Charitable Incorporated Organisations (Consequential Amendments) Order 2017
Debate between Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts and Lord Stevenson of Balmacara(7 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
My Lords, before we wave this goodbye, I wonder whether I could raise a couple of brief points with my noble friend. The CIO is clearly a very welcome new corporate form. As my noble friend explained, it offers trustees of charities the opportunity to obtain limited liability, where there had been a major disincentive for them in the past, as well as the alternative conversion features that he referred to.
As my noble friend also said, there is now a single statutory regulator for CIOs, the Charity Commission. Its workload will increase as these conversions take place and the number of CIOs increases. I know that it has been proposed to phase in the introduction of CIOs to minimise that additional burden; nevertheless, additional burden there must be. My noble friend will be well aware of the pressure the Charity Commission’s budget has been under as a result of past cuts. I hope he can reassure me and the House that the Government are aware of the additional pressures created by this very welcome new form, which we do not oppose at all; but these are additional straws on the camel’s back and the Government need to bear this in mind as we proceed with giving the Charity Commission further powers and responsibilities.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for introducing the order. It may appear slight and not leave much of a shadow, but it is an important step forward on a path that has been charted for the past three or four years. The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, who knows a thing or two about charities, has kept his light quite well hidden under a bushel, but I am sure he could speak at length about the reasons and thinking behind the measure should it be required. As the Minister said, the order is very narrow, but the next two that come down the track set out slightly wider issues, and it is useful to have the context.
I have only one point to make in general, because having read the documentation and listened to the Minister, I think the regulation has been brought forward in an exemplary way. The department should be congratulated on what it has done and how it has done it, and the Explanatory Memorandum is clear about what we are doing and why.
Our country’s long tradition of charitable bodies being established under trustees who are forbidden from taking any benefit from the work they do is a noble one and should be cherished, and it has served us well in the past. However, it is interesting that the figures provided in the Explanatory Memorandum seem to suggest that that model is not as popular as it was. There may be some regulatory or other issues behind this, but it is striking that some 30,000 charities have chosen to incorporate as a company limited by guarantee and that a large proportion of new charities are choosing this new CIO operation. I should declare an interest, having worked for most of my professional life in charities and run a couple of small ones as well as being involved in large ones.
I can well understand why a CIO structure, with its benefit of limited liability and a corporate personality, is attractive, rather than the individual trustees being involved. However, I wonder whether there is a story behind this. There is a shift away from traditional routes, which may well be appropriate for small charities, particularly ones with a local focus; the bigger risks, the larger fund flows and the worries about public liability suggest that the corporate structures are now the ones to take. This is all by way of introduction to suggesting a closer look at what is happening in the charitable sector regarding structure, and whether there are good reasons for the changes we are observing. I do not expect a response today, but it would helpful at some point to receive a letter, or perhaps have a short debate or discussion of a report. These may be perfectly good and unthreatening reasons, but we should know what they are before we rush towards one model or another.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts
It might be helpful if my noble friend on the Front Bench could tell us when we are to have a response to the report by the Select Committee on Charities chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, because that would provide a vehicle for the sort of discussion that the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, is suggesting.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
Indeed—my final point was to be that we have something waiting in the wings which presumably is the answer and I thank the noble Lord for raising it. That is my main point and there are two minor points around it. The first concerns paragraph 8.6 of the Explanatory Memorandum, which suggests that minor amendments were made as a result of the consultation, which I felt was well handled. Only one is given, which is that this order does not include,
“the requirement for charitable companies to have filed their most recent accounts or reports with Companies House before an application is granted”.
On the other hand, it states:
“We will retain the requirement to refuse an application if a charity is in default”.
This seems to me to be the same thing. Has the Minister any light to throw on it? If a charity has not completed its formal registration, then it will be in default, so I do not know what this adds. I may be misreading it; if so, I will be grateful to be corrected on it.
Finally, those who have followed my long and extensive career in quizzing statutory instruments will know that I am fixated on dates. The date for the introduction of this does not fall within the common commencement dates. I accept that this does not affect business, so it is not necessarily caught by that, but to choose 1 January, a public holiday, for implementation seems a little perverse and I would be grateful for any comments.
Enterprise Bill [HL]
Debate between Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts and Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
My Lords, I have already spoken to the amendment but, to sum up, the point of the question is that we are asking the Minister to give us a reason why those who join apprenticeships should not be paid the living wage.
Amendment 49H in this group is about the need to ensure that managers supervising apprenticeship programmes have appropriate training. There is a well-established discourse on the question of whether management, particularly in private sector companies, is up to the job of increasing productivity, growing the economy and providing the jobs of the future. That receives its main focus around training and there is plenty of evidence on this issue, which I am sure others will wish to speak to. It would be a sensible Government who thought through all the issues relating to this new duty on the public sector, in particular, if it were also applied to the private sector, to ensure that management was up to the task concerned.
We have other amendments on the details needed to create a better policy on apprenticeships more generally and the role that they play in the development of the economy, but Amendment 50AC sets out—I hope for public bodies and for private companies, but if companies are not included then just public bodies—the sort of information that will be needed if we are to make a good job of this. We hear too much in anecdote and we do not get enough publication. The Minister said that she will write with such a lot of information already. Maybe she has access to the sort of information listed in this amendment, but we are interested in whether we can get a bit more of a sense of the progression, success and value that people are placing on these apprenticeships. This would be a good place to start. I beg to move.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts
My Lords, I have an amendment, Amendment 50AA, in this group. It is a probing amendment but it ranges slightly more widely than the focused questions that the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, put to the Minister.
The overall purpose of my amendment is to ensure that all apprenticeships have the appropriate level of quality—an issue that came up in various comments earlier. It does so by adding a subsection to the end of new Section A9 in Clause 18 on public sector apprenticeship targets, requiring the Secretary of State to set out minimum standards for apprenticeships. It also requires the Secretary of State to consult on what is required. In tabling this, I have been helped, advised and encouraged by the Engineering Employers’ Federation, which is somewhat concerned about the lack of clarity on the position as a whole.
That having been said, we had a debate on Tuesday last week on the draft English Apprenticeships (Consequential Amendments to Primary Legislation) Order, which the noble Lords, Lord Stevenson and Lord Young of Norwood Green, have spoken to, and which was replied to by my noble friend Lord Courtown. A number of questions were asked in that meeting, some of which cross over with what we are discussing this afternoon. I received the answer from the department as I came into the meeting this afternoon, so if I am not absolutely up to date with what the responses are to the questions raised, it is because I have only had it for about half an hour.
I very much support the Government’s policy of creating 3 million apprenticeship starts in this Parliament mentioned in paragraph 18 at page 6 of the Explanatory Notes. There is a real need for vocational training. It could equip people better for practical work and give them a more satisfying, satisfactory and long-lasting permanent job than, dare I say it, a 2.2 in media studies, which may not equip them for an enormous amount. This relates to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Corston, on the quality of courses available.
The Government’s ambition is very great. It is worth while pointing out that last year there were 696,000 live births in England and Wales and 56,000 live births in Scotland, so a total of around 750,000 live births. Therefore, in a five-year period you have 3,750,000 live births, if those numbers are maintained, and we are talking about creating 3 million new apprenticeships over the next five years. That is 80% of the people who will have been born. I know they are not going to be apprentices in their first few years, but it is the scale of what we are thinking about. Of those currently being born in a five-year period, 80% will be expected to take up an apprenticeship.
English Apprenticeships (Consequential Amendments to Primary Legislation) Order 2015
Debate between Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts and Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Young of Norwood Green, is of course second to none in his support for and encouragement of apprenticeships. Next week, we will come to a very substantial discussion of apprenticeships during our consideration in Committee of the Enterprise Bill, of which this order may be an hors d’oeuvre, and maybe not even that. All I would like to be certain of, and I am sure that my noble friend will be able to give me this assurance, is that what we are doing in this piece of legislation will not inhibit or restrict our debates on the clauses that relate to apprenticeships in the Enterprise Bill, which I suspect we will get to on either Monday or Wednesday of next week in Committee.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord who has just spoken paid tribute to my noble friend Lord Young’s continuing interest in and support for the apprenticeship movement. His words carry much weight in these areas. I have only four small questions for the noble Earl in what I take to be more of an amuse bouche than a first course, because we will be returning to these matters in the Enterprise Bill next Wednesday—if we make a little more progress than we did yesterday.
The first question is on almost the same point that has just been raised, which is that in this statutory instrument we are closer to finding an approved English apprenticeship only to see it removed and replaced by the statutory English apprenticeship in the Enterprise Bill, although obviously the dates will vary. When he comes to respond, perhaps the noble Earl could give us a sense of how this is going to segue from one to the other and what changes there will be in practice in terms of what the Bill says and what is currently meant by this statutory instrument. I suspect that that is a slightly longer piece than will be possible in this discussion, so I am happy for him to write to me.
My second point is that in paragraph 10 of the Explanatory Memorandum on the impact, the statement is made that:
“A separate full regulatory impact assessment has not been prepared for this consequential instrument because no impact on the private, public or voluntary sectors is foreseen separate to that already covered by the substantive provisions in the Act”.
That is fine, but unfortunately I am not very good at keeping my files and I could not find the impact assessment for the original Act, and clearly there is a hint here that there were some costs as a result of this change. Perhaps the noble Earl could dig it out—I see a little bit of panic behind him, so perhaps it will take a few days. However, if at some point I could have some indication of what the costs would be, I would be grateful for that.
My third question reinforces the point about quality that was made by my noble friend Lord Young. The Ofsted report on apprenticeships is extremely damning in many ways. It would be interesting to hear the reflections of the noble Earl on what lies behind the points made by my noble friend, which is that we can change the title all we want, but if we do not raise standards or change the nature of what is happening, we will be in trouble. I would like some assurances that the simple change in nomenclature, which is what appears to be happening here, is in fact covered by more action on the part of his department in terms of trying to ensure that standards in apprenticeship training rise and will indeed, it is hoped, eventually get to the point where we are talking about parity of esteem between the academic and the non-academic or vocational routes so that we can in truth have a fully integrated system of further education, complementing those who choose the academic route, but also open to those who wish to switch between the two strains.
The final point is my familiar trope on implementation dates. I appreciate that we are talking about a minor change that is consequent on a piece of legislation which is soon to be overtaken, but the Government have signed up to common commencement dates for the implementation of activities that will put a burden on business. This statutory instrument appears to come in 21 days after the order is made, which presumably will be tomorrow or the day after, and therefore will come in in late October, which is not one of the two commencement dates, which are, as I am sure the noble Earl will be aware, 1 October and 6 April. Why was this not brought forward only a matter of days to 1 October? Given its simplicity and apparently innocuousness in terms of changing things, why on earth did the department not get its act together for 1 October? Given that it is inconsequential and will shortly be overtaken by another Act, why did the noble Earl not wait until 6 April?