HL Deb 28 February 1997 vol 578 cc1460-3

2.8 p.m.

The Earl of Courtown rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 16th December be approved [11th Report from the Deregulation Committee].

The noble Earl said: My Lords, this order is to be laid under the powers provided in the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994. It amends Section 170 of the Licensing Act 1964 to allow 16 and 17 year-olds to work in bars if they are employed on a training scheme which has been approved for the purpose by the Secretary of State. In the first instance, approval is expected to be limited to the modern apprenticeship scheme.

The order has received the usual comprehensive examination since it was first laid before Parliament in draft form on 10th June 1996. At the end of that initial scrutiny period the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee recommended that a number of amendments be made to the draft order. The Government accepted those recommendations and laid an amended order on 16th December. The committee has now reported that the order is in a form satisfactory to be submitted to this House for affirmative resolution.

As your Lordships will be aware, the law currently prohibits anyone aged under 18 from working in a bar while it is open for the sale or consumption of alcohol. That prevents the licensed trade recruiting 16 and 17 year-old school leavers into the industry at a time when many of the best candidates make their career choice. Employers have expressed concern that too many of those who enter the industry are the less motivated and responsible candidates who have previously failed to settle to a career. That creates a burden on the licensed trade which is seen in a less efficient workforce, greater and more costly training needs and a higher staff turnover than might otherwise be expected.

The licensed trade is a successful and expanding area of the economy. Employment in this sector is forecast to grow rapidly and the ability to recruit and retain high quality staff will play an important part in its future success. This proposal would benefit young people by opening up a valuable career opportunity. It would also benefit customers because better trained and motivated staff should raise the overall quality of service provided.

The order now before the House gives the Secretary of State the power to approve a training scheme if he is satisfied that it meets certain specific requirements. In particular the scheme must include satisfactory arrangements for monitoring the quality of training provided and for assessing the progress of apprentices. It must also ensure that the apprentice is properly supervised, either by the licensee or by a suitable adult who acts on his or her behalf. Such supervision will protect the young person from being placed under pressure from customers, including under-age friends asking to be served, or from any difficulties arising from drunkenness or disorder.

Any employer wishing to participate in the training scheme will have to inform the police of his intention to do so. The police will then have the opportunity to raise with the scheme organisers any concerns about the suitability of the employer or the premises before a decision is taken.

Finally, the order allows apprentices to work in the bar only during normal licensing hours. That will prevent their late night employment in night clubs or in premises which change their nature as a result of late night licence extensions.

To sum up, the order will provide new career opportunities for young people while retaining those protections necessary to prevent exploitation and alcohol abuse. I beg to move.

Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 16th December be approved [11th Report from the Deregulation Committed]—(The Earl of Courtown).

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

My Lords, I am sure that the Minister will expect us to welcome the order, and we do. It is in line with the deregulation policies of the Government and it is in line with those parts of the deregulation policy which we support. In particular, we welcome it because of the impetus that it gives to training for young people and, as the Minister knows, we are very much in favour of the modern apprenticeship scheme of which this could and should form an important part.

I am rather surprised to read in paragraph 13 of the Home Office statement on the order the reference to the representations made to the Home Office by representatives of the licensed trade but no reference to the representations made by the Trades Union Congress. The TUC wrote on 11th April of last year to the Home Office and it wrote on 1st July of last year to the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee. In view of the importance of the TUC in representing workers, including young workers, that should have been recognised not just in the list of people invited to consult but in the list of people who made representations.

The TUC had no objection in principle to the order because it recognises and supports the need for training and protection of young people. It recognises that the order requires that there should be satisfactory arrangements for monitoring the quality of training and the progress of apprentices.

There are worries which are not the fault of the Government. However, the simple fact is that a very large number of bars, the places of employment covered by the order, are small and very difficult to monitor. If the monitoring is to be the responsibility of the training and enterprise councils, which I understand to be the case, will the Minister assure us that the TECs have the capability to cope with monitoring health and safety, the quality of supervision, the quality of training itself and the progression provided by the training; and that there is adequate provision for action to be taken against employers who fail to meet the requirements? As I say, I am not blaming the Government for this, but it is intrinsically a difficult and expensive problem for TECs to provide the monitoring for such relatively small places of employment. With that proviso and that query, I repeat my welcome for the order.

The Viscount of Falkland

My Lords, I also welcome the order. Only last week we had the Bass Carrington annual lunch which is given to parliamentarians during which the chairman gave his address and explained the strategy and the results of the past year and told us how the group was progressing. He placed special emphasis on the importance to that group—and that will be duplicated elsewhere—of the training of young people in the licensing trade. He was criticised from the floor afterwards when questions were asked as regards the low rates of pay for young people starting in the trade. However, as the chairman pointed out, that training is very complete and thorough. They are aiming to bring people to the point where they could possibly run a public house on their own after two years' training.

I have a niece who started in the trade at the age of 21 and, by 23, she was running a pub in Clapham which cannot be an easy area in which to do so. She now has a very lucrative job in the pharmaceutical industry so, unfortunately, they did not manage to keep her. However, I was most impressed by the training which she received and by the way in which she dealt with the day-to-day running of a pub, especially as regards violence in pubs which, of course, is always a danger. Only if you have trained people—and trained young people—who are able to spot trouble before it happens, will you be able to reduce the possibility of such flare-ups which, unfortunately, happen in our society and in other societies.

This is an admirable effort by the Government; indeed, for the second time this morning. I am delighted that common sense is being brought into the whole area at last. Having said that, and on a cheery note, I congratulate the Government yet again on their efforts. I hope that we shall see further efforts along the same lines in the future.

The Earl of Courtown

My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for their support of the order. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, mentioned a number of points regarding TECs and health and safety. The TECs are bound by a detailed contract with the Department for Education and Employment which covers the quality, health and safety and the content of all modern apprenticeships. Each TEC in turn holds contracts with individual employers either directly or through a training provider covering such matters. Such issues are no less important for the modern apprenticeship schemes that TECs monitor perfectly satisfactorily. Under the order the police have the opportunity to raise objections with a TEC if any employer or premises is considered unsuitable for participation in the apprenticeship scheme.

Questions have also been raised about supervision. The TEC has to be satisfied as to the suitability of an employer before agreeing to support a modern apprenticeship. It will look at an employer's ability to provide structured training, arrangements for the apprentice to be assessed against NVQ standards and the employer's arrangements for managing the modern apprenticeships, including monitoring and reviewing the apprentice's progress through the NVQ system.

I was asked what action could be taken against employers. I can tell the noble Lord that licensees failing to meet their responsibilities may be prohibited from further participation in the scheme. Employers would normally be given the opportunity to put matters right before being withdrawn from the scheme. The Hospitality Training Foundation, which is the industry training organisation for this particular modern apprenticeship, will issue guidance to all prospective employers setting out their responsibilities and the consequences of failing to meet them. Once again, I should like to thank noble Lords for their support. I commend the order to the House.

On Question, Motion agreed to.