the order of consideration was designed at the request of the Opposition, so that those who are severely disabled could participate in the debates in Committee at the beginning of business. I admit that, today, we have had other business to deal with. However, the truth is that we are still not at the point at which we were due to start business on the third day, which was Amendment 72. This House has a tradition that it tries to deliver the business. I understand that I need the support of the Opposition in doing that. I believe that we should complete one more group of amendments, which will take us past the normal hour for taxis but that is not unusual in this House. Given the unusual nature of the discussions that have taken place on this Bill, that is not an unreasonable thing to ask. I hope that the noble Lord—my “usual channels” partner—is prepared to accept my decision. We still have not reached the target we set ourselves when we discussed this matter earlier today.

[Lord Young of Norwood Green (Lab)]

My Lords, given the time, I shall endeavour to be succinct and to the point. Nevertheless, Amendment 68 is important as it seeks to ensure that we receive a proper report from the Government on the various aspects of apprenticeships defined in it. I shall speak also to the other two amendments in the group.

The Government have set themselves an ambitious target of 3 million apprenticeships during the life of this Parliament. The challenge will be to ensure that they sustain quality as well as quantity. A recent report by Ofsted said that the expansion of apprenticeships has been a disaster, with too many poor-quality programmes that fail to give young people new skills or better chances of a job. The Chief Inspector of Schools, Sir Michael Wilshaw, accuses some employers of wasting public funds on low-quality schemes that undermine the value of apprenticeships. Indeed, a recent Channel 4 episode of “Dispatches” revealed exploitation of apprentices working for the retailer Next.

Poor-quality apprenticeships were particularly prevalent in retail, healthcare, customer service and administration according to the highly critical report from Ofsted. About 140,000 people started apprenticeships in business administration last year and 130,000 began healthcare apprenticeships. Standards were much higher in the motor vehicle, construction and engineering industries, where numbers were much smaller. So far, apprenticeships have not trained enough people for sectors with skills shortages, smaller businesses are not being involved and not enough advanced schemes leading to higher skills and wages are being created. Widespread concern has been expressed by business about the introduction and application of the proposed new training levy.

Amendment 68A, tabled by my noble friend Lady Nye, seeks to ensure accurate reporting of information in the areas of disability, gender and so on. It also contains an important point about the destination data for those completing apprenticeships.

Amendment 69 again draws to our attention the worrying situation for disabled people under the age of 25 seeking apprenticeships. We know that apprenticeships provide an excellent route into work for young people, including disabled people. However, too often apprenticeships are inaccessible to disabled people. The proportion of disabled apprenticeships has declined from 11.5% in 2007-08 to 8.7% in 2014-15. During the passage of the Bill, we would like to see further commitments from the Government to support more disabled people to participate in apprenticeships. This is why I welcome Amendment 69.

I have a few questions for the Minister which I am sure she will enjoy. What steps is she taking to ensure the quality of apprenticeships and to prevent the exploitation of young people, recognising the damage this can cause to the reputation of apprenticeships, and the waste of public funds? What steps are the Government taking to ensure that all schools give career advice on apprenticeships, bearing in mind the need to encourage young women, black and ethnic minority groups and disabled people to recognise the advantages of apprenticeships as a career option? Bearing in mind that only 5% of youngsters aged 16 currently go into an apprenticeship scheme, how will she ensure that young people are made aware of their right to receive proper training and education in a safe working environment?

What steps are the Government taking to expand the participation of small and medium-sized enterprises in apprenticeship schemes, given that only some 25% of them currently take on apprentices? Do the Government plan to expand the use of group training associations and ATAs? What will be the nature of and timetable for the introduction of the new training levy, which I presume will be accompanied by a statutory instrument and an impact assessment? I would be grateful if the Minister confirmed that. Finally, can the Minister comment on the future of UKCES, the United Kingdom skills body? I beg to move.

[Baroness Campbell of Surbiton]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 69, tabled in my name, and to which I am delighted to see that my noble friends Lord Addington, Lord Low of Dalston and Lady Grey-Thompson have added their names in support. I also support Amendment 68, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Young, and Amendment 68A, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Nye.

My amendment is intended to address the particular barriers faced by disabled people wishing to enter apprenticeships. It places a duty on the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament a report on the number of disabled people aged under 25 who are seeking apprenticeships in order to identify the barriers that prevent successful take-up. The amendment also requires the report to set out examples of good practice by employees and apprenticeship providers that remove such barriers.

I welcome the Government’s commitment to create 3 million apprenticeship opportunities over this Parliament. Apprenticeships provide an excellent opportunity for disabled students wanting to engage in vocational education alongside their non-disabled peers. For many disabled people, it will be the first time they experience mainstream employment and education. Apprenticeships introduce disabled people to the world of work in a supportive learning environment, which is much needed by young people who are facing additional barriers to entering the world of work. In addition, apprenticeships are crucial to the Government’s commitment to halving the disability employment gap—a central plank of their incredibly ambitious aim to cut the welfare budget.

In 2014, Disability Rights UK with the support of Barclays published a guide called Into Apprenticeships. It demonstrated through case studies that apprenticeships provide opportunities for young disabled people to secure training for employment. Such schemes also help employers to become “disability confident”. Noble Lords will recognise that this is also the name of a current campaign being supported by the Minister for Disabled People in another place to encourage employers to remove those disabling barriers. This will boost employment outcomes for disabled people. However, as I said when speaking to my previous amendment, I am sure that the Minister appreciates that awareness and education alone will not shrink the significant employment gap between disabled and non-disabled people. There must also be regular reviews of progress. Existing barriers that prevent disabled people from accessing apprenticeship opportunities must be removed. This is echoed by the Equality and Human Rights Commission in its recent report, Is Britain Fairer?

The requirement for non-specific industry qualifications to access apprenticeships is one of the greatest barriers. In Peter Little’s 2012 report, Creating an Inclusive Apprenticeship Offer, he says: “Apprentices with LDD”—learning difficulties and disabilities—

“are often disadvantaged due to the fact”,

that functional and GCSE,

“qualifications are assessed out of context. Thus an Apprentice working to the vocabulary and numeracy associated with a particular job may find it difficult to relate to a completely different set of language and numbers presented during assessment”.

There is substantive evidence that significant numbers of disabled people, especially people with learning disabilities, are prevented from gaining an apprenticeship certificate because they have not got GCSE maths and English. These requirements could so easily be replaced by the successful completion of work-related requirements such as the relevant industry-accepted vocational qualifications. The National Voice for Lifelong Learning, which has been working with the Government on apprenticeship placements, has said:

“Some learners are more than capable of achieving the competence and knowledge based elements of an apprenticeship but, due to their learning difficulty are unable to achieve English and maths at the required standard. Until there is a relaxing of this rule disabled learners will continue to be disadvantaged in work and training”.

--- Later in debate ---

Again, I apologise for the quick run through. As I say, I will endeavour to get back to noble Lords on other points that I have missed, but I hope that, on the basis of this explanation, noble Lords will consider not pressing their amendments.

[Lord Young of Norwood Green]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for dealing with all those questions without hesitation, repetition or deviation. That was a brilliant effort. I would like a bit more detail on some points and welcome her further comments. I am sure that I am not the only person in that situation. Although she gave us lots of assurances, given the importance of these issues I only wish that schools were applying those assurances in practice in relation to both careers advice and access by employers. My experience is that many are not doing that despite the legal obligations. Given that we have seen a statistical decline in the number of apprenticeships for people with disabilities, it would be useful if we could meet the noble Baroness to go through some of these issues. Nevertheless, on the understanding that we will look carefully at the response to the questions in Hansard, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 68 withdrawn.

Welfare Reform and Work Bill

Lord Young of Norwood Green Excerpts

Tuesday 17th November 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Norwood Green (Lab)]

My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, confidently predicted, I shall focus mainly on the question of apprenticeships. I welcome the Government’s commitment in the welfare Bill to both full employment and reporting on the status of apprenticeships. It is hard to quarrel with a Government who announce the ambitious target of 3 million apprenticeships. I make my usual comment that I only wish they would disaggregate that figure and be more upfront in recognising that a significant number of those apprentices—probably about 60%-plus of them—are people already in existing employment who are retraining and reskilling. It is not that we do not have to do that, but I think that “apprenticeship” is the wrong label.

The real focus of attention ought to be on the lower end of the age spectrum—on the 16s to 18s, or even up to age 24. Notwithstanding the progress that has been made on employment, that is where the levels of unemployment are probably at their highest in many parts of the country.

My other concern is one which I have expressed on a number of occasions. In the drive to push up apprenticeships, which is laudable and with which the previous Government made a reasonable start, can you sustain quality as well as quantity? Take a situation where you have already had an Ofsted report which said that, in a number of sectors where the largest volume of apprentices were in areas such as business administration and retail, the quality was manifestly not being sustained, the level of training was minimal and people were, quite frankly being exploited. We should be concerned about that. It is not more than a couple of years ago that a young apprentice went out to work one day and never returned. He died in an environment which was absolutely appalling. I make no apology for reiterating these concerns.

Recently I received a helpful response about some of these issues from the noble Earl, Lord Courtown. He said:

“An ‘approved English apprenticeship agreement’ carries the status of a contract of service. That means that employment and health and safety laws apply. The apprenticeship agreement confirms that the apprentice is undertaking an apprenticeship and specifies the standard they are working towards completing. For apprentices who have an employer, an apprenticeship agreement (whether based on the old frameworks or the new standards) must be in place in order for an employer to claim government funding”.

As a statement, it is okay, but does it really guarantee quality? Does it absolutely guarantee that that young person is going to a good quality, safe working environment? I am not convinced that it does. I issue this as a caution against being complacent if the Government are going to drive up the level of apprenticeships at the rate that they say they are.

The letter goes on with more helpful news—about the introduction of a,

“‘Statement of Commitment’ which is signed by the employer, training provider and apprentice … and sets out the key expectations, roles and responsibilities”.

All of that is good and I want to see it. I am not complaining about it, but I also want to see that the Government actually have in place processes that will ensure that the quality of apprenticeships is consistently monitored and reviewed. I do not expect the Minister in a debate as wide-ranging as this to have anticipated all these questions, but that does not make them unimportant or unnecessary to pursue them.

We are told about the Skills Funding Agency which “runs the apprenticeship helpline”. That is good, but in many cases young people are only too grateful to be in employment. They do not want to rock the boat, so to speak, so they are capable of being exploited. I merely make the point. Another paragraph really does worry me a little. It states:

“Beyond the quality guarantees inherent in the new apprenticeship standards themselves, quality is assured by the assessment process. Whilst employers are generally free to arrange whatever on-programme training they believe will be needed”—

as I say, that worries me a little—

“to ensure their apprentice reaches full competence, which will often include the completion of a qualification”.

If it is an apprenticeship, should it not always include the completion of a qualification? If we are talking about raising the quality of apprenticeships and convincing parents that the vocational route is just as good as the academic one, that ought to be addressed. If it is a quality apprenticeship, it means that the individual is acquiring skills, training and competence that ought to be tested by an external, independent source.

I am conscious of the time, but I want to turn to a briefing from the charity Leonard Cheshire Disability, which I thought was really interesting; I am grateful for it. It focuses on disability. I cannot deal with as much of it as I would like, but I shall cover some of the points made. It states:

“Given the Prime Minister’s commitment to implementing the manifesto in full we welcome the inclusion in the manifesto of a pledge to halve the disability employment gap”.

I think that we would all welcome that. The charity goes on to stress four key points:

“Reporting on the progress towards halving the disability gap …Ensuring that more disabled people can benefit from apprenticeship schemes by ensuring that they are as accessible as possible …Greater clarity from the Government around the specialised support that will be available for disabled people to help them secure and stay in work … Exploring how the Government can use its role as a public sector employer and commissioner to encourage its supply chain and other employers to employ more disabled people”.

Those are good, constructive points and I hope that the Minister will be able to respond to them.

The briefing then goes on in another interesting paragraph to address apprenticeship schemes and disabled people:

“Apprenticeships provide an excellent route into work for young people—including disabled people—and allow them to develop the skills they need to succeed in the job market. We welcome the Government’s pledge to fund three million new, high quality apprenticeships this Parliament. However too often apprenticeships are inaccessible to disabled people; indeed the number of disabled apprentices has declined from 11.5% in 2007/8 to 8.7% in 2014/15. During the passage of the Bill, we would like to see further commitments from the Government to support more disabled people to participate in apprenticeships, by ensuring that vital funding, such as Access to Work and training funding, remains available and can meet the demand”.

That is a helpful, factual and constructive analysis of what is actually going on. I believe that the Government are genuine in their attempts to seek to secure full employment, but if they are going to meet the target of halving the number of people with disabilities who are not in work, some issues are raised here that need to be addressed. I want the Government to succeed because I believe that getting people into worthwhile employment has a transforming influence on their lives.

Apprenticeships

Lord Young of Norwood Green Excerpts

Wednesday 26th March 2014 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Young of Norwood Green]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they are taking to increase the number and quality of apprenticeships for 16 to 18 year-olds.

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, by our normal conventions, we would start the QSD but there was wide expectation in the House that there would be a vote now and at least half of our speakers are not present. Perhaps I may put it to the government Whip that she adjourns the House during pleasure for 10 minutes so we can all assemble for the next debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Young of Norwood Green (Lab)]

My Lords, now that we are all sitting comfortably, we can begin. In a recent debate about apprenticeships I was accused of being churlish, so I will endeavour today to keep my criticism constructive and reasonably positive.

The beginning of March was National Apprenticeship Week. Should we be celebrating? I will give the Government one cheer. They definitely recognise the importance of apprenticeships and vocational training. There is more investment in training and I was pleased to see the announcement in the Budget. However, announcing expenditure is one thing; driving up the number of apprenticeships is the real task that we face. Surely, the major question that we need to address is the nearly 1 million NEETs in the 16 to 24 age category—those who are not in employment, education or training. I took those statistics from the Library briefing.

We can muck around with statistics, but at the end of the day that is the problem we face. Even if we look at different groups, eventually we will be faced with people looking for jobs and apprenticeships. Of course, the situation with graduate recruitment is not particularly rosy, either. However, I want to focus on the 16 to 18 year-olds because they are the most important group. If we do not find a way of motivating and incentivising them, we know their capacity to lose hope in ever gaining meaningful employment and all the bad things that can flow from that.

When the Government quote figures on apprenticeships, I have complained time and time again because they always include the over-25s. I have said that I am not going to be churlish and so I hesitate to use the word “disingenuous”. However, the figures are certainly misleading. My fear is that it could lead to complacency. Although the government statistics have shown significant growth in the number of apprenticeship starts between 2008 and 2012-13, the recent trend for numbers of apprenticeship starts for 16 to 19 year-olds has actually shown a decline in both 2011-12 and an alarming 12% decline in 2012-13 from the previous year. Those are figures from the Skills Funding Agency. In the period reported, apprenticeship starts as a whole increased by 113%, which makes you think, “Good”, until you disaggregate it. The growth in apprenticeships for the 16 to 19 year-old age group during the period was only 12%, while apprenticeships for those aged 24-plus grew by an astonishing 293%. I will come back to the question of apprenticeships for those aged 25 and over.

One of the good results of calling a debate—I am grateful to all noble Lords who have agreed to participate in it—is the briefing you are sent. I received a really interesting briefing from the City & Guilds Group. It points out that apprenticeships are still seen as being “just for the boys”. For instance, the difference between the advice received by men and women is particularly notable in the construction industry, where only 0.6% of women are encouraged to make it their career compared with 12% of men. The same worrying statistics can be seen throughout apprenticeships in relation to the advice that young women are given as opposed to that given to young men. We need to work a lot harder if we are going to encourage more young women to take up apprenticeships.

The area I want to focus on now is the construction industry. I recently received a letter from the noble Viscount, Lord Younger of Leckie, giving a breakdown of construction apprenticeships. The figures set out in his letter suggest that things are looking reasonably rosy. However, perhaps I may suggest to the Minister that he looks at a report on construction apprenticeships issued just yesterday by a cross-party group of parliamentarians. It states that some 182,000 construction jobs will need to be filled by 2018, but last year only 7,280 construction apprenticeships were completed. The report includes some recommendations that were made in the 2011 review by Doug Richard:

“Apprenticeships should be redefined. They should be clearly targeted at those who are new to a job or role that requires sustained and substantial training … There should be recognised industry standards at the heart of every apprenticeship”,

which should be linked to professional registration. The report also recommends that all apprentices should achieve NVQ level 2 in English and maths. Doug Richard thinks that apprentices aged over 25 should not actually be called apprentices. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s response to those recommendations. The Chartered Institute of Building has talked about a 33% decline in apprenticeship starts in construction. Surely that is another worrying statistic.

The Minister should take a look at the briefing provided by the Local Government Association. I shall start with the positive. It states:

“We welcome the measure in the Budget 2014 to extend subsidies to create youth apprenticeships. However, it will not resolve the structural issue facing young people. This requires ambitious reform, bringing skills and employment services together around local labour markets”.

The briefing says that the current system is not working for 16 to 19 year-olds. The number of under-19 apprenticeship starts rose for a bit, but then declined over the past couple of years. It goes on to say that the increase in apprenticeships can largely be seen in only a small number of sectors that are generally associated with low skills. It also talks about instances of large employers using apprenticeship funding to subsidise training for existing employees, and issues with leading apprenticeship contractors effectively exploiting their workforce.

The Government are seeking to improve the qualifications and the skills requirement for apprenticeships. I am not arguing about that, but where I think that the Government do need to be careful is with regard to the new GCSE requirements in both English and maths. These are demanding requirements. It is interesting to look at the briefing from the Oxford Cambridge and RSA organisation, which says that the really important thing about getting qualifications for young people and improving their ability in English and maths, which we know is an employer requirement, is to ensure that learning is contextualised. We can see that feedback coming. The noble Lord, Lord Baker, is not present today but if you look at the success in university technical colleges, you know that that is good advice.

As I have said before, the quality of careers advice in most schools is still appalling, with very few examples of young people being encouraged to go for apprenticeships. The drive is still to push people towards A-levels even though we know that there is real need and demand for apprenticeships. What more could the Government do? Time and time again I have made the point that if the Government really want to send a positive signal to employers—boy do we need to do that as the best statistic I have found on how many employers recruit apprentices is 13%—surely it is time that they made it clear that bidders for public procurement contracts will be required to indicate the number of apprentices they are going to employ. To drive up the number of apprenticeships, as we should be doing, and to win the battle against youth unemployment, we ought in a way to be putting the country on a war footing. We ought to be determined not to have another lost generation of young people.

In the Local Government Association briefing there are some good examples of authorities such as Lincoln which has appointed apprenticeship champions and driven up the numbers of apprenticeships for those aged 16 to 18. We need to ensure that all schools, colleges and universities are themselves recruiting apprentices. We ought to drive up the number of group training associations and apprenticeship training agencies. I look forward to the Minister’s response and I thank those who are going to participate in the debate.

25th Anniversary of the World Wide Web

Lord Young of Norwood Green Excerpts

Thursday 16th January 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Norwood Green (Lab)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, on inspiring this debate. My decision to contribute was a bit belated—a bit lastminute.com, if she will pardon the allusion—and given three minutes my speech will need compression techniques.

The cybergenie is well and truly out of the bottle. After a very panoramic view of the range and speed of development, there is not much I can add. No doubt 25 years after Gutenberg and Caxton revolutionised communications in the 14th century, there was a similar debate. I look at the right reverend Prelates, and I am almost certain that there was, given the way that quite contentious pieces of text were circulating.

What we know is that the world wide web—the internet—presents an enormous range of benefits and challenges. It is all pervasive, as the noble Baroness told us, in every sphere of our society, whether health, education, banking, retail, science or defence. The ability for the world to be a truly global place and for people to communicate quite cheaply using Skype is another profound change in the way people communicate.

There are lots of positive benefits but perhaps some of the biggest challenges that the Government face are things such as cybersecurity. Everything now rests on the web or the internet in one way or the other. Keeping that information safe is a big challenge. Only yesterday, we saw a horrifying use of the internet in child abuse and paedophilia. Young children in the Philippines were being used to gratify the obscene needs of some people scattered around the world. We have to look at all aspects of that. There is the question of taxing the companies which make enormous profits on the internet and the world wide web in a way that does not hamper growth but makes sure that they make a real contribution to the economies that they benefit from. Equality of access is another point to which the noble Baroness drew our attention. There is still a digital divide when it comes to speed of access and, for some, a generational divide. We need to do more to encourage the older generation to participate, as the noble Lord, Lord Chadlington, said in his contribution, although I think that as each successive generation comes along, they will be more able to do that, and the younger generation to be internet savvy. I agree with the noble Baroness that the essential skills that employers need are not just literacy and numeracy but computer skills as well.

We need to remind ourselves that 50 years ago Gordon Moore came up with Moore’s law. For those who are not aware of it, it says that every two years the number of transistors on a chip will double. Without that vision and the determination of industry to provide it, the internet would probably be a lot slower. We need to remind ourselves that we have more power in our mobile phones than they had when they landed the first man on the moon.

What do we want the Government to do? The Government should encourage the older generation to participate and perhaps have an overall digital strategy to ensure that society as a whole benefits from the world wide web and the internet. I am an incurable optimist so I believe that the internet glass is half full.

Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill

Lord Young of Norwood Green Excerpts

Thursday 31st January 2013 Grand Committee

[Lord Young of Norwood Green]

My Lords, these government amendments, brought forward in response to the DPRRC recommendations, put flesh on the points that we made in respect of the previous group. As we said, we support the introduction of measures to deal with orphan works and believe that extended collective licensing is the way forward. We also want to see the copyright hub being developed, as we have said. These amendments go some way towards ensuring greater clarity over the standards to be set for collecting societies and transparency in how the powers that the Government are taking will operate in practice, and we are happy to support them.

The amendments proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, aim to put more detail into the Bill on how the Government intend to supervise collecting societies and on what might constitute the minimum conditions and procedures that might be required, which would ensure that the Government can step in and require a body to adapt the Government’s standards for collecting societies. I shall listen carefully to what the Minister says in response to the amendments proposed by the noble Lord and the noble Baroness, but at present we take the view that much of what is requested is more appropriate for secondary legislation.

I take the opportunity to say, as somebody who spent a few months of my life dealing with the previous Digital Economy Bill, of which orphan works were a part, but they unfortunately disappeared in the wash-up process, it is nice to know that at long last we seem to be getting near to liberating orphan works for the collective benefit of society as a whole. I welcome the Minister’s comments.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

First, I appreciate the general support of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Norwood Green.

On Amendments 34 and 50, there is already provision in the Bill for consultation before the appointment of a code reviewer. We have considered the proposals to put all processes for the appointment of an ombudsman and the implementation of a statutory code on the face of the Bill. However, the Government, together with stakeholders, need to learn how the schemes work in practice and respond as they evolve. This will help us quickly to remedy any unforeseen issues that result in problems or injustices for rights holders. We have considered Amendments 35 to 42 carefully and believe that the term “licensing code ombudsman” more accurately describes the functions of the role. That role is to investigate and determine disputes about a collecting society’s compliance with its code of practice.

On Amendments 43 and 51, as I noted with regard to Amendments 34 and 50, the Bill already makes provision for consultation when appointing a code reviewer. This is important to ensure independence of process. Codes of practice will be subject to specific criteria, which will be set out in regulations subject to consultation. Therefore, the Government do not consider that additional consultation is necessary.

We have spent some time looking at Amendments 44 and 45 on the power to impose sanctions on individual directors. Where it can be demonstrated that a director is responsible for non-compliance with a code, it is only right that they should be sanctioned. The default should not be to penalise collecting society members. The Government agree with the intent behind Amendment 46, which is consistent with the comments made by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. Therefore we accept this amendment.

On Amendment 47, I confirm that an appeal mechanism will be available for decisions on non-compliance and for any resulting sanction. This was earlier clarified in government Amendment 46B.

Finally turning to Amendment 48, the Government can confirm that these fees will apply only to a licensing body being regulated. If a licensing body adopts a code of practice which complies with the criteria specified in the regulations, no fees arise in connection with paragraph 1 of the schedule. In addition, paragraph 6(2) of the schedule contains a protection for licensing bodies, limiting the aggregate amount of fees payable for administration and operation of the regulations.

I shall respond to a number of questions raised by noble Lords. In her general comments, my noble friend Lady Buscombe raised the code criteria, which should be subject to consultation. Although I may well have covered this in my previous speech, the code criteria will largely be based on minimum standards on which there will already have been consultation. Specified criteria will be part of the regulations and will be consulted on.

In her general comments, my noble friend Lady Buscombe also raised the work done by the collecting societies on self-regulation. The Government welcome the work they have done and what they have achieved. I repeat that self-regulation is the preferred option, but we need a back-stop if it fails, a protection for licensees and members when dealing with monopoly suppliers. My noble friend Lady Buscombe also said that fines should be used only as a last resort. I entirely agree that they should be a last resort. We do, however, need an ultimate sanction, and fines would provide that.

My noble friend Lady Buscombe also mentioned collecting society revenues which are distributed to members, who are affected by fines, instead of giving help to failing collective societies. I agree with her; this is why, if a director is responsible, he or she, rather than the collecting society members, should be held accountable. Finally, my noble friend Lady Buscombe asked what triggers statutory regulation. The provisions for an independent code reviewer, who will independently assess the performance against the code, are the trigger. I hope that I have answered all the questions raised by noble friends and, if not, I will certainly write to them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Buscombe]

My Lords, Amendment 49 relates to the jurisdiction of the Copyright Tribunal, which we feel needs attention. The Copyright Tribunal is a creature of statute; its powers and jurisdiction are defined in the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. It has the power to rule on private rights, so we believe that there should be full parliamentary scrutiny for changes to its jurisdiction. Paragraph 7(2) says that regulations may change the jurisdiction of the Copyright Tribunal, but it should be made clear that this is only in relation to the powers in the schedule and not more widely. I am proposing to tighten the drafting accordingly. I beg to move.

[Lord Young of Norwood Green]

These amendments, which relate to collecting societies, are sensible measures. Clearly, the bodies should act in the public interest and it would be outrageous if they did not have rights holders on their governing bodies. I am sure that the Government will say that this is detail for secondary legislation and they may be right, but for what it is worth we support the noble Baroness.

[Baroness Brinton]

My Lords, Amendments 56A and 56B would require the Government to ensure that regulations governing collecting societies required them to have user representation on their governing bodies if they wanted to grant extended collective licences. This is born of frustration with the operation of some collecting societies, which in effect already grant extended collective licences—the CLA, for example.

As has been mentioned, the societies are in a monopoly position. Universities negotiate licences with the CLA for the use of books, journals, magazines and so on. They have no alternative. If they do not like the terms of the licence that they are being offered, the only thing that they can do about it, once negotiation has been exhausted, is to go to the Copyright Tribunal, a very expensive and time-consuming process. If collecting societies are to get extensive new rights to offer licences for works which have not been produced by their members, they should also have new duties to act in the interests of their stakeholders and users and ensure that the public interest is also served.

It is important to bear in mind that a large volume of the work we are talking about here will never have been produced with financial returns in mind. It would be wrong for collecting societies representing these works to seek to maximise the commercial return on this kind of material. They should balance the interests of their members, the majority of whom will want financial return for their work with the interests of the producers of the unrepresented work which may not be financial at all.

These amendments are obviously intended to probe the Government and I will be interested to hear the Minister’s views.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Young of Norwood Green]

58BC: Clause 70, page 65, line 29, at end insert—
“(1A) A representative of the company’s employees must be consulted in the preparation of any such revision.”

[Lord Young of Norwood Green]

My Lords, I listened carefully to the previous debate because there is a link. I concur with the comments made by my noble friend Lord Mitchell. He referred to investors investing in the company. I shall preface my remarks by saying that so do employees. For the most part, it is the whole of their livelihood, so it is just as important an investment as that made by shareholders. I submit that whether employees feel that they are committed and are working as part of an organisation that values their contribution is relevant to the success or failure of a company. There is also a perception within the company that there is fairness in the remuneration policies that apply.

I am sure that the Minister will not necessarily welcome this amendment, but I would love to be proved wrong. What would an employee representative bring to directors’ remuneration? What would their strategy and policy be? They would bring a different, fresh perspective and one that I would submit many companies need. My noble friend Lord Mitchell pointed out the huge rise in the ratio of top and bottom pay in companies over the past 20 years or so. In some cases, one might argue that there was a justification if they were rewarding success, but in many cases we are seeing failure rewarded just as much as success. In my experience of pay negotiations over a number of years, there was nothing that contributed more to a feeling of resentment than situations where the workers were told that the company could afford only X% for them but, when it came to the pay of directors, they somehow deserved double or treble. The argument is often made that they bring these special skills or talents: I am just as sceptical about this as my noble friend Lord Mitchell.

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

My Lords, I concur with the noble Lord, Lord Young, in his interesting remarks that the interests of employees are important as a company cannot excel, or indeed properly function, without a workforce that is committed, motivated and content. This includes being content with their remuneration package in relation to their peers and superiors.

I should also like to pick up the point he raised concerning companies taking into account employees’ pay and their views. He is quite right: in revised remuneration reports, companies will now have to say whether, and if so how, they have taken into account employees’ views on executive pay and policy. In addition, they will have to publish the percentage increase in pay of the chief executive officer and that of the workforce, as I mentioned earlier. These will be discussed in more detail when we debate the regulations.

Amendment 58BC would require companies to consult an employee representative if they propose to change their remuneration policy before the next AGM. The Government agree with the view that it can be useful for companies to engage with their employees when considering directors’ pay. It is important that remuneration committees make their decisions based on a broad range of reliable and robust information. We know that some companies are already doing this and we want to encourage more to do so. That is why we have proposed that, in their annual remuneration reports, companies disclose whether, and if so how, they have sought employee views. They must also say how they have taken employee pay into account.

We also encourage employees to take up existing mechanisms to air their views, such as information and consultation arrangements, employee representative committees and works councils. However, we do not believe that it is necessary to create a statutory duty to consult employees on this matter. It is up to companies and their shareholders to decide whether, and if so how, to go about it. I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw Amendment 58BC.

[Lord Young of Norwood Green]

I thank the Minister for his comments, some of which I found helpful. I will read the points he has made carefully in Hansard. Some of them were a step in the right direction and we will consider whether they have gone far enough. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 58BC withdrawn.

Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill

Lord Young of Norwood Green Excerpts

Monday 14th January 2013 Grand Committee

[Baroness Whitaker]

My Lords, as a former head of bits of HSE policy, I want to say that this clause undermines the main concept behind the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act to make it clearly enforceable that employers should not with impunity be so recklessly negligent as to imperil life, limb or health if they can help it—that is part of the Act, too. Clause 61, as has been said, does not minimise the potential criminality of this behaviour, but it prevents anyone using a proven breach with any degree of liability as grounds for compensation. Injured employees must fall back, as my noble friends have said, on the common law duty of care, which is very hard to prove.

Recalling the debates over the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act when it was passed—and it received all-party support—Section 47 was put into the Act for this exact reason: so that the workforce could have something effective and tangible if they were severely injured, not just the knowledge of a successful prosecution in which they were a passive witness.

Section 47 was widely consulted on. I would like to ask the Minister the response of the Governments of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to this provision, Clause 61. Can he confirm that they were consulted?

Finally, there is a potential increase in National Health Service costs from this clause because costs are clawed back from the employer if there is compensation and they will not be if there is none. Does the Minister agree? I fear that the Government will be going backwards in their understanding of workplace risks, let alone in recognition of justice for injured work people if the provision goes forward in this form.

[Lord Young of Norwood Green]

My Lords, we support the question on clause stand part from my noble friend Lady Turner, and I am not going to repeat all the abundance of evidence as to why we should adopt this view, because it has been amply demonstrated by the majority of speakers, apart from the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, who made an appeal for balance. We would support that, but the balance that the Government propose is certainly, in our view, in the wrong direction.

In excess of 20 specific sets of regulations have been introduced under powers given to the Secretary of State by the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. They include regulations relating to work equipment, personal protective equipment, manual handling, hazardous substances, construction, offshore installation, railways, young workers, and working at height and in confined spaces. Collectively, these regulations are the basis of workers’ rights to a safe working environment in the UK, as they contain the vast majority of duties that the law imposes on employers to create and maintain safe workplaces.

As a number of my noble friends pointed out, there is no evidence to show that there is overcompliance. There are perceptions, maybe, but is that really how we should frame legislation, based on perception with a lack of evidence? If only there was a culture of overcompliance, we would have less to complain about. There would be no situation with the number of deaths and serious injuries that still take place throughout British industry. Far too often we see examples of employers failing to comply or adopting the wrong attitude towards health and safety. Again, as a number of my noble friends have pointed out, this legislation would give them entirely the wrong signal.

Some of the regulations contain duties that impose a strict liability on employers. I am not sure where my noble friend Lord Browne got the figure of 200; I have a slightly lower figure than that. But it is something that the Government could cope with if they wanted to carry out the recommendations of the Löfstedt report. Others contain duties that are less strict in relation to which an employer shall not be held to be in breach of their duty if it is shown that they could not have foreseen the accident, if the accident could not practically have been avoided or if it is not reasonably practical to avoid the incident. Currently, if an employer breaches any health and safety regulation, there are two possible consequences; the employer can be prosecuted as having committed a criminal offence by the HSE, or the injured worker will be entitled to compensation. The declared intention of Clause 61 is to remove strict liability from the body of health and safety legislation. The genesis of removing that strict liability is found in the Löfstedt report. If only the Government had stuck to that, we might not be in that situation. But Löfstedt did not positively recommend that as the only course of action; it was only one possible option among others, and his firm recommendation was that a further, thorough investigation be undertaken—something that this Government have signally avoided. They have not followed the recommendation to carry out further research and have instead leapt straight into introducing legislation.

With Clause 61 introduced as an amendment, there has been no public consultation. As currently drafted, the clause does not simply remove strict liability; it goes much further than that. There is a fundamental disconnection between the declared intention of Clause 61 and the legislative impact that it will have. On the two consequences that currently exist when an employer breaches a health and safety regulation, the impact of Clause 61 is that one of those consequences shall be removed from the law altogether. Given the very small number of criminal prosecutions brought under the health and safety regulations each year, the consequence being removed by Clause 61 is the most important one in ensuring not only that justice is served but that workplace safety is maintained. The effect of the clause is to withdraw the right of injured workers when claiming compensation to rely on a breach of the statutory duty imposed on the employer in regulations made under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. The statutory duty on the employer to comply with the regulations will remain; the clause does not remove a single regulation from the statute book. The employer will remain liable to prosecution for the breach of any regulation in the criminal courts. It is only injured employees who the regulations are designed to protect for whom it will no longer be relevant. As we have heard, according to statistics published by the Health and Safety Executive, only 0.5% of reported workplace injuries result in a criminal prosecution. The prospect of prosecution provides no incentive to employers to comply with their duties. Our concern is that this measure will give the opposite signal.

Employers are obliged by law to maintain insurance to meet claims for damages arising from workplace injuries. Claims against employers are dealt with and paid by insurers. This clause will make no change to this system but, as has been pointed out by a number of my noble friends, the costs are likely to fall on the Government and, in effect, the taxpayer. What on earth is the value of that?

If the clause passes into law, no legislative burden will be removed from any employer. With no saving to the public purse, the Government will remain liable for civil claims deriving from European directives in respect of injuries to their own workers and will also still have to pay benefits to injured workers which they may no longer recover from employers’ insurance.

A number of detailed and valuable points have been made by my noble friends Lady Donaghy, Lord Browne, Lady Turner and Lord McKenzie. A number of questions were posed to the Minister which I look forward to him answering: for example, what is the evidence base for the measure? How many claims will be affected? What is the cost of shifting the burden on to the NHS and government? Will it reduce the cost burden on employers? That is unlikely in our view. As I say, I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

Unemployment

Lord Young of Norwood Green Excerpts

Wednesday 26th January 2011 Lords Chamber

Asked By

[Lord Young of Norwood Green]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they are taking to deal with the increase in the number of unemployed people aged between 16 and 24.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud)]

The Government recognise the need to help young people into work and the adverse effect of long-term unemployment. Personalised support for young people through Jobcentre Plus, coupled with the new work programme will enable young people over 18 make the transition into work. We will help young people to make an effective transition from learning to work, and increase participation to reduce the numbers of young people who are not in education, employment or training.

[Lord Young of Norwood Green]

My Lords, given that these are the highest numbers of 16 to 24 year-olds recorded as unemployed since records began in 1992, does the noble Lord think that it is time for the Government to reconsider their decision to abolish the Future Jobs Fund, the guarantees on youth employment and the education maintenance allowance, as there is now a real danger of another lost generation? That concern is reinforced by the latest lack-of-growth forecasts, as I like to call them.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, the figures for unemployment among young people aged 16 to 24 have risen with the recession and have been broadly flat from around the middle of 2009. They are still too high at 951,000 but they have been broadly flat in that period. However, I am worried about the number of NEETS in this country, which rose over the period of the previous Government by 250,000 to 1.4 million. That is a serious, long-term structural issue, and we have long-term structural plans to sort it out.