House of Commons · Bill Debate
12 March 2021 · 10 other contributors
Opened by Christopher Chope Con Christchurch
Summarised by AI from the official record, so it can contain mistakes.
Christopher Chope raised concerns about apprenticeships (transparency) bill - clause 3 in the House of Commons. A government minister responded. Other MPs also contributed.
Key points
Key requests to Government
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MPs spoke in turn to share their views and ask questions. Here's what each person said.
Opened the debate
Mr Chope moved an amendment to the Bill that would incorporate a guidance issued in August 2010, suggesting that regulations affecting businesses should only be introduced on two common commencement dates each year: one being 1 October. He argued this would reduce regulatory burdens on businesses and providers of apprenticeships and training for young people. He expressed hope that the Government would respond positively to his proposal.
Ms Foy opposed the amendment, arguing it was unnecessary as the Bill does not impose any new costs or burdens on businesses and education providers. She highlighted that further time is not needed for preparation given the current awareness among designated safeguarding leads in further education institutions. Additionally, she believed commencing the legislation at the start of the academic year would make more sense.
Ms Hopkins expressed her opposition to the amendment, stating that she was speaking in the context of the Third Reading debate. She did not provide detailed arguments beyond her position against the proposed changes.
Mr Streeting supported the stance taken by Ms Foy, asserting that there was no further need to add to her arguments and looking forward to hearing the Minister's response.
The Minister thanked Mr Chope for his interest but argued that the amendment would unnecessarily delay the implementation of the Bill. She stated that the current drafting aims at simplifying safeguarding duties without adding burdens or costs to businesses and training providers.
Supports the Bill to ensure consistent safeguarding duties across all post-16 education providers. Highlights that current safeguards are diverse but not necessarily different in nature, and that the Bill simplifies and unifies these requirements without additional costs for institutions.
Supports the Bill to level the playing field for all post-16 education providers and ensures consistent safeguarding measures. Praises Mary Foy's efforts as an MP and her commitment to representing her constituents' concerns.
Supports the Bill for maintaining high standards of safeguarding across all educational institutions. Suggests that the Bill is deregulatory and simplifies statute requirements.
Supports the Bill, emphasising the importance of extending statutory safeguarding arrangements to ensure that all young people in post-16 education receive support. Notes that mental health issues among young people have increased due to the pandemic, with 69% reporting negative impacts on their mental health. Argues for the inclusion of private providers within the duty to follow safeguarding guidance.
Supports the Bill, praising its cross-party support and common sense approach to ensuring consistent safeguarding requirements across all education providers. Emphasises that the Bill will reassure parents about the safety of their children in further education and simplifies existing safeguarding duties.
Tributes every Member who has supported the Bill, highlighting its importance for strengthening safeguarding measures in further education. Expresses hope that the Bill will receive as much support in the House of Lords.
Government Response
The Minister explained that the proposed amendment was unnecessary as it would delay implementation unnecessarily, going beyond the start of the academic year. She emphasised that the Bill simplifies safeguarding duties for post-16 education and training providers without imposing new burdens.