Education and Skills Bill

Public Bill Committee, 21 February 2008.

Further written evidence to be reported to the House

Clause 33

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

I beg to move amendment No. 135, in clause 33, page 17, line 35, at end insert—

‘( ) In section 105 (redundancy), after subsection (4A) insert—

“(4B) This subsection applies if the reason (or, if more than one, the principal reason) for which the employee was selected for dismissal was that specified in section 101B.”’.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 136.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

What a delight it is to see you in the Chair, Mr. Bercow, particularly given that you look so refreshed after a couple of days’ rest from the Committee’s deliberations. It is also a delight to see the hon. Member for Bristol, West in his place, because we have missed him.

It is important to ensure that young people are not discriminated against at work simply because they wish to fulfil their duty to participate. Clause 32 makes it clear that employers must not discriminate against 16 or 17-year-olds for exercising their right to be permitted by their employer to attend education or training and that it would be deemed as unfair dismissal if someone were dismissed solely on those grounds. As the Committee is aware, young people will be required to participate only until they are 18, so there will be many cases where a young person will not have been continuously employed for a year while they are still subject to the duty to participate.

Normally, there is no right to claim unfair dismissal without a year’s continuous service, but amendment No. 136 means that claims for unfair dismissal under new section 101B, which clause 32 creates to deal with this issue, should be exempt from the usual requirement to have undertaken a year’s continuous employment. Amendment No. 135 is a further, consequential amendment to the Employment Rights Act 1996, which clarifies the fact that it would be unfair to select someone for redundancy for the same reasons. I therefore propose that the amendment be accepted.

Clause 34

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I beg to move amendment No. 33, in clause 34, page 18, line 11, at end insert—

‘(2A) Prior to entering into a parenting contract the local education authority shall ensure that parents’ needs are assessed by the appropriate local authority adult services.’.

Welcome back to the Chair, Mr. Bercow. You seem to be doing overtime at the moment, but you are very welcome. There is something rather incongruous about clauses 34 and 35 and about the use of parenting contracts and parenting orders to enforce the duty that the Bill imposes on 16 and 17-year-olds. That goes back to our earlier debate about what age constitutes maturity and the beginning of adulthood, and that is particularly pertinent to these provisions.

Sixteen-year-olds are regarded in law as old enough to marry and have children, so they could become parents themselves, only to find that their own parents are subject to a parenting contract about them. It is unrealistic to expect parents to rein in, or change the behaviour of, 16 or 17-year-olds who have decided to opt out of education and training. There might have been parenting problems while the children were growing up, and those problems might have contributed to the fact that the young person is no longer participating in education or training. It is naive and unrealistic to think that applying a parenting contract or order at this stage would help to tackle the issue, because it would be too late.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I, too, welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Bercow. I hope that I can assist my hon. Friend by reminding him that when he and I, in harness together, put it to the Minister in a Committee on a different Bill that parenting contracts should have greater statutory force at an earlier age, the Government resisted our overtures, so the current proposals are indeed incongruous.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

My hon. Friend makes a good point, and I am grateful to him for intervening. As he says, it will be too late to introduce parenting contracts, which would need to have been put in place when the children really were children.

Last year, 13,278 parenting contracts were made as a result of poor school attendance, which is 89 per local authority, using the Minister’s assessment of quantum. Some 2,535 contracts were made as a result of exclusions from school, which is just 17 per local authority. I suspect that the number of parenting contracts that will be issued as a result of the clause and as a consequence of 16- and 17-year-olds not participating in education or training will be small. It will certainly be smaller than the 89 and 17 per local authority issued in respect of children of compulsory school age.

Amendment No. 33 adds a new subsection to clause 34, requiring local authorities to ensure that the particular needs of the parents are assessed by the adult services department before a parenting contract is proposed or entered into. The amendment was inspired by the Princess Royal Trust for Carers, which is concerned that young people who are carers, responsible for sick parents or siblings, may find themselves in breach of the duties to participate in education or training because of the burden of their own responsibilities.

The trust believes that before local authorities begin the enforcement process and approach the parents of those carers, they should assess the needs of the parents themselves, who may be ill or incapacitated. Community services may have proved inadequate, thus necessitating care by their children. In those cases, the local authority or primary care trust may have failed to fulfil its statutory duty to provide care for the parents. As the trust states in its briefing, the fact that there are so many young carers

“points to the fact that the current provision of community care support often does not meet the needs of families, requiring children to step into caring roles that can be incredibly demanding, including night-time care, intimate care, help with medication and taking responsibility for the safety of someone who is at risk of self-harm or substance overdose.”

I am sure that the Minister will agree with our concern over the problems faced by young carers, and I am sure that it is a simple oversight that has resulted in the Bill failing to include such provision. If the Government do not accept the amendment, down the line we will see officious local authorities proceeding with parenting contracts, apologetically explaining that their hands are tied by the legislation. I trust that we will receive a sympathetic response from the Minister, and, at the very least, a promise of a Government amendment along similar lines on Report.

Stephen Williams (Liberal Democrat, Bristol West)

It is nice to be back in Committee, and I thank the Minister for his warm welcome. I am representing my party while my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil is engaged on business elsewhere.

I broadly support what the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton said. One of the most moving meetings that I have had in the period of almost three years in which I have been a Member of Parliament was with a group of young carers, organised by the Princess Royal Trust for Carers in Bristol. The children present ranged in age from the quite young, who would not be affected by the Bill, to the late teens, who would be. Some of them had had incredible responsibilities placed on their young shoulders, as in many cases, they looked after a parent with multiple sclerosis or a terminal disease, or a sibling—a responsibility to which the hon. Gentleman did not refer.

Often teenagers have onerous home responsibilities that are not recognised or taken into account during the period of compulsory school attendance to the age of 16. As a result, more time and consideration may be required if, for instance, they have not done their homework, they turn up late for school, or they need to make phone calls during the day. There is plenty of evidence showing that the existing system of compulsory education does not take into account the special requirements of that group of young people.

Once those young people reach the age of 16 or 17 and have to take part in compulsory education to meet the requirements of the legislation, they may not be able to fulfil their domestic responsibilities to assist in the care of their parents or siblings. It would then be unreasonable for the state to impose a duty and a contract on the parent to allow their child to be away from home when they are dependent upon their child for part of their home care. The debate about whether it is fair that the parent should be dependent upon that child is for another time, but the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton gave a good common-sense example to show that it could be detrimental to the rights of the parent if their child were obliged to attend college or go to the workplace when that they are dependent on the child for domestic assistance.

Gordon Marsden (Labour, Blackpool South)

I have considerable sympathy with the concern that the hon. Gentleman has articulated, but I would be interested to know what evidence he has that local authorities that have to deal with attendance issues in the pre-16 period are unsympathetic to the circumstances in which young carers find themselves.

Stephen Williams (Liberal Democrat, Bristol West)

I know from the questions that the hon. Gentleman asked when we both served on the Education and Skills Committee that he takes a close interest in these matters. My evidence came directly from the young people I met, who thought that their schools were not sympathetic to the requirements placed on them by their home duties. We have received written evidence from the Princess Royal Trust that the absence of a child who is a carer from school is often categorised as truancy, and we have had debates in Committee and elsewhere about what is authorised and what is unauthorised absence. There is already a problem with the way in which those children are categorised by the local authority, and we do not want that problem to be replicated later in the system. The amendment responds to concerns that the measure would put an onerous duty on the parent to ensure that their child attends college. That could be going too far, so I wish to support the amendment.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

I shall begin by saying a few things about the principle of parent contracts and orders, then move on to address the amendment. It is worth pointing out to the Committee that we already have parenting contracts and orders for over-16s with regard to behaviour. It is only the duties limited to school attendance that apply to compulsory school age. As we discussed when we debated whether it is appropriate to impose a duty post-16, the principle is established that the period between the ages of 16 and 19 is a transitional period between childhood and adolescence, and it is appropriate in certain circumstances to look at parents’ responsibilities for people of that age.

Angela Watkinson (Conservative, Upminster)

The amendment raises the issue of circumstances in which there are two parents in the equation. There is the first generation parent: the parent of the teenager. If the teenager concerned is a 16-year-old girl who is herself a mother, she, too, is a parent and has parenting responsibilities. If that girl does not remain in the family home and is living in hostel accommodation or a council flat, under the terms of the Bill, is that a sufficient and reasonable excuse for her not to be engaged in education or training? Where does the responsibility lie for the continuing education and training of the teenage girl? Does it lie with her parents?

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

Order. I think that I have the drift and, more importantly, I think that the Minister does, too.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

Yes, I think so, and I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving me an opportunity to seek to clarify that issue. In such circumstances, it is important that the mother of the young child, as opposed to the parent of the young mother, should receive appropriate support. There should be no enforcement against her unless that support is in place and a programme is available such as care to learn, which assists young parents with child care when they want to access college courses. All of those factors would need properly to be taken into consideration by the local authority in fulfilling its duty to enable young people to fulfil their duties.

It would be extremely unlikely that an authority would think it appropriate to use a contract or an order for the parent of a young mother. The test set out in subsection (2)(b) is that

“the authority considers that entering into the parenting contract would be desirable in the interests of the young person’s fulfilment of that duty.”

The test is whether it would be useful in assisting the young person, and the Committee must take that into account in its discussions on parenting contracts. There may be cases in which parents obstruct young people in the fulfilment of their duty. For example, they might insist that the young person remains at home looking after younger siblings or they might indulge in some form of antisocial activity late into the night that keeps the young person awake. It would be appropriate to reach an agreement with such parents—and that is what a parenting contract is—to set out quite clearly that they have a responsibility to ensure that their children get a reasonable night’s sleep so that they can participate in their college or training course.

Naturally, I agree with the sentiment and intention behind the amendment in respect of carers. It is critical that the local authority assess the support needs of young carers. A cross-Government review of the national carers strategy is under way, and provides an opportunity to reassess the support available to young carers. Young carers have been consulted and stakeholder bodies with knowledge of the issues are fully engaged. We look forward to receiving the detailed recommendations later this year. In the interim, to help secure early progress, we announced in the children’s plan our intention to build on our existing plans for family pathfinders. Up to six pathfinders will be extended to test the provision of more effective support for families with young carers. The aim is to achieve better provision by ensuring that support is organised so that children in the family do not fall into inappropriate or burdensome caring roles in the first place. Pathfinders will provide invaluable learning on these issues, which will be shared across all areas, and £3 million is available over the next three years to support that goal. We are also funding the Children’s Society and the Princess Royal Trust, which the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton mentioned, to deliver a programme of training for services that support young carers and their families. That training is due to roll out across the first set of regions early this year.

We expect local authorities to assess the needs of the parent before entering into a parenting contract. Guidance for local authorities on parenting contracts for non-attendance of children under 16 says that they should consult other agencies involved, identify issues and carry out an assessment using the common assessment framework. However, it would not be appropriate to make that a statutory requirement. It will be for local authorities to judge what is appropriate in each case, having regard to guidance and to any assessment that they have carried out regarding the parent and the young person. They may be well acquainted with the family’s circumstances, for example, as a result of the involvement of other local authority services, so such an assessment might not always be necessary. Requiring local authorities to carry out an additional assessment when they have recently completed an assessment of the family would be an additional and unnecessary burden. It is better to retain flexibility by keeping the provisions as they are at the moment.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

Does the Minister think that communications between the statutory bodies that deal with such problems are adequate, given the Victoria ClimbiÃ(c) tragedy and subsequent tragedies of a similar nature that have happened in recent weeks?

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

I think that they can always be improved, and we are gradually doing so. We have made really good progress on safeguarding young people, which will be improved further by the data sharing that we so much enjoyed discussing on Tuesday. That will allow agencies dealing with young people to see which other agencies have had access to them. If they are part of the same local authority, there is even greater potential for people to be aware of what is going on in a particular family, through case conferences and so on. I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s intention, and I stress that I expect local authorities to conduct assessments, but I urge him to withdraw the amendment.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I am not persuaded by the Minister’s response. He seems to be relying on the assertion, to repeat his phrase, that “We would expect parents’ needs to be assessed” and that there is a statutory requirement to consult other agencies. However, there is not a statutory requirement to assess the needs of these particular parents. I am afraid that I do not have the same trust as he does in the communication abilities of the people who should take that responsibility.

Even now, after the Every Child Matters agenda has been implemented across local authorities, at vast expense and with a reorganisation of their departments, we still have the problem of people not communicating, highlighted in recent news stories. A baby was tortured to death, and despite scores of incidents of involvement of health professionals, no action was taken by a local authority children’s services department. I do not believe that the Minister is right to rely on what happens in local authorities. He says that they may well be acquainted with a family’s circumstances, but they may well not. It is important that there is a statutory requirement on local authorities, before they start issuing parenting contracts, to assess the needs of parents, who may well have medical needs that are not being addressed by social services.

The Minister referred to clause 34(2), which states that a local authority in England

“may enter into a parenting contract with a parent of the young person—

(a) if the parent is resident in England, and

(b) the authority considers that entering into the parenting contract would be desirable in the interests of the young person’s fulfilment of that duty.”

He interprets that as applying if a parent is keeping their child up at night or doing something negative to prevent a 16-year-old from participating in education or training, but that is not the only possible interpretation. In fact, the most common interpretation is that there is a positive duty on the parent to do something to help the young person into education or training. In the circumstances that my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster gave—a young mother living in separate accommodation—it would be naive to expect that parent to have influence over the young person and persuade them into education or training.

I am not convinced, and I do not think that the Minister has convinced other members of the Committee, so I wish to press the amendment.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

I do not usually seek another go, but I stress that the clause states that the local authority

“may enter into a parenting contract”.

It is not required to do so. Subsection (6) states that a parenting contract

“does not create any obligations in respect of whose breach any liability arises in contract or in tort”,

so a person cannot be sued for breaching it. Subsection (3)(b) mentions

“a statement by the local education authority that it agrees to provide support to the parent”.

In many cases, the contracts are a valuable way to clarify support. If a parent has problems such as not receiving sufficient local authority support, contracts can be positive.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

Will the Minister give way?

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

Order. We cannot have an intervention on an intervention.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I am grateful to the Minister for intervening and will happily give way to my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

I think that I have the basic idea of what parenting contracts are about, but I wonder whether it would be possible for the Minister to circulate some examples of contracts that he thinks might be useful. Are they simply about parents trying to force the child to go to college? What exactly is the nature of the contract?

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

My hon. Friend makes a good and valuable point, and I hope that the Minister will intervene on me to respond to it.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

I am grateful, Mr. Bercow, and I know that interventions should be short.

I tried to give one or two examples earlier. We introduced the contract, like the orders, mostly as a mechanism to deal with parents who are obstructing young people fulfilling their duty through their behaviour or by asking them to do things that are unreasonable when they have another duty to perform. But, as I said, there may also be circumstances in which it would be helpful for the local authority to clarify the support that they will give to the parent, as the support the parent should give to the child.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I feel like a middleman in an important dialogue, but I will now address the point that the Minister made about subsection (3)(b), which states that a parenting contract should contain

“a statement by the local education authority that it agrees to provide support to the parent”.

He is right to cite the subsection, but the contract can include a statement of support for the parent only if the local authority is aware of the needs of the parent. I therefore see no harm in simply adding to the clause the phrase:

“Prior to entering into a parenting contract the local education authority shall ensure that parents’ needs are assessed by the appropriate local authority adult services.”

Such a requirement would not add burdensome assessment. If there are no needs and if both parents are healthy, it will be a two-minute job, which is less than the 10 minutes that the Minister is requiring every employer to spend on assessing new employees who start work with them. It would not be burdensome, nor would it detract from the clause; in fact, it would enhance it. Therefore, I would like to press the amendment to a Division.

Clause 35

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I beg to move amendment No. 187, in clause 35, page 19, line 1, leave out ‘, but need not,’.

This is a short amendment to question whether a phrase such as “but need not” in a subsection that gives a permissive power for a parenting order to include a particular requirement is proper legislative language. Clearly, if the provision gives rise to a permissive power rather than a requirement, it already is the case that the power need not be used. The phrase is tautologous and rather folksy in its drafting and, therefore, should be removed.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

The phrase “but need not”, however folksy, is commonly used in legislation. It is used in the provisions in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 in respect of parenting orders for antisocial behaviour. In this Bill, it emphasises that the court has discretion in respect of the requirements imposed in the order.

It is important that orders are tailored to meet the individual needs of the parent so that he or she can most effectively deal with the behaviour that is of concern. That discretion, which is made exceptionally clear by the use of “may” and “but need not”, reflects that. I would argue that the phrase should be retained, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his interesting amendment.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I tabled it as an interesting amendment, Mr. Bercow, but the matter has now been debated at length, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 37

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I beg to move amendment No. 189, in clause 37, page 19, line 31, at end add—

‘(3) The grounds for an appeal under subsection (1) shall include a lack of suitable educational or training provision for the needs of the person to whom this Part applies.’.

The clause allows for appeals against parenting orders to be made to the Crown court. The amendment was tabled to enable the Minister to respond to the concern expressed by the National Union of Teachers in paragraph 20 of its briefing. The amendment applies equally to clause 43 and the grounds for appeal against attendance notices. The NUT says that the Bill provides for appeals

“but does not appear to allow for appeals on the grounds that the availability of the education or training available is not suited to their needs.”

The Minister’s response to its concerns would be appreciated.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

The amendment is unnecessary, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman, who spoke on behalf of the National Union of Teachers, will pass that comment on to his comrades. Clause 37 provides for parents a clear right of appeal to the Crown court against the making of a parenting order, if they feel that one has been issued unjustly. The grounds for such an appeal are currently unspecified and unrestricted, so there is no need for the explicit provision in the amendment.

A parent who believed that the court making the parenting order was unjust to conclude that such an order would be desirable in the interest of the young person’s fulfilment of the duty—because, for example, no suitable provision was available locally—might appeal on that basis. Parents can appeal for whatever reason they choose. I hope that on that basis the hon. Gentleman will agree that the amendment is unnecessary, and withdraw it.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I am sure that my comrades at the NUT, with whom we have a good relationship, which we hope will continue, will be reassured by the Minister’s response, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 38

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I beg to move amendment No. 188, in clause 38, page 20, line 2, after ‘cases’, insert

‘, in particular those relating to parents who are estranged from their children.’.

The clause gives the Secretary of State power to make regulations about parenting orders, and the amendment is intended to ensure that he would include in such regulations limits on the powers of local authorities to issue a parenting order in circumstances where the children are estranged from their parents. A 16 or 17-year-old child may have left home, as my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster said, on bad terms with their parents, and there may no longer be any contact. In those circumstances it would be unreasonable of the local authority to impose a parenting order on the parents, so the legislation should limit the power to make such an order in those circumstances.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

We have discussed at some length the reasons for not excluding various, often vulnerable, groups from different provisions, so I shall try to be brief. First, we do not want to specify any individual groups in the Bill. Everyone will be catered for, but it is not appropriate to introduce caveats in primary legislation for a range of specific groups. Secondly, the intention of the regulations is not to exclude any specific groups of parents. The relevant part of the Bill draws on existing legislation for parenting contracts and parenting orders, and the limitations of the regulations in this instance are in reference to where people live, rather than the exclusion of any groups.

The reason for the regulation-making powers is to ensure that the system is flexible enough to respond when a young person who fails to fulfil the duty is resident in one local education authority, but their parent is resident in another. The powers are also needed to set down further details of what should be done in such cases.

To issue a parenting order, a local authority will have to apply to the courts and provide information on the background of the young person. That information should include details of the relationship between the young person and their parent, which would help to inform the local authority and the court whether an order against that parent would be appropriate. A parenting order can be made only where the court is satisfied that that would be in the interest of getting the young person to participate. Clearly, the court would have to be satisfied that an order against an estranged parent was in the interest of getting the young person to participate.

When we make the regulations, judgments may be made about whether estranged parents should be included, but it would be appropriate to consult on matters relating to the regulations at the appropriate time, rather than to pre-empt any decision now. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I am grateful to the Minister for that response, and I just emphasise one point. The amendment would not exclude the group that we are talking about from the general duty to participate, but it does address the issue of whether a parenting order would have any credibility when applied to a parent who has no contact with their own children.

None the less, I take on board the Minister’s persuasive points about the court having to take into account the relationship between the parent and the child before issuing a parenting order. I was also encouraged by his comment that when he and the Department come to make the regulations, judgments may be made about whether to include the circumstances alluded to in the amendment. On the basis of those helpful comments, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 39

Stephen Williams (Liberal Democrat, Bristol West)

I beg to move amendment No. 67, in clause 39, page 20, line 40, at end insert ‘, and

(c) must make an assessment of the person’s ability to benefit from the support offered.’.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 68, in clause 39, page 20, line 40, at end insert ‘, and

(c) may grant a waiver from this obligation where this seems in the best interests of the person.’.

No. 69, in clause 40, page 21, line 35, at end insert—

‘(2A) This further notice must not be issued before the authority has made an assessment of the person’s ability to comply with the initial notice, and whether this meets their needs.’.

Stephen Williams (Liberal Democrat, Bristol West)

My hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil assured me that, given the glacial pace at which the Committee had cantered—or, rather, not cantered—through previous clauses, there was absolutely no chance that we would reach this stage before 10 o’clock, when he is scheduled to join us. For the past few minutes, I have therefore been somewhat panic-stricken and I have been reading through the amendments that my hon. Friend drafted and tabled. I will have to make my best attempt—[ Interruption. ] Well, it demonstrates palpable honesty in front of fellow Committee members. I will try my best to interpret what my hon. Friend would have said had he been here or had we been able to travel forward 20 minutes in time to when he was here.

The amendments suggest that if the local authority is to offer support to the young person to ensure that they can fulfil their obligations under the Bill to attend compulsory education or training, some assessment should be made of whether that support is appropriate. During our evidence sessions a few weeks ago, we heard some interesting evidence from various bodies, particularly the Prince’s Trust and Fairbridge, which suggested that some of the people at whom the Bill is aimed in the broadest sense—those not in education, employment or training—lead quite dysfunctional lives. They might have an addiction to drugs or alcohol or might have been in and out of the criminal justice system. The support offered to them by the local authority might not, therefore, necessarily address the fundamental needs that they have in their daily lives, and that might be one of the underlying reasons why they are unable to fulfil the obligation in the Bill to attend college.

Obviously, if someone has an addiction to heroin, or some other part of their life is dysfunctional, attending college or workplace training will not be at the forefront of their minds, and their attendance might not be welcomed by the institution or employer anyway. The compulsion introduced by the Bill will clearly not have the desired effect of ensuring that that group of people have a measurable level of educational attainments by the time that they are 18.

It will be clear from our earlier discussions and the questions that we asked during our evidence sessions that my hon. Friend and I would prefer these young people with dysfunctional lives to be given more access to the support services that would make a tangible differences to their circumstances, such as more drug rehabilitation and treatment and more investment in mental health, if such problems are the reason why they cannot fulfil their duty to participate. The purpose of the amendments is to put in place a requirement to assess whether young people’s health needs—I see drug addiction as a health problem—or mental health needs have been properly dealt with before further duties are placed on them. Our aim is to ensure that the relevant support is there so that the local authority can take an holistic approach. I have done the best that I can in the circumstances.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

It is a pleasure to move to chapter 5, which is headed “Attendance Notices”. I wonder whether the hon. Member for Bristol, West would like to issue an attendance notice on the hon. Member for Yeovil so that he can speak to his own amendments.

The amendments return us to discussions that we had at some length earlier in the Committee process about the support that should be offered to young people found to be not participating. Its intention is one that I share, as I have already set out: no young person should enter the enforcement system if they have unmet support needs.

Amendment No. 67 would mean that, before a local authority could give an initial notice, in addition to what the clause already requires, they would need to assess the person’s ability to benefit from the support offered. I believe that the intention of this amendment is already reflected in subsections (5)(a) and (b) and (6)(b). For the benefit of the Committee, I will briefly run through those provisions. Subsection (5)(a) states that the local authority

“must take all reasonable steps to secure that relevant support is offered”.

We have discussed that at considerable length, including what it means in respect of particular groups of young people. Subsection (5)(b) states that the local authority

“may not give the notice unless satisfied that the person has been afforded an opportunity to take advantage of the support offered.”

That, in my view, requires precisely the sort of assessment the amendment would insert into the clause. A local authority could not be satisfied that the young person has had the opportunity to benefit from the support offered if it considered that the young person in question did not have the ability to benefit from the support offered.

Subsection (6) then states that the local authority can begin enforcement action only if the young person is failing to fulfil the duty without reasonable excuse. I have, at the request of the absent hon. Member for Yeovil, written to the Committee about my thinking on “reasonable excuse”. I am sure that he will have a reasonable excuse for the hon. Member for Bristol, West. I hope that he will understand that as we are five years away from implementing the provisions of the Bill, I wish to use that time to consult fully with organisations such as those from which we heard during our evidence sessions and which the hon. Member for Bristol, West, speaking with alacrity on his feet, mentioned. My thinking will undoubtedly develop as a result of that consultation.

The relevant support referred to in subsection (5)(a) would be provided by Connexions, which is based on its personal advisers developing a sufficient understanding of a young person’s needs in order to assess what support might be most appropriate to meet those needs. Subsections (5) and (6) would mean that a local authority will not begin enforcement unless they have provided the right support.

Amendment No. 68 returns us to the question of a waiver certificate, which we debated at length in relation to clause 1, many moons ago. I believe there was an eclipse of the moon last night and it almost feels as though we were discussing clause 1 at the time of the previous eclipse. As I made clear to the Committee then, we do not support issuing any type of waiver to specific groups of young people to exempt them from the duty. The hon. Member for Yeovil withdrew his amendment that first introduced the concept of a waiver certificate in relation to clause 1, and I hope that this colleague the hon. Member for Bristol, West will do the same here. I know that he does not mean to suggest that young people should be denied the opportunities offered by participation in education and training.

As I understand it, amendment No. 69 would require local authorities to conduct an assessment of a young person’s ability to comply with an attendance notice before any such notice is issued. I do not believe that that would add anything to the caveats relating to attendance notices in clauses 41 and 42. The provisions in the Bill will ensure that before issuing an attendance notice, a local authority must satisfy itself that the named provision meets the young person’s needs. It will also have the knowledge of the matters that an attendance panel would take into account in considering any appeal by a young person against an attendance notice. The attendance panel provides an important independent check on the local authority’s actions, which I am sure that we will discuss fairly shortly. I look forward to that and hope, in the light of my reassurances, that the hon. Member for Bristol, West will withdraw the amendment.

Stephen Williams (Liberal Democrat, Bristol West)

I shall keep my remarks brief. Having heard the Minister’s assurances, I have only one option: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 40

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I beg to move amendment No. 151, in clause 40, page 21, line 26, at end insert—

‘(b) the local education authority has taken all reasonable steps to secure that person’s voluntary participation in required education or training.’.

Mr. Hayes rose—

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I am sure that my hon. Friend will have chance to contribute shortly.

An attendance notice follows the issue of a written notice by a local authority, as provided for in clause 39. Although the written notice must give at least 15 days’ notice of the issuance of an attendance notice, under clause 40, the local authority has a six-month window during which it can get around to issuing an attendance notice. If those provisions become law in 2013 or 2015 and are not overtaken by other eye-catching Government initiatives, it would be interesting to see how many such notices are actually issued. A six-month window, out of what will be in reality less than two years of a 16 or 17-year-old’s life, will eat into the time during which those provisions can be used.

Amendment No. 51, which was inspired by my friends in the National Union of Teachers, would add another condition that would have to be fulfilled before an attendance notice can be issued. In its briefing, the NUT states that the

“purpose of the amendment...is to help ensure the emphasis of the Bill is on the rights of young people to participate in education or training post-16 over and above an emphasis on a punishable duty”.

I expect and hope that my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings will expand on that point when he contributes to the debate.

The NUT went on to state that it is arguable that the effect of the amendment is largely cosmetic. It wrote:

“However, the NUT believes that such a presentational difference is vital if the overall message is as the Government clearly intends and if the system of enforcement is to be seen as very much a last resort”.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

Such is the enthusiasm of the of the Front-Bench team fielded by the Opposition that we can barely resist the temptation to rise in support of the amendments that we have crafted. I am delighted to accept my hon. Friend’s invitation to add to the few words that he offered in support of the amendment.

As we have heard, clause 40 enables local education authorities to issue attendance notices specifying the type of provision to be undertaken, a description of the course and details of where and when a young person should attend. According to the Local Government Association, there are four steps to that enforcement process. It says:

“The first step will be for the learning provider to try to identify and address the issues by providing additional support or identify alternative learning programmes.”

Secondly:

“If the young person drops out of learning, the local authority will have a responsibility to contact them and work with them over a period to identify appropriate alternative learning options.”

Thirdly:

“If the young person still does not engage”—

having been through that process with the local authority—

“they will be given a formal last chance to engage voluntarily”,

and the situation if they do not do so will be made clear. The LGA continues:

“The local authority will decide when the time is appropriate for this and will then have the power, to issue an Attendance Notice, specifying precisely the provision that the young person must attend, and where and when they must do so. Appeals will be referred to an independent adjudication panel, which the local authority will set up. The panel will review the steps that the local authority has taken to ensure that there had been sufficient opportunity and support to engage voluntarily. The panel would have powers to confirm or dismiss the Attendance Notice and to recommend the local authority to take action to meet the needs of the young person.”

Fourthly, according to the LGA:

“If the young person did not meet the terms of their attendance notice, the local authority could issue them with a Fixed Penalty Notice.”

We debated that issue during our extensive discussions about compulsion. The provision before us essentially means that action against the young person will be stepped up if those early attempts to engage them by means of adjusting what is available to them, properly informing them and providing support and encouragement, fail.

The fourth stage, according to the LGA, includes further measures:

“Appeals would again go to the same panel, which would confirm or dismiss the notice. If the FPN is unpaid the local authority would bring the case before a Youth Court, where the penalty on conviction would be a fine.”

That measure is regarded as the last resort, as the Minister said repeatedly when we discussed the issue before. The LGA states that if a fine is unpaid, the youth court has options beyond custody,

“including taking money from wages or imposing an unpaid work requirement.”

The Minister has assured us that no one will go to prison, but the process, although well defined and an accelerating one, ends with someone having a conviction—being a criminal in the sense that I have described.

Clause 40 does not require local authorities to have taken all reasonable steps to secure voluntary participation in education and training before an attendance notice is issued. Our amendment would clarify the position and ensure that young people were guided to the most appropriate education and training before any formal sanctions were used. That is the essential point. There should be a well understood, transparent and logical process, which accelerates the action that the local authority might take. However, there should also be an absolute requirement to avoid a formal process until such time as all other options have been exhausted.

I know that the Minister shares that view, because he expressed it earlier in our deliberations. It is critical that we encourage young people to commit to participation of their own will, because if they do so, there is a much greater chance of their succeeding—of seeing their training through and developing the skills that they need to become increasingly employable. The amendment would ensure that the formal process did not kick in until everything that could be—and, in my judgment, must be—done to encourage voluntary participation had been done.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

Of course we want as many young people as possible to engage voluntarily in learning, without having to use sanctions. That is the aim of local authorities too, as John Freeman from the Association of Directors of Children’s Services told us. He is the director of children’s services in Dudley and in evidence to the Committee he said that

“we see enforcement as the last option and, indeed, an indication that we have failed somewhere. A disengaged young person is not just an indication that they have failed, but that we have failed.”——[Official Report, Education and Skills Public Bill Committee, 22 Jan 2008; c. 72, Q174]

That is why we have emphasised the need to put the provision in place. Every young person, wherever they are in the country and whatever level they are working at, will be able to find a suitable learning option. We are focusing on ensuring that there is the right support, from careers education and guidance in schools, to the Connexions service and talented youth support, for young people both to engage with, and stay in, learning and to achieve. We will also ensure that there is extra help for those with special educational needs.

The amendment to clause 40 is not necessary. It might be helpful if I quickly mention the 10 stages that we have introduced, as opposed to the four stages that the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings has identified, so that hon. Members are clear about the extent to which there is a last resort in the courts. The first stage is support from the learning provider. If a young person encounters problems or shows signs of disengaging from learning, the first step is for the learning provider to try to identify and address the issue by providing additional support or identifying an alternative learning programme. The second stage is notification to Connexions. If the young person drops out altogether, the learning provider will have a duty to inform the local authority or its Connexions service provider, which will then contact the young person to try to identify what the problems are. Over time, the guidance service will work with the young person to offer advice and broker support to help them to re-engage with learning. That is the third stage: the support from Connexions, which will identify an appropriate learning option and provide support to take that up.

A last chance—the fourth stage—is provided if the young person still does not engage once a suitable programme has been identified and appropriate support provided—[Interruption.] I am delighted to see that the hon. Member for Yeovil has arrived. I only wish that we could all be party to the discussions that he will probably have with the hon. Member for Bristol, West. He can be assured that an attendance notice is on its way stating that he has missed the fourth stage—the last chance—that I was talking about. If the young person has been offered a suitable programme and additional support has been provided, and they have no outstanding barriers to participation or reasonable excuses for not participating, they should be given a formal last chance to engage voluntarily.

The fifth stage is 15 days’ notice. There is a point at which the local authority takes a clear decision to begin enforcement. A young person cannot enter the enforcement system automatically or accidentally. The local authority must consciously make that decision and then give the young person 15 days’ notice in writing that they will be issued with an attendance notice—the initial steps that are set out in clause 39. Stage six is the issuing of an attendance notice. At stage seven, the young person can appeal against the attendance notice, and stage eight is the serving of a fixed penalty notice, which again is appealable. There would then be a fine in the youth court and, finally, fine enforcement. There are plenty of stages all the way down the track.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I suspect that that process will take about 10 years. What is the time scale over which the Minister believes that would happen?

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

Until youth court proceedings have started, the process can be halted at any stage by the young person if they voluntarily choose to take up the support that they have been offered. The process may take some time, but it certainly will not take years for it to be completed. The vast majority of the process involves providing support. Once we get to the formal enforcement stage matters are pursued through the magistrates courts, which is a fairly familiar process that I think we are all aware can be relatively swift. Obviously, those in extremis who end up in court will be subject to court processes, which can take a bit longer. However, we hope that, as in cases where the participation age has been raised, we will not get to the stage of court enforcement.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

Some aspects of the process that the Minister described are subject to time limits, but other parts are not. Would not it be useful to set a timetable for the various steps that he has described—my four stages or his 10, whichever is more appropriate? The process could begin, but not end until after a person has aged beyond the constraints implicit in the Bill—they could reach 18 or 19—and that would be entirely inappropriate.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

Clearly, if the person reaches the age beyond which the law no longer applies, the process would cease because it would become pointless. As for setting timetables, it is right that we should specify 15 days’ notice. The reason for doing so is to ensure that we do everything we can to get that young person to participate, so the sooner we can get on with the process the better. It is not particularly helpful to specify individual time scales in legislation, as we are some years away from the date on which these measures come into effect. A time scale that seems reasonable now might not be reasonable in a few years’ time. I agree that we must do all we can to get as many young people as possible to participate voluntarily, but the hon. Gentleman’s amendment is unnecessary. It was a sharp contrast to see two lead spokesmen rise to speak to the amendment, given the reluctance of any hon. Member to speak to the earlier amendments proposed by the Liberal Democrats. I hope that both the hon. Gentlemen will be happy to withdraw the amendment.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

The Minister has made it clear that the enforcement process leading to a fixed penalty is a last resort, and he helpfully fleshed out the process for the Committee’s benefit. However, it would be helpful to have some sense of the timetable, at least in guidance, for the benefit of local authorities. Flexibility is required, because each case is different. The measures deal with complex issues and individuals—those individuals have different needs and different circumstances apply— but some kind of timetable or time framework would be a useful addition. The Minister might want to reflect on that and return to it later.

The Minister handled the amendment in a conciliatory and professional way, despite his cutting asides to the Liberal Democrats, which I thought harsh. I had begun to think that the hon. Members for Yeovil and for Bristol, West were one and the same person as we have never seen them together until today, but that has been disproved. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

Highly uncharacteristically, the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings has overreached himself. It was perfectly in order for him to speak to the amendment any number of times, but I am afraid that he is not empowered to seek the leave of the Committee to withdraw it, simply because it is not his. I call Mr. Nick Gibb.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

You will be unsurprised to know, Mr. Bercow, that I am in complete agreement with my hon. Friend. I, too, beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Stephen Williams (Liberal Democrat, Bristol West)

I beg to move amendment No. 79, in clause 40, page 21, leave out lines 41 to 45.

I noticed the look of doubt on your face, Mr. Bercow, as to whether my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil or I would move the amendment. I was grateful for the arrival of the cavalry from Yeovil, but my hon. Friend has said that as I have had time to think about the amendment, I might as well move it. I was also grateful for the peroration from the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings, as it has given me adequate time to think about what the amendment would do in removing subsection (5) from clause 40. The measure is too prescriptive an interpretation of the needs of the young person. Subsection (5)(a) will direct which institution the young person may be required to attend for their compulsory education or training, but the Bill does not go on to say that practical common-sense considerations should be taken into account when it comes to selecting an institution. A young person’s education destination might be selected against their will.

In some parts of the country, geography may be a relevant factor when an attendance notice requires a young person to attend a further education college. My right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) has said a couple of times in the Chamber that the nearest college to the town of Berwick-upon-Tweed is 50 miles away. It would therefore be nonsensical for an attendance notice imposed by Northumberland county council, for example, to require a person from Berwick to attend a college rather than a school. The Bill does not allow such common-sense considerations to be taken into account.

There may also be reasons why an institution would not want to accept a person who is imposed on them. As we know, some young people choose not to stay on beyond 16 because they have had a bad experience of school, and perhaps the school has had a bad experience of them. For example, they may have been subject to disciplinary procedures at school; they may have been suspended or even expelled. The Bill does not take into account whether a school or college would wish to have a young person imposed upon them for compulsory attendance as a result of an attendance notice.

Subsection (5)(b) goes even further by removing all element of choice whatever from the young person who is subject to a notice. The measure therefore not only determines which educational institution a person should be required to attend, but what course they should be required to study. Subsequent subsections do not make any reference to whether a course is appropriate for the individual or the career that they are expected to follow in future, or whether courses take heed of previous educational achievements or non-achievements at age 16. For instance, in theory, it would be quite ridiculous to impose a duty on someone to study A-level economics if they had only secured grade F at GCSE maths, yet there is no provision in the measure to account for the previous attainments of a young person when specifying the exact name and description of the course that they are to take.

The implications of the measure for young people and the institutions that they will be required to attend are stark, and I look forward to the Minister’s response. As my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil has not intervened, I take it that I have made all the points that he would have made, and perhaps some that he might not have made.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting case. The process must illustrate maximum sensitivity both to the person and to the institutions that, by proxy, are involved in the process. Specifying an institution and course, as the hon. Gentleman described, might create tensions between institutions and local authorities and even, as he implied, reach a point at which institutions feel that they have had imposed on them some of the most difficult and challenging young people.

Institutions should deal with challenging young people, but it would be better if there was a degree of collaboration or willing co-operation. The hon. Gentleman made an interesting point that there will come a stage, if we are not careful, when institutions that have had increasingly difficult young people imposed upon them see the local authority as the enemy. I do not know whether he intended his amendment to be a probing one, but the Minister needs to be clear about the relationship between the local authority, institutions and individuals. It is critical to ensure that there is maximum sensitivity in that relationship if the measure is to work.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

The intention behind an attendance notice is to set out clearly for the young person and everyone involved in helping them to participate exactly what is required from them. The amendment may reflect confusion about the purpose of including in the attendance notice details of the type of provision that should be undertaken, a description of the course, and details of where and when the young person should attend. I appreciate that, to some extent, the hon. Member for Bristol, West is catching up, and that to rush ahead and read clause 45(2) might be more than could reasonably be asked of him, given the role that he is fulfilling for his party at the moment. Clause 45(2) says:

“It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (1) to show that he or she is, and since the giving of the attendance notice has been, fulfilling the duty imposed by section 2.”

They do not have to do what it says on the notice, as long as they are fulfilling their legal obligation to participate.

Stephen Williams (Liberal Democrat, Bristol West)

I acknowledge that I am playing catch-up, but why does clause 40(5), which is the subject of the amendment, say that

“the attendance notice must specify”,

rather than “may” specify?

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

It must specify an appropriate course, location and time, so that it is clear to everyone that there is a suitable form of provision for the young person, but if the young person finds other provision in which they wish to partake, they should be able to do so.

The reason for including the details is not to force the young person to participate in a particular way, or to limit their options. If they received an attendance notice they could still choose to fulfil their duty via any one of the range of available options. In setting out the appropriate details, we are aiming to make it easier for the young person to comply with the duty by making it absolutely clear what is expected of them. They are still free to participate in any other way.

On the points that have been made about schools having young people imposed on them, it is worth moving forward to clause 41(6)(a) and (b), which says that the local authority must consult and be satisfied with arrangements that have been made for education and training to be provided with the appropriate institutions. In respect of it being suitable education for the young person, clause 41(5) says:

“The education or training must be suitable for the person.”

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

To clarify one matter, clause 39 requires the notice of failure to comply to be given in writing, but clause 40 does not appear to say that that is the case. Is that because the Minister envisages that it may be necessary in certain circumstances to give an oral notice, or it is implied in some way that it should be in writing?

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

The notice certainly has to be given in writing, and it must be extremely clear to everyone concerned what is required, and that the provision is in place so that it is, if necessary, enforceable. The details are set out in the attendance notice, which is a clear document that can be returned to if the young person wanted to dispute whether the provision offered was appropriate. Clause 41 provides further details about the description of education and training that must be made, and it makes it clear that it must be suitable for the young person. If a young person wishes to appeal to an attendance panel, the attendance notice gives a clear, written description of what has been offered.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

I had assumed that the “written notice” in clause 39 was in some way implied in clause 40.

What will happen to the 40,000 people a year who leave school unable to read, write and add up? Will these notices be explained to such people by somebody, and if so, by whom?

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

I shall not go back over—

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

Order. As the debate has progressed, it has gone somewhat beyond the parameters of the amendment under discussion. We have strayed or elided into what is effectively a clause stand part debate. The Committee will naturally expect me to take that into account in deciding whether a clause stand part debate is necessary when the time comes. I will leave the Minister to use his judgment on whether and to what extent to respond to the points that have strayed.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

Thank you, Mr. Bercow. I will pass over the fears about reading, writing and adding up. I think that I have made it clear to the Committee that I dispute the version of events given by the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire.

Throughout this process, there should be engagement by the personal adviser with the young person, talking them through the process. Equally, those responsible for enforcement in the local authority should ensure that the young person understands what is set out in the notice and that they can halt the process at any point by voluntarily participating under the provisions set out in the notice, or by an alternative route that complies with the duties set out in clause 2.

Stephen Williams (Liberal Democrat, Bristol West)

I want to backtrack to before the intervention of the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire. The Minister was trying to give me some comfort by drawing my attention to clause 41(6), which says that the educational institution should be consulted before, in effect, a person is imposed on it. However, consulting on something does not necessarily mean that the response will be respected. How will a school be able to respond if it is invited by the local authority to take on a 17-year-old who has previously been expelled from that institution?

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

All the various other regulations and obligations that apply in respect of admissions to institutions would apply. Crucially, as set out in clause 41(5):

“The education or training must be suitable for the person.”

In a scenario where the institution does not want to provide education or training, there would be questions about suitability, because the person will not be properly engaged in the course if it is being delivered reluctantly. We should allow for those issues to be decided according to local circumstances. The provision offers considerable flexibility.

I hope that the hon. Gentleman accepts that the amendment would make it unclear what is expected of a young person and an important protection for them would therefore be lost. In the light of that reasoning, I hope that he will withdraw the amendment.

Stephen Williams (Liberal Democrat, Bristol West)

I have listened to the Minister’s assurances with great care, but am not particularly reassured by all of them. He has not dealt with the second set of remarks that I made about clause 40(5)(b), which prescribes what course an individual will take. Perhaps he would like to intervene to deal with that point.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

I apologise if I did not discretely mention subsection (5)(b), but all of the details set out in subsection (5) are a clear description, so that it is clear that something appropriate has been offered and is available. Again, if an individual wanted to go to the school, college or educational establishment named in the notice, but to do a different course, as long as it fulfils the clause 2 duty, the process will cease because that course will fulfil their duty.

Stephen Williams (Liberal Democrat, Bristol West)

I thank the Minister for that response. A process must be gone through that engages the young person and the educational institution that will be required to receive them. The appropriateness of the education that is prescribed in subsection (5)(b) must be considered and the person’s previous record in education taken into account. As long as the Minister gives the assurance that those common-sense applications will follow from the legislation, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 41

David Laws (Liberal Democrat, Yeovil)

I beg to move amendment No. 164, in clause 41, page 22, line 33, after ‘person’, insert:

‘having regard to a person’s age, ability, aptitude and needs (if any) for personalised support and personalised learning opportunities’.

Good morning, Mr. Bercow. What a pleasure it is to be here today for part of the Committee’s proceedings. I start by apologising to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West. I assured him that, given the previous speed of the Committee’s proceedings, there was little chance we would get past clauses 36 or 37 before I arrived at 10 o’clock. I am somewhat concerned to discover that the Committee has made such rapid progress in my absence.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

I would be interested in whether the hon. Gentleman thinks that there is a relationship between the speed with which we are progressing and his attendance in the Committee.

David Laws (Liberal Democrat, Yeovil)

I will have to reflect during the course of my speech on the clause on whether there is a direct causal link, or whether hon. Members are trying to catch me offside by being briefer than usual. I will leave that to the Minister to decide.

Using the well tested technique of the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings, I will quote from the explanatory notes on the clause, which state:

“Clause 41 provides that the education or training specified in the attendance notice must be a course provided at a school, college or other education establishment or a contract of apprenticeship, and be a way of fulfilling the clause 2 duty. It must be suitable to the person and the local education authority must consult the provider of the education or training.”

Our amendment deals with the matter of suitability and, in particular, with subsection (5), which states:

“The education or training must be suitable for the person.”

The amendment is not only felt to be necessary by us, but was suggested to us by various outside bodies and supported by others. In fact, the National Union of Teachers first suggested to us the particular form of wording to help to ensure that local authorities identify individual needs by providing for an additional suitability test according to need.

The amendment adds to the existing subsection (5) requirements and insists that that assessment of suitability must have regard to the person’s age, ability and aptitude and, critically, their needs in terms of personalised support and learning opportunities. That takes us back to matters raised in a number of debates in the past few weeks and in the oral evidence hearings before we started this part of proceedings.

I am grateful to the Minister, who undertook earlier in proceedings to write a letter setting out the Government’s thinking on the vulnerable groups of young people on whom the Bill will have an impact. We had in mind some of those youngsters when we tabled the amendment. I do not know whether anyone has referred this morning to his letter to me of 13 February, which I think has been copied to other members of the Committee. It helpfully sets down the Government’s initial thoughts on how enforcement will work in respect of those young people who could not easily be in formal education or training.

The letter is oriented toward who might be given an exemption from the strictures of the attendance panel. It is also directly relevant to the personalised support we want to have in place, if this part of the Bill to work fairly for the groups whose needs we are trying to meet. On the second page of the letter, the Minister sets out a long list of the groups of young people whom he accepts—

David Laws (Liberal Democrat, Yeovil)

Good afternoon, Mr. Bercow. May I welcome you to the Chair of the Committee? It has been noted that either you are a glutton for punishment, or Mr. Bayley has deserted us. We are not sure whether this reflects enthusiasm on your part or reticence on his.

In any case, we left this morning’s sitting at clause 41, when I was mentioning that the amendment is inspired and supported by the National Union of Teachers. The last time I moved an amendment that was supported by the NUT we had a tremendous triumph when the Government crumbled in the face of the force of the argument and acknowledged that it had to be accepted. I think that that is the only concession that the Minister has made so far on the Bill. We look forward to seeing that in the future.

I am optimistic, therefore, at this final stage of the week, that we might also persuade the Minister to accept this amendment, which is an addition to clause 41(5) that would strengthen the responsibilities of local authorities to identify individual needs and ensure that they are provided. In particular, the amendment would ensure that a local authority has to have regard to the

“age, ability, aptitude and needs...for personalised support and personalised learning”

of the young person in question.

This morning, I also referred to a helpful letter that the Minister wrote to me on 13 February—I understand that it will be copied to members of the Committee—in response to the undertaking that he made at the evidence session on Tuesday 29 January to write to the Committee and talk, prior to guidance being issued, about the Government’s attitude to young people who would find it difficult to comply with the responsibility to be in education or training. In one sense, the Minister’s letter might not be regarded as directly relevant to the amendment, because it deals primarily with the circumstances in which an attendance panel would not insist upon a young person being in education or training. However, I would like to relate that directly to the amendment and to the requirement that there should be a provision of support for young people, because the Minister’s aspiration, as he has already told us, is that in all but a minority of cases, young people should be in education or training or some other setting.

Therefore, we are seeking to discover two things in that regard. First, we want to know the extent to which there will be a clear responsibility on local authorities to ensure that the education and training relates very much to the young person’s needs and circumstances, and that that includes proper support for their personal needs. Secondly, we are seeking to discover the extent to which the Minister will be willing to envisage the type of fourth-way option or gateway option that some of us have talked about during the Committee’s proceedings and that many of the outside lobby groups have also talked about. I have in front of me a note from Fairbridge, which has given evidence to the Committee and has been talking about a gateway phase to re-engage the most difficult to reach.

The letter that the Minister sent to me on 13 February indicated that he accepts that

“there will be young people who temporarily, or for a longer time, cannot in practice participate due to their individual circumstances.”

He also mentioned the need to provide the personalised support that will help young people to be in education and training. He usefully documents a list of the types of characteristics that might cause an individual to need support services or potentially not to have to comply with the attendance panel. He mentioned homelessness, health problems, addiction, the nature and timing of the courses being studied, young parents and people with caring responsibilities. Although those may be reasons for a young person not to have the education and training responsibility placed upon them by the attendance panel, they could also be characteristics that should be taken into account in the clause in providing for personalised support.

Those characteristics could also lead to a fourth way that is not covered explicitly in the Bill, but upon which I would like to test the Minister’s mind yet again. That option is to have personalised support that would in no sense meet most people’s understanding of an education or training setting. These clauses and the amendments that we discussed under clause 40 are predicated on the basis that people will be in a formal education and training setting and that their personal support needs will be moulded around that.

The Minister acknowledged in our earlier exchanges that the Government might be willing to allow people to be not in education and training settings, but in some form of supported setting that would meet their needs prior to them being able to access education and training. We do not know whether the Government are willing to translate that good intention into practice. How these support needs will be met is in the hands of the guidance that will be issued later. That will show how flexible the Government are and whether they will allow people to be not in the formal education and training institutional environments referred to in these clauses, but in the other settings that were envisaged by the outside groups and voluntary bodies that gave evidence to us.

I do not expect the Minister to deal with the specific opt-out issues that were identified in his letter in relation to the clause because they relate to other clauses. However, I would like him to confirm that for young people with high support and personal needs, the Government have in mind that there should be at least three options other than going before the attendance panel and being criminalised. First, they could be in the type of education or training setting envisaged in the Bill, but with the support that they require framed around their individual needs, as envisaged in the amendment. That option is the Government’s core desire for young people with great vulnerabilities.

Secondly, there is the possibility that the Minister raised in his letter of 13 February, that some young people with very acute needs might not be in any setting whatsoever. Thirdly, there is the other possibility that I am asking the Minister to comment on because it is relevant to the issue of young people’s support needs. I am asking whether there could be another option between doing nothing and being criminalised and having personal support delivered in an education and training setting, which would enable providers with expertise in this area to be involved. That could be a drug rehabilitation centre where there is nothing that would be regarded as accredited education or training, but where the young person would be in a setting that is dealing with a personal problem to enable him or her to go back into education or training.

This is one of the places in the Bill where we can explore with the Minister not only whether the right sensitive support will be available for young people in education and training, but whether such a different setting is envisaged. Given that we were so successful with our NUT-linked amendment, we would like to hear whether he is willing to put in the Bill this more robust form of wording to ensure that there is a strong duty on local authorities to consider all of the needs of young people defined in the amendment.

We would also like to hear how the Minister envisages the fourth option, or gateway option, working. Is it a serious option that the Government would consider as a mainstream alternative to what appears in the Bill or would they use it just as a short-term stopping-off point prior to a young person entering education and training with personalised support? That is what I am hoping the get out of moving the amendment.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

I want to return briefly to a point that I made earlier. When it comes to the service of the notices that are created in clauses 39, 40 and 41, and the question of personalising the training and education opportunities, as in amendment No. 164, it is important that there is genuine engagement between the local authority and the individual concerned.

I am worried that a person who has left school with the sort of the problems that I have mentioned in Committee, who is perhaps able to read and write at only a low level—they might be at a lower level than one at which they would be able to tell their bank, for example, about a change of address—will find the notices complicated. A young person who is ill-educated might not understand the sort of details that are being talked about—the courses are called things such as basic skills or life skills. Will the Minister assure us that when the notices are served on someone who might have poor educational attainment, there will be a discussion with them to explain exactly what the notice means?

In answer to earlier questions, the Minister told me that there will be advisers—I accept that—but could there be some more formal legislative requirement to ensure that a person is notified, so that we do not have a situation in which notice after notice arrives at a person’s house and are ignored? Ultimately, such a person could find themselves in a serious process, in court and so on. I am concerned about the possibility of a paper trail but no active engagement between individual and authority. Will the Minister say whether the notices will be served personally or served by post? If it is not a personal service, will the panel require that a person has understood a notice? Will the Minister comment on those issues?

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

What a pleasure it is, Mr. Bercow, to see you in your place yet again. I am sure that the Committee will not tire of your presence in the Chair, however consistently and frequently you are there.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

Order. I do not want to delay the Committee, and I appreciate that this announcement will be accompanied by much flowing of tears, but I told the Minister before the sitting that, sadly, this is my last sitting in the Chair of this Committee.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

Naturally, Mr. Bercow, we are distraught, which is not to say that we are not looking forward the Mr. Bayley’s return next week. I might not have the opportunity later on this afternoon to say how much I have enjoyed serving under your chairmanship, so let it be recorded now that I have thoroughly enjoyed serving under your guidance.

I absolutely agree that the education or training specified in an attendance notice must be appropriate to the young person’s needs. The aim of the notice, ultimately, is to get the young person to participate in education or training so that they can benefit from the opportunities and advantages that that offers. They can do that only if the learning programme meets their needs. In addition, the local authority must identify an appropriate learning place for the young person and give them the opportunity, and support to engage in it voluntarily, before they can even meet the conditions for issuing an attendance notice. It is important that the hon. Member for Yeovil understands that the attendance notice is a stage in an enforcement process and that enforcement should not start, as I have said repeatedly, unless adequate support has been provided but not taken up.

I also agree that in many cases the learning programme specified at that point would need to be specialised and personalised. The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire asked about discussion and whether the notice would be personally served. As I have said to him before, prior to enforcement, all the support provided and the contact via Connexions with a personal adviser would be personal.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

My concern is the person who just does not engage with the process, which happens in other contexts such as the welfare-to-work programmes. I am worried about the sort of people who do not go when they are invited to an interview and ignore a letter when they get it through the door. How do we ensure that such people understand what they are supposed to be doing and how the process cranks open?

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

I understand that the hon. Gentleman is describing a scenario in which someone just does not engage with the process in any shape or form. However, there will still be the expectation that the personal adviser will have made contact with the individual. It will not be sufficient in terms of adequately assessing and offering support to have sent letters, e-mails or other forms of communication. It is important that there is a personal exchange between those involved either by phone or face to face to discuss the matter. I envisage that taking place over a series of exchanges, not simply one.

On the serving of the notice, obviously the initial steps are set out in clause 39 in relation to the 15-day notice period. It would normally take the form of a letter to the address that Connexions and the local authority have for that individual. Clearly, if the 15 days elapse and there is no response, the process would move to the serving of the notice. If the person to whom the initial letter has been served says that they did not receive it, that it did not arrive in the post, or that they could not read it, it may be that the letter would at that point be reissued. The notice would be reinstigated by means of it being personally served and the personal adviser going to the address, giving the person the letter and explaining its contents. That is what would need to happen at that point.

Later, in respect of the attendance panels themselves—and I am sure that we will discuss this in the context of later amendments—we want to ensure that panel hearings take place in a friendly way and not a formal court-like setting. Such a setting would occur later down the track, if the matter is sent to the youth court. The panels should be informal and the young person should participate in the panel hearing, which is something that we will also discuss later. The young person should understand what is happening and the process in which they are involved at every stage. I hope that that helps the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire.

David Laws (Liberal Democrat, Yeovil)

I hope that I am not pre-empting something that the Minister will come to later, but subsection (5) states:

“The education or training must be suitable for the person”.

Before we proceed, how will “suitable” be defined?

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

I will address the specific wording of the subsection of this clause in a moment, but there is great flexibility in the way that it is currently worded. On the questions of the hon. Member for Yeovil about what we keep referring to as the fourth option and fourth way, as I have said, support is important both in practice and in theory, for however long it is needed, but it should not be separated from participation. The specific aim of the attendance notice is to set out participation in education and training, but we envisage that support will also continue and that it will be flexible in the form that it can take. However, support is not an alternative as other ways of participating are. It is not an alternative to education or training, but it must work towards those to get to the point of the attendance notice.

David Laws (Liberal Democrat, Yeovil)

I apologise for interrupting the Minister again. However, I wonder whether he is going back on an undertaking given earlier in the Committee that he could envisage circumstances in which people might need support that could mean that they are not in education or training for a long period of time, and that that support, possibly from a voluntary group, might not look like education or training. Is that still a possibility?

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

It is certainly still a possibility. I would not want to retract that in any way. I am simply suggesting that we envisage support continuing, but the support is not an end in itself, as I have said before. The end is appropriate education and training. A re-engagement activity may be required in order to get young people into education or training, but in most cases I would envisage that it would have been offered, and hopefully delivered, beforehand. The attendance notice process is there to try to get them to engage and I do not want to define it any differently from the way it has been defined previously.

The amendment is technically unnecessary. The existing provision in subsection (5) that the education or training specified in the notice must be suitable—the words that he picked up on—for the young person, already implies in law that it must be appropriate for their individual needs and circumstances. In that respect, it is very flexible.

However, I have reflected and will continue to do so between now and the Report stage on whether we need to define the matter slightly more closely so that it is not only suitable for the person, but addresses their individual needs. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a categorical assurance because I need to reflect further and consult others on the matter. However, I intend to see how we can refer to the flexibility of the definitions that we set out in clause 4, but without relating solely to that clause, because it does not include the employment with training option. We would obviously want that to be available within the attendance notice. I hope that that gives the hon. Gentleman some encouragement and that he will make only a short intervention.

David Laws (Liberal Democrat, Yeovil)

In addition to providing the definition of suitability, which the Minister still has not really given us although he said that he might reflect on it, will he also clarify whether he will determine the matter of suitability?

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

The interpretation of “suitable” will be undertaken, first, by the local government officer issuing the notice, and, secondly by the attendance panel, should one be convened to look at the notice.

David Laws (Liberal Democrat, Yeovil)

And the definition?

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

The definition is about what is suitable to meet the needs and circumstances of the young person concerned so that they can fulfil their duties imposed by clause 2. That is how it is set out in the legislation. I do not know how to define it any more closely, for which I apologise. As I have said, I will consider whether to tighten the wording in subsection (5). I hope that the hon. Member for Yeovil will withdraw his amendment on that basis.

David Laws (Liberal Democrat, Yeovil)

I am grateful to the Minister. Given how difficult it is to wring any concessions out of Ministers on these occasions, I suppose that I should be extremely grateful and rush out a press release that champions the achievement and glorifies the NUT for being associated with only the second twinge of movement from a Minister during Committee.

May I, however, clarify a couple of concerns? Perhaps I did not emphasise the issue of suitability enough in my opening comments. I took it for granted that the Minister would trot out his line on it, but he did not say as much as I expected, so I shall say something about it now before moving on to the issue of support, and the question of what he might concede and what he will not concede.

Clause 41 (5) says:

“The education or training must be suitable for the person.”

That raises the question of what the word “suitable” means and who should interpret it. I think that we know who will interpret it, but the greater problem is what it means. The Minister said that there is great flexibility around the word, but that can be a good or a bad thing. It may mean that there is a lot of uncertainty or that the word is interpreted very differently in different parts of the country, so we need to be slightly clearer about what it means.

We can think of a number of different examples in which the issue of suitability might arise. One with which the Government will not have a problem is a young person who is in employment. To take our earlier example, someone who is employed as a car mechanic may want to become a nuclear physicist.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

It was an accountant before.

David Laws (Liberal Democrat, Yeovil)

Perhaps that person has become more aspirational and more interesting since we last discussed the Bill and wants to do something that requires a course that does not relate to their employment. They therefore tell the local government officer that they are not willing to go on the local college’s tedious car mechanics course, which people are trying to persuade them to take, and say that they are waiting to go on a course in accountancy, nuclear physics, fishing or some other subject. Will there be any obligation on them to take up education and training that is related to the employment that they are in? Does the question of suitability have any relevance in that situation?

The Government can probably provide reassure on that issue, but the amendment also refers to the question of ability and aptitude. What if someone considers a course is too difficult for them, given their skills? What if they think that they need some other type of education beforehand? What if they simply think that the local college course on offer in their subject is hopeless and rubbish or that it is being taught that year by somebody who is not in regular attendance? What if they want to wait until the next year?

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

I remind the hon. Gentleman of what I said this morning. At any point, the young person can voluntarily opt to fulfil their duties under clause 2, in which case the enforcement proceedings will stop, unless the issue has reached the youth court. If they do not want to go on a particular course with a particular lecturer, and there is something else that they want to do that they think is more suitable for them, they can do it.

David Laws (Liberal Democrat, Yeovil)

Yes, that is true, but they might not have that option, particularly if the course that they want to take is closed that year or is not available in a setting that they reach. It may be difficult for them to afford transport costs, which we shall discuss later.

If I were a young person who did not want to comply with the Bill, I might well argue that the education offered to me was not suitable, particularly if I was not enthusiastic about taking up education and training in the first place. Somebody might come to me and say, “You should be in education and training. How about these eight different courses at Yeovil college?” All those courses would no doubt be excellent, particularly, I hasten to add, if they were on offer at Yeovil college. In another part of the country, however, there might not be any exciting courses on offer, and the educational institution might be less effective. How would suitability be defined in that case?

We therefore want a bit more clarity from the Minister on how the word “suitability” relates to a person’s needs and aptitudes. I am not sure whether he is saying that he will consider clarifying the issue between now and the Bill’s later stages, or whether, when he said that he would reflect on it, he meant that he would reflect on its more personalised elements. He said that there could be guarantees that the support needs would meet the young person’s requirements. That is a major concern, and there is also concern about the funding that might go with it. The issue is not only whether support needs can be identified, but whether they will be funded and whether that will be acceptable.

I am tempted, notwithstanding the Minister’s generosity, to press the amendment to a Division. However, if he intervenes on me to clarify which part of the issue he is willing to reflect on, I might feel much more reassured, and therefore less likely to do so.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

I am particularly interested in reflecting on how the person’s individual needs could be interpreted, but it is difficult to reflect on one aspect an eight or nine-word phrase without reflecting on the other words in the provision. If I think about whether the education or training meets the individual needs of the person, I shall inevitably think about the word, “suitable”. If I reflect on that issue, I shall reflect on the subsection in its entirety—all 10 words, or whatever it is. I hope that that helps the hon. Gentleman.

David Laws (Liberal Democrat, Yeovil)

I would feel guilty and ungenerous in pressing the amendment to a Division, so I await the Minister’s thinking. I hope to be satisfied at a later stage, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 42

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I beg to move amendment No. 85, in clause 42, page 23, line 21, at end add—

‘(5) This section may not come into force before the Secretary of State has published a report setting out his estimate of the total annual cost of the establishment and operation of attendance panels.’.

Welcome back to our proceedings, Mr. Bercow. Clause 42 establishes attendance panels in each local authority that will hear appeals by young people who have been issued with attendance notices. It would be helpful if the Minister could expand on his intention towards the regulations in clause 42(3). In particular, subsection (3)(a) states that the panel chairman must not be a member of the local authority, which means, I assume, that he must not be a councillor for that authority. Can he or she, however, be an employee of the authority?

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

To speed things up for the Committee, it is our intention that they should not be a council employee, and we will certainly clarify that point in regulation.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

That is extremely helpful. Will the Minister then also set out who else can serve on the panel? Can councillors fill all the positions on the panel, with the exception of the chair? Can council employees serve on the panel, subject to the Minister’s intention that they cannot chair it? If the answer is yes, how does that make the panel independent? The clause does not refer to attendance panels being independent, nor indeed do the famous explanatory notes, so it would be helpful if he could clarify that point.

The Government’s White Paper—I presume it is a White Paper—called, “Raising Expectations: from Policy to Legislation”, says at paragraph 4.33:

“If the young person wished to challenge the Attendance Notice it would be referred to an independent adjudication panel, which the local authority will set up”.

That document therefore refers to an independent panel. Furthermore, in the Minister’s letter to the hon. Member for Yeovil of 13 February, which was copied to all Committee members, there is an explicit reference in the third paragraph to an “independent attendance panel”. Clearly, the Government have applied “independent” to the panel in their policy, but it is not clear from the clause that, other than the chair, the panel will be independent of the local authority that first issued the notice. Clarification from the Minister would therefore be helpful.

Amendment No. 85 relates to the costs that will be incurred by the local authority in establishing and running the attendance panels. It says that clause 42

“may not come into force before the Secretary of State has published a report setting out his estimate of the total annual cost of the establishment and operation of attendance panels.”

I presume that such an estimate has already been prepared by the Government in introducing the Bill. The purpose of the amendment is principally to enable the Minister to share that information with the Committee.

Subsection (3)(b) gives the Secretary of State the power to make regulations to enable local authorities to pay allowances to members of an appeal panel. Could the Minister spell out how much these allowances will be, the conditions of payment, how many members each panel will have and the likely frequency of their meetings? The Local Government Association is obviously anxious about the provision and the possible result. It is only too aware of countless new duties imposed on local government by central Government without sufficient funding to match.

The LGA said in its briefing that local authorities

“will want to be involved in the drafting of regulations regarding the constitution of attendance panels to ensure that they are not overly bureaucratic, burdensome or costly.”

Will the Minister therefore spell out his thinking on the regulations so that the Committee can be reassured that attendance panels will not be overly bureaucratic, burdensome or costly? An estimate of the likely annual cost of operating these panels would also assist our deliberations.

David Laws (Liberal Democrat, Yeovil)

I shall be extremely brief. We support the amendment, and we want to hear what the costs associated with the provision are likely to be, how they will be met by local authorities and whether there will be any additional funding relating to them. We also hope that there will be a clear answer from the Minister to the question implicit in the observation by the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton that local authorities want to be involved in the formulation of the regulations as to how the panels will operate and how they will be set up to make sure that the costs are reduced and that they are as effective as possible. I hope that the Minister can tell us how they will be involved.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

Will the Minister make a few comments about the implications for civil legal aid? Community legal centres provide education law advice and are funded by the legal aid fund. In those circumstances, it appears that there will be a need for more advice for young people who attend panels. I should be grateful to know what discussions the Minister has had with the Ministry of Justice and what he estimates will be the costs to the legal aid fund.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

The attendance panel is crucial to the effectiveness and fairness of the enforcement system. It is in place to ensure that attendance notices are issued fairly and that there has been sufficient opportunity and support. They provide an additional safeguard to ensure that no young person can enter the enforcement system inappropriately. We will ensure that it is effective in its purpose and that it is not too bureaucratic.

The hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton asked about the panel’s composition and independence. We will want to consult fully about how it should be composed and how it should work, but I can set some of those things out in principle. Part of the consultation will undoubtedly involve the LGA and other local government interests to ensure that they have a proper opportunity to express their opinion. I remind the hon. Gentleman that we have committed to funding any costs to local government of carrying out that function in full.

As for composition, we envisage that the local authority will establish a pool of potential panel members by advertising. Panel members will receive fairly brief training on, for example, understanding the law and regulations in education and support systems, and on the expectations of them when they interact with young people who come before the panel. Those are examples—it is not an exhaustive list of the things in which they might be trained. Some people in the pool will be designated as chairs, and they will receive additional training. The pool will include some people with a background and expertise in education or the support professions—such people would have experience of the education system and would understand it, just as schools admissions appeal panels include at least one person who has experience in education and an acquaintance with educational conditions in the area or who is the parent of a registered pupil.

That is the requirement for the composition of admissions appeal panels, and we are seeking to replicate it. Indeed, much of the Government’s thinking on how the panels will be composed and resourced is informed by how school admissions appeal panels work. The panel will normally consist of three people: the independent chair, at least one person with an education or support background, and one other person. We will consult on whether there should be provision for larger panels in more complex cases. Clearly, some importance will be placed on ensuring that there is sufficient diversity among panel members, and that they reflect the area in which the authority is based.

There should be restrictions on who can become a panel member to enforce impartiality and independence—an issue about which the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton was concerned. We will clarify by regulation the fact that someone who is employed by the local authority or the educational institution in question should not serve on the panel. The same applies to any person about whom there are reasonable doubts as to their impartiality in relation to an authority or a school. Obviously, panellists would need to satisfy the training requirements, and they should not be involved in the decision that is being appealed.

In the end, costs will be determined by the consultation, which we have not yet carried out, and after we decide how the panel will be configured. To help the Committee, the Department has made a rough estimate of about £1.5 million, based on the costs of schools admissions appeal panels. We have not made that explicit in the impact assessment, but it has been included in the general costings. As I said, we have already committed both to funding additional burdens on local authorities and to consult fully with the LGA. We will certainly consult and take careful account of the likely costs of establishing the panels and their functions. We will make our cost assessment for local authorities, and we are committed to funding the measure. I hope that I have successfully answered the questions that were asked in the debate.

Mr. Heald rose—

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

I have not successfully done so, because I have not responded to the interesting question on legal aid asked by the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire.

As I said, the panel should be informal—we will not expect legal representation in the panels. If the hon. Gentleman were to look at page 23 of the impact assessment, he would see some figures on the costs of prosecution. We do not think that the process will result in any more young people being entitled to legal aid than now.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

A certain number of parents and students go to a law centre to obtain legal advice, funded by the civil legal aid fund, on panels, exclusions and such things. The measure will create a larger cohort of such people. We are talking about panels for 16 to 18-year-olds who are do not comply with the measure, so there are bound to be more people who want educational advice from law centres. If only one case went to the panel, that would create one more such person. In those circumstances, I suggest that the Minister talk to the Ministry of Justice, because the civil legal aid fund is very pressed.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

We have had discussions with the Ministry of Justice about this and other clauses. I will think about whether I need to have a specific conversation with it about the point that the hon. Gentleman has made. As far as I am aware, that is not something that the Ministry of Justice has raised with us and therefore it is not of great concern. I accept the generosity with which he is advising me, and I accept his point in that spirit.

David Laws (Liberal Democrat, Yeovil)

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way with such good grace. I am sorry if I have missed this point by not listening attentively enough, but of the Government’s estimates of the cost of the Bill, what is the cost for independent advocacy advice that might be necessary under the clause? What assumptions have the Government made about the cost to local authorities of giving access to independent advocacy?

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

The assumptions about cost that I set out when I gave a figure of £1.5 million were based on the schools admissions appeal panel. We will go on to debate an amendment about independent advocacy, and I will happily expand further on this issue at that point.

David Laws (Liberal Democrat, Yeovil)

I think that the Minister will confirm that under clause 42(1), the regulations that will be issued will provide for independent advocacy for young people. Therefore, the cost of that will be covered in his estimates.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

As I said, we will come on to this issue. We are not saying that an authority must provide independent advocacy, but in guidance we will say that if someone has difficulty representing themselves it would be good practice for the authority to offer that facility to the young person. The atmosphere of the panels should be friendly and informal so as to engage young people. The more we end up using advocates, the greater the danger that the process will be formalised in such a way that young people will become disengaged from it.

David Laws (Liberal Democrat, Yeovil)

May I confirm that the Minister is saying that in the regulations that are at issue under clause 42(1), there will be no duty on local authorities to guarantee that independent advocacy will be available, even when young people need it for their interests to be represented to the panels? If that is the case, I am disappointed.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

I am trying to find the amendment under which we will discuss independent advocacy in the panels. I am in your hands, Mr. Bercow, but I want to encourage the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton to withdraw the amendment and discuss the issue of independent advocacy when we reach the relevant amendment.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I listened carefully to the Minister’s response to the amendment and to the exchange between him and the hon. Member for Yeovil. The point that he was trying to extract from the Minister is whether, within the £1.5 million, there is a cost for advocacy. Regardless of whether he wishes to encourage it, which he does not seem to, or whether local authorities will provide it in any case because they believe in helping social justice, advocacy is inevitable.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

I did not say that I do not want to encourage advocacy, but that if the need is there for the young person, the local authority should be encouraged, in guidance, to provide it.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

That is a helpful revision to the impression that the Minister gave during the exchanges, but it will inevitably involve a cost. He was not able to respond adequately to the intervention of the hon. Member for Yeovil, so I suspect that the £1.5 million does not include the cost of such advocacy.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

There are two possible elements of cost: one is that a legal centre could give advice to the individual and help them to prepare a statement to the panel; and the other is a case where an advocate needed to attend. In both cases, however, the legal aid fund would pay, unless the Department for Education and Skills is now thinking of funding it.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

This legislation will therefore add yet another burden and drain on the fund, so my hon. Friend makes a good point. I listened carefully to the Minister, who made some good points about wanting to consult fully, which is welcome. He also said that the Local Government Association, which will have to implement that through its membership, will also be consulted on the regulations, and that the costs will be refunded to the local authorities, which will please local authorities and council tax payers. Of course, the costs always fall somewhere on the general public, so the taxpayer will be picking up the bill, and we want to ensure that we can be assured that the costs that the Minister has just divulged to the Committee will be accurate.

The Minister also gave some welcome indications about the membership of the panel, and it is pleasing that he has explicitly ruled out any employee of the local authority that issued the attendance notice being on the panel, either as chairman or as an ordinary member. It is also welcome that the panel appears to be confined to three people, which will prevent it from becoming too expensive. However, I am not yet convinced that we have bottomed out the costs, and I suspect that the £1.5 million to which he has referred is solely the allowances of the panel’s attendees. Of course, there are other costs associated with operating such an attendance panel, such as secretarial support and office accommodation within the local authority. If I have done my maths correctly on the basis of the quantum assessment that the Minister uses, £1.5 million amongst 150 local authorities is only £10,000 per local authority, so I suspect that he has underestimated the cost of operating attendance panels.

For that reason, I think that the Bill should contain a statement that requires the Secretary of State to publish a report setting out the estimate of the total annual cost for the establishment and operation of attendance panels before the section comes into play. Given that we have until 2013 to do that, I do not think that it is an unreasonable burden for the report to be published so that it can be scrutinised by hon. Members. One of the key reasons why we have any power at all in the House is to assess spending, costs and tax-raising measures.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

As a last-gasp attempt to get the hon. Gentleman’s agreement, we are saying that we will have a consultation and that then there will then be regulation, which can, of course, be debated by the House. The report that he proposes in the amendment would be only a report. Indeed, we would want there to be a report to inform any debate that there might be in the House about any regulation, so that will effectively happen, whether or not the amendment is made.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

Order. We cannot have an intervention on an intervention. I remind the Minister that he is only intervening.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

I am grateful for that, Mr. Bercow. Given that the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton will effectively get costings in the fullness of time, I am pleading that it is not necessary for him to press the amendment.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

It probably is necessary.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

It is true that there are regulations under clause 42(1), but they are under the negative procedure, so there is no guarantee that there would be a debate on them. I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton feels that the Minister might look at the concession of making that part of the affirmative procedure.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

My hon. Friend makes a valuable intervention. If the Minister were to promise to change that particular regulation and make the power into an affirmative resolution power, I would seek leave to withdraw the amendment. About 2,000 or 3,000 negative resolution statutory instruments go through the House every year and I suspect that few of those have a fully costed report attached to them. Given that it is not mutually exclusive to have a regulation and a report setting out the Secretary of State’s estimate of the costs of those regulations, I see no reason on the basis of that intervention or the general debate we have had not to press the amendment to a Division at the appropriate time.

David Laws (Liberal Democrat, Yeovil)

The amendment deals with cost issues, but we are entitled to ask what is included in the cost estimate. As a consequence of probing that issue, rather disappointingly, we have found that advocacy services will not be a requirement for local authorities. I appreciate that the Minister’s natural instinct was to discuss advocacy under clause 43, when we will deal with other advocacy issues, but it is under clause 42(1) that the Government will provide guidance to local authorities in relation to duties under the provision.

I have had a representation from Barnado’s that covers not only some of the later clauses, but clause 42(1) and therefore the costing of it. In the context of a group that supports the Bill as a whole, Barnado’s makes it clear that it would like Ministers to provide clear assurances that statutory guidelines under clause 42(1) will require local authorities to make available independent advocacy services. When the Minister was challenged on that, he said that he would encourage local authorities to provide those services. Therefore, presumably his cost estimates are based on the assumption that only a proportion of local authorities will do so. If he is assuming that they will all do so, one wonders why the necessary provision cannot be put into regulations or the Bill.

Barnodo’s makes the point powerfully that it wants to ensure that independent advocacy services are available, particularly for young people who have learning, communication or sensory difficulties and in other specific circumstances. We can all imagine that young people who appear before such a panel under the circumstances that are envisaged would find the situation incredibly difficult, may have serious communication difficulties and may find it intimidating. Is it good enough to encourage local authorities to provide advocacy services in those circumstances? Given the Minister’s generosity in relation to the previous clause, when he said that he would reflect on some of the issues, will he reflect on the possibility of obliging local authorities to provide advocacy services for a prescribed number of conditions? If local authorities have financial constraints, it will not be good enough if, on the grounds of cost, some local authorities chose not to make advocacy services available to young people with the learning and communication difficulties to which Barnado’s refers. That seems to be a powerful point to which the Minister could usefully respond or on which he could reflect.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

I will say two final things. We continue work on the estimates of the cost of attendance panels and at this stage we intend to have those ready in order to include more detailed estimates in the revised version of the impact assessment that will be published when the Bill is introduced in the other place.

Regulations will not provide for an entitlement to independent advocacy, but they will state that the young person should be invited and allowed to bring someone with them to assist with the process. However, as I have said, it is not a formal court hearing. I have also said that guidance would indicate that it is good practice where there are specific needs. I shall consider whether in that guidance we should define things carefully, leaving some flexibility for the authorities, along the lines described by the hon. Member for Yeovil.

David Laws (Liberal Democrat, Yeovil)

I welcome that response and make a brief intervention in order to reinforce the concession that we might get from the Minister on the matter. I am grateful to him for saying that he will at least consider placing a duty on local authorities relating to young people with particular learning and communication needs. That would satisfy some of my concerns about the clause.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

Notwithstanding the concession on advocacy that we will come to in the following two clauses, I remain highly concerned about the panel’s cost implications. Given that the Minister has indicated that the estimates are still being worked up, I believe that we should see them before the legislation comes in to force. Therefore, I press the amendment to a Division.

Clause 43

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I beg to move amendment No. 152, in clause 43, page 23, line 28, after ‘notice’, insert

‘on the grounds of its suitability or for any other reason’.

The clause sets out the right to appeal against an attendance notice. The hon. Member for Yeovil has raised the matter of advocacy, which we will come on to debate later. The concession that the Minister expressed during the last debate was very welcome. Barnardo’s has expressed strong views on the matter to the Committee, stating in its briefing that further safeguards should be in place in the Bill to ensure that

“advocacy is available, where needed, to enable a young person's voice to be heard at an Attendance Panel at every stage”—

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

Order. Before the hon. Gentleman continues, I counsel him against dilating on matters with which we have already dealt. It is important that we do not stray back to a debate that we have just had, and that he focuses his remarks on amendment No. 152.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I am grateful for that guidance, Mr. Bercow. I will move swiftly on to focus on the amendment. The right of appeal in the clause is against the issuing of the notice, or against the education or training provisions set out in the attendance notice, or against a variation in a notice.

This is a probing amendment, designed to emphasise the fact that the grounds for appeal can include the suitability of the education or training provision. It was suggested by the NUT, which is more influential by virtue of the fact that it is outside the social partnership with the Government than it would be within it, given the concessions have been made in Committee following its representations. The NUT is seriously concerned about the extent of the grounds for appeal. It says in its briefing:

“It is hoped that the provision for young people to appeal against an attendance notice on wider grounds will help encourage local authorities to identify individual needs.”

It goes on to cite the National Children’s Bureau, which says that

“young people subject to this legal requirement”—

to participate in education and training—

“and its associated enforcement measures should have a right of redress”.

The NUT says:

“One way of doing this would be to give them access to a complaints system that is open to young people; has clear, published criteria for the issues that it is able to address; is easy to access; has a transparent decision-making process, and; has real authority.”

It would be helpful if the Minister set out the grounds for appeal and whether those include the availability of suitable training provision in the area.

David Laws (Liberal Democrat, Yeovil)

I feel obliged to speak briefly on the amendment, having raised the issue of suitability earlier and having managed to associate myself with two NUT-inspired amendments, which are the only things that the Minister has conceded so far. In anticipation of his being particularly friendly towards the NUT at the moment, I will associate myself with the amendment before he adopts it in the Bill. It addresses very directly the issues of suitability that we raised, as well as our concerns about the lack of clarity as to how that will be assessed. How suitability is defined will provide the basis for challenges that are made on the issue. This is another superb amendment from the NUT and I look forward to the Minister conceding again.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

Committee members are trying to encourage me to disagree with the National Union of Teachers. However, the clause requires that local authorities make arrangements for young people to appeal to the attendance panel against the giving of the attendance notice, the description of education or training that they must attend, and any variation to the notice. No grounds are specified so, as drafted, the provision allows the young person to appeal against the description on the grounds of its suitability or for any other reason. There is no need to specify grounds, and there is a possibility that doing so would risk suggesting a restriction on the possible grounds for appeal.

In addition, I remind the Committee that the description of education or training in the attendance notice must be suitable, as we have discussed. The provider must have been consulted. We are anticipate the thoughts of the NUT, as expressed by their comrade, the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, but I hope that he will withdraw the amendment.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I am grateful for that explanation of the clause. The Minister’s words, which will now form part of the law, will be very helpful to practitioners outside the House and, in particular, to the National Union of Teachers. On the basis of his words, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I beg to move amendment No. 86, in clause 43, page 23, line 37, at end add—

‘(4) Regulations made under subsection (3) shall include a requirement that any appeal made under this section shall be heard by the attendance panel within one month of the appeal being made.’.

The amendment was tabled to ensure that there is no undue delay in the young person being able to make their case to the attendance panel. There is always a tendency in bureaucracies for a lack of urgency to creep in, but it is important for the young person who is subject to the pressure of a written notice from a local authority and then an attendance notice that the issue is resolved swiftly. If the enforcement procedures are to be real from the point of view of the Government and of those in favour of compulsion, the appeals process must not become bound up in delay and obfuscation. The amendment therefore seeks to ensure that appeals are heard within one month of being made. Swift action on all the measures in the Bill is important for its efficacy, given the short period during which the duty to participate will apply. It would also be helpful if the Minister said something about the procedures of the attendance panel and whether the rules of natural justice and those that apply to tribunals will also apply to the hearing of appeals on attendance.

The Minister expressed the view that arrangements for those appeals should be informal so that the young person can engage with them. However, tribunal and court rules, which have evolved over the centuries, did so for a purpose, the principal one being to protect the interests of the person appearing before them. Informality is all very well, but rules are required so that the young people are protected and have the benefit of advocacy, and so that we can ensure that the principles of natural justice still apply, notwithstanding the formality of the occasion.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

The attendance panel is crucial to the effectiveness and fairness of the enforcement system, and it needs to operate with as little bureaucracy as possible, so that it can be fully effective. Of course, we want appeals to be heard quickly, but it is not appropriate to specify in primary legislation how quickly. It is usual to deal in secondary legislation with operational details such as the code of practice for school admissions appeals, which specifies time limits for hearing such appeals.

What is more, it would not be right to determine those details without thorough consultation, given that the legislation will not come into force for another five years. It is more appropriate to deal with this matter in detailed guidance, which we will provide to panels to assist them in carrying out their functions, such as those provided for in clause 43(3). That guidance will be developed by my Department in full consultation with local authorities, children’s charities and young people themselves.

May I remind the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton that article 6 of the European convention on human rights ensures that all appeals are heard within a reasonable time? Naturally that will apply to the provisions in the Bill, and it implies that the associated principle of natural justice will have some application as well. On that basis, I urge him to withdraw his amendment.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

That was a disappointing reply. Essentially, the Minister said, “We have not really thought about it. It will be provided for in detailed guidance, on which we will consult, and human rights legislation will always apply”. That is not good enough. I shall not press my amendment to a Division, as it purpose was to probe the Minister and to raise the matter in Committee. However, his response reveals a lack of preparation on the Bill’s enforcement procedures, which is disappointing for the Committee, given the paramount importance of the attendance notice and the panel. However, the point has been made, and on that basis I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

David Laws (Liberal Democrat, Yeovil)

I beg to move amendment No. 167, in clause 43, page 23, line 37, at end add—

‘(4) In considering an appeal the attendance panel must invite the young person who is appealing against the attendance notice, or the young person’s nominated representative, to make representations to it.’.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 168, in clause 48, page 26, line 30, at end add—

‘(4) In considering an appeal the attendance panel must invite the young person who is appealing against the penalty notice, or the young person’s nominated representative, to make representations to it.’.

David Laws (Liberal Democrat, Yeovil)

The amendments are important, and I thank Barnado’s, both for inspiring them and for its excellent briefing note, of which other Committee members have had sight. I must confess that when I first read the Bill I did not pick up the point made by Barnardo’s that the rights of appeal and the rights of advocacy are rather different at the three stages of the process set out in chapter 5 of the Bill.

At present, the attendance panel can consider the young person’s case at three points in time. First, it can do so on appeal against the attendance notice, as set out in clause 43. Secondly, it can do so on appeal against the penalty notice, as set out in clause 48, to which amendment No. 168 applies. Thirdly, it can decide whether the local authority can commence proceedings against the young person for failure to comply with an attendance notice, as set out in clause 46.

Barnardo’s has pointed out that only at the third stage of that process is the young person given the right to attend the attendance panel to put their case. That is covered under clause 46(6). There is no equivalent requirement set out in the Bill at either of the earlier appeal stages, and so the amendments would address that anomaly. Barnardo’s supports the approach in the Bill as a whole:

“Barnardo’s believe that a young person should be entitled to nominate a representative to make representations on their behalf. This could be, for example, a parent friend or key worker; or in some circumstances an independent trained advocate.”

There are two aspects to this double set of amendments. First, the power to appeal and to be present for that appeal should be available at all three stages, and not simply in one of them. Secondly, the rights of the young person to advocacy should be strengthened. We touched on that issue in when we debated clause 42, because Barnardo’s has rightly pointed out that under clause 42(1), regulations will be issued to make clear what rights young people to advocacy and other matters. Barnardo’s rationale relates not only to the rights and freedoms of young people as set down in article 12 of the United Nations convention on the rights of the child, but to some of the rights of young people as set down in the Government’s own Human Rights Act 1998 and the Children Acts of 1989 and 2004.

Barnardo’s goes on to point out that there is another powerful reason to include rights of presence in the appeal process. Not only are communication rights set down in law and in the UN convention, but young people may be more likely to co-operate with the whole process if they feel part of it and believe they have a chance to express their concerns. They may learn to respect other people’s rights and to take on a sense of social responsibility. They may understand more clearly what the local authority and the Government are seeking to do in pursuing this process, which may otherwise seem draconian and threatening. They may gain some confidence in dealing with other people in the settings in which they are placed, as they have to appeal against the panel’s decisions, and they will develop other interpersonal and practical skills.

There is a good case for making sure that young people are involved at every stage, as that could be helpful in ensuring that they take a more constructive view of the process than would be the case if they were involved only at later stages. I should like to return to the issue of advocacy. It would be highly beneficial to young people and the Government if the Minister considered stronger advocacy powers in the Bill, as set out in the two amendments, which would not only allow young people to determine that someone else should represent them at the panels but would make sure that a duty is placed on local authorities to provide independent advocacy access when the young person is unable to represent their own needs and requirements confidently or might not be able to call on another person, such as a parent, relative or friend, to do so effectively. Some of the young people we are discussing fall into that category.

I understand the Government’s lack of enthusiasm for opening the door to an enormous process of expensive semi-legal appeals, but young people with particular problems would form a much smaller group and thus the costs would be much smaller. The Minister has said that he is willing to reflect on that particular issue. That is helpful, but I hope that he will show flexibility and allow the voice of young people to be heard at the other stages in the appeal process.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

We support amendments Nos. 167 and 168, which were tabled by the hon. Member for Yeovil. The absence of guidance on the procedural rules of the attendance panel is an issue that I have already raised. That is a worry, so it is right to put such matters into primary legislation to ensure that the panel acts in accordance with the principles of natural justice.

As the hon. Gentleman said, under clause 46(6), a young person against whom proceedings are taken for failing to comply with an attendance notice must be invited to make representations to the attendance panel before proceedings begin. Why does the same right not apply when a young person appeals against the issuance of an attendance notice? Giving a young person the right to attend to give evidence at their own appeal is the right thing to do. We do not want the panels to become like the primary care trust appeal panels to which members of the public can appeal if they are refused funding for a particular treatment. The panels hear a raft of cases all on one day; they do not hear from the patients themselves. They read through the notes and reach a verdict. Decisions often take less than 15 minutes, but they can be a matter of life and death to some people. It is therefore important that the appeals panel can at least hear from the young person before it confirms the issuance of an attendance notice.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

When the attendance panel is considering whether it is appropriate for a local authority to begin proceedings against a young person, clause 46 states that it is required to invite the young person to make representations to the panel. In that case, the consequences in respect of a panel’s decisions about the failure to comply with a fixed penalty notice are serious for the young person, which is why we have set it out in primary legislation.

The amendment would introduce a similar requirement when the panel is considering either an appeal against an attendance notice or an appeal against a penalty notice. It would entitle the young people to attend the hearing considering their appeal or to nominate a representative to attend in their place. I very much agree that the young people should be allowed to attend the appeal hearing and to bring someone with them if they want to, and I will ensure that that is covered in the regulations governing the panel’s operations. I have considered whether such provisions should be made under primary legislation as the consequence of the third item in Barnardo’s list to which the hon. Member for Yeovil referred. I hope that the Committee will accept my reassurances that it is sufficient to act under secondary legislation in respect of the first two items, but the consequences of the third item are markedly different and much more serious, which is why we must have the justification under primary legislation

The panel will invite people who understand the young person’s circumstances to make representations. They could include, for example, the Connexions personal adviser, the youth worker, a teacher or a tutor, depending on individual circumstances. Those representations and the young person’s explanation will be important in helping the panel understand the individual circumstances of the case. It is difficult to envisage a circumstance where the panel could meet and do its job as set out in the legislation without hearing from the young person about the steps that have been taken to help, support and re-engage them, and decide whether everything possible has been done to help them.

It is appropriate to put the detail of the panel’s operations in regulations, and to take time to consult on that. The regulations will be laid before the House. As for independent advocacy, we discussed that at some length in relation to the previous clause. I have very little to add except to clarify that I do not intend to make it a duty on local authorities. However, I will look sympathetically at what we can set out in guidance regarding the promotion of advocacy for young people who would otherwise struggle fully to represent themselves. Given that assurance, I hope that the hon. Member for Yeovil is fully reassured and will withdraw his amendment.

David Laws (Liberal Democrat, Yeovil)

I am grateful to the Minister. It has been a long afternoon, but I thought that he was slightly more enthusiastic earlier about reflecting on the advocacy issue and whether local authorities should have a duty to a particular category of high-needs youngsters. He appears to be rowing back, having cleared the relevant clause. I will look at his words more closely later, or we may seek to return to the issue at a later stage in our proceedings.

On the bigger issue that the amendments raise, I am reassured by the Minister’s comments—on a scale of 10, he scores eight. He said that he will allow the regulations to take into account the proposal in the amendments that the young person be invited along to all stages of appeal, including those set out in clauses 43 and 48, as well as clause 46. I think he was also saying, as is implicit in the amendments, that a young person’s nominated representative could also go in place of the young person.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I am baffled as to why that provision should be made in secondary, rather than primary, legislation. I do not buy the argument that proceedings under clause 46 are more serious. The only argument for using secondary legislation is that it changes frequently or is of less importance generally. Attending an appeal is in the same category in either case, and if provision is made for attendance in clause 46, it should be in primary legislation in other instances, given that the Minister wants to make it a requirement.

David Laws (Liberal Democrat, Yeovil)

I was about to come on to my two reservations, but the hon. Gentleman quite rightly got there before I had a chance. In the Minister’s response, there were three warning notes that made me a little edgy. First, he did not say, “These amendments are so fantastic that they will be enshrined in the Bill in your name and in Barnardo’s name for the rest of time.” We know that Ministers do not like to do that very often with Opposition amendments.

More seriously, the Minister began by talking about “allowing” young people to attend, which is not quite the same as “inviting”. Later, he used the word “invite”. As the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton indicated, the Minister also drew attention to clause 46 as “markedly more serious” than the other two clauses and the appeals against the attendance and penalty notices. That rather hinted at some uncertainty in his mind as to whether it would be sensible to provide those rights of attendance and make sure that someone was invited.

I would much rather see amendments made to the Bill. I am inclined to press my amendments to a Division, but I do not want to do so unnecessarily. Will the Minister reassure me, notwithstanding the not very strong argument for leaving the measure out of the Bill, of two things? First, can he assure be there will be an invitation to attend under clauses 43 and 48? There must be no doubt—the Government must not change their mind later—that they are committed to an invitation under those clauses. Secondly—and I am extending my comments to allow the Minister to reflect on the issue in detail—will he reassure me that there will not only be an invitation and an undertaking, but that the invitation will extend to the young person’s nominated representative?

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

I am very happy to clarify the fact that in the informal and friendly atmosphere of the panel, it will be appropriate for the young person not only to be allowed but invited to bring someone with them, and indeed, to attend themselves.

David Laws (Liberal Democrat, Yeovil)

I think that that is good enough for me. I regret that the measure will not be in the Bill, but again, I would appear churlish if I failed to accept the Minister’s reassurance, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 45

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I beg to move amendment No. 34, in clause 45, page 24, line 24, leave out first ‘an’ and insert ‘a civil’.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 35, in clause 45, page 24, line 27, leave out ‘an’ and insert ‘a civil’.

No. 81, in clause 45, page 24, leave out lines 30 to 31.

No. 36, in clause 45, page 24, line 30, leave out from ‘person’ to end of line 31 and insert

‘acting unlawfully under subsection (1) is liable to a civil penalty not exceeding £200.’.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

If I have been uncharacteristically quiet so far today, and now rise, moist eyed, with a tremor in my voice, it is because I know that we shall soon be parted, for you have told us, Mr. Bercow, that you will not be joining us next week. May I advise you during that brief sojourn to read again William Morris’ “News from Nowhere”? It is a fine book that is entirely relevant to the Bill, and indeed, to this aspect of the Bill, because Morris understood that training was critical—that the relationship between craft and beauty was of immense importance in inspiring young people to acquire skills.

David Laws (Liberal Democrat, Yeovil)

Will the hon. Gentleman reassure me that this is not another of the volumes that he has been reading in Committee during my speeches?

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

No, I was riveted by the hon. Gentleman’s speech to such a degree that I was unable to pick up a single paper. I was entirely preoccupied by the sagacity of his remarks.

To return to the amendments more specifically, Mr. Bercow, you will know that at the heart of our considerations thus far has been the concern of Opposition Members, among whom I include the hon. Member for Yeovil, about the prospect of criminalising young people. According to the explanatory notes for clause 45,

“non-compliance is an offence and liable to a fine of a maximum of level 1 on the standard scale. Currently level 1 is a maximum of £200, with the actual amount in each case being decided by the court in light of individual circumstances.”

The amendment would delete the criminal elements of the Bill and translate them into civil penalties. In earlier sittings, we challenged the Minister on precisely that point, and we did so in concert with many witnesses who gave evidence to the Committee before we started our detailed scrutiny. The amendment would therefore specify that non-compliance be a civil matter, rather than a matter for the criminal law.

Time and again in the evidence sessions, we heard that young people may be criminalised by the Bill. That is of great concern to the very organisations with the most experience of dealing with challenged young people—those young people who are most typically disengaged from the system. I make no apologies for reminding the Minister, because he seems recalcitrant about the matter, of the evidence that we took from some of those experts. Martina Milburn, the chief executive of the Prince’s Trust told us that

“the bulk of the 40,000 people who we worked with last year had issues with drugs and alcohol. What do you do with a young person who is already going down the path of taking too many drugs and drinking too much and who just says, ‘I’m not going to do it’ and disappears? That happens not just in the age group that we are talking about. I was talking to a young person yesterday who started drinking at eight and who was on heroin by the time he was 11; he certainly was not in school after that time. The question is how you deal with that. Do you increasingly criminalise young people and just say, ‘Right, we’re going to lock you all up,’ or do you find some way of trying to reach them and sort out some of their issues?”——[Official Report, Education and Skills Public Bill Committee, 22 January 2008; c. 16, Q36.]

That evidence graphically illustrates that the young people in greatest need are least likely to benefit from the Bill, particularly if it coerces them. We need an approach that is founded on the principle of encouragement of support and is sensitive to the fact that those young people might not be in a position to abide by the terms of the Bill. As the representative of the Prince’s Trust said, if someone is already in the kind of dire circumstances that she described, it is unlikely that the Bill as drafted will make much difference to them.

The Association of School and College Leaders also submitted a briefing on the Bill. It states:

“Our preferred approach to achieving full participation is by persuasion rather than coercion. In particular we do not support the potential application of criminal penalties for what is a civil matter.”

Our amendments would ensure that enforcement of the provisions of the Bill would be restricted to civil law. It is inevitable that we will oppose the Government’s measures unless the Minister can make a compelling case for criminalising young people who are disengaged from education and who are some of the most vulnerable members of society—denied a loving home, support and the knowledge and guidance of parents.

For Conservatives, and I guess for some Liberals too, from all that we have heard from the hon. Member for Yeovil, education means opportunity for all, rather than criminalising a few. Even if the Minister cannot accept the amendments today, I hope that he will reflect on the tenor of the discussions that have taken place over these past weeks. It is not the case that members of the Committee who do not share his enthusiasm for criminalising young people do not also share his enthusiasm for increasing participation; we simply do not think that the system that he wishes to put in place will work.

That is the best pragmatic argument for supporting the amendment that I can make. I hope that the Minister, in the spirit in which I have offered it, will seize it with both hands—although I have thrown him lifelines before and he has cast them aside—and get himself off the hook by translating the criminal elements of the Bill into civil matters.

David Laws (Liberal Democrat, Yeovil)

There is no point in the Minister sighing at the thought of me speaking. After all, I am going to speak to amendment No. 81, as it would be somewhat negligent not to since I tabled it and it has been selected for debate. The amendment would delete lines 30 and 31 from clause 45 and thereby prevent someone from facing a fine not exceeding level 1 on the standard scale. The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings will agree with that aim.

We come back, as the hon. Gentleman did, to a good many of the representations about these clauses that were received from all sorts of organisations that work with young people, and even by some of those who support the Bill and the element of compulsion contained within it. The Children’s Rights Alliance for England is clearly opposed to the provisions in this part of the Bill. The British Youth Council made it clear that it was opposed to the clauses that impose penalty fines on young people.

Rainer, too, has made representations to the Committee to say that it is concerned about the proposals in clauses 45 to 48. In the useful briefing note that it provided on Second Reading, Rainer pointed out that when it discussed that aspect of the Bill with young people, it was understandably the part that caused young people the most concern and anger. The feeling was that imposing fines and criminal sanctions on young people who may, in many senses, already be marginalised will be of very little value and in some cases will actually be counter-productive. The Rainer briefing paper quotes one young person who was consulted on the issue, who said:

“The whole point is to get a better job. How are you going to do that with a criminal record?”

Rainer believes that the proposals, and the fines contained within them,

“are likely to be particularly damaging for those who have struggled in or disengaged from mainstream education.”

An interesting part of the briefing sets out Rainer’s thoughts on how the Government might reframe some of the responsibilities in a way that would be more positive, and whether the sanctions regime could be reformulated to be more rational and acceptable to young people. Rainer says that the overwhelming majority of young people that it spoke to thought it appropriate that they should face the consequences for non-attendance, but felt that

“the only suitable penalty would be withdrawing financial incentives and support (such as free public transportation, or enhanced benefit payments) for taking part”

in the courses in question. Rainer said that those incentives could be regained by somebody who then re-engaged in education and training.

We know from a previous debate that the Government are reticent about stating their intentions for the future financial framework of incentives and support for young people. Indeed, some of the comments by Ministers and officials on the record even suggest that the Government are looking at the future of the educational maintenance allowance. I wonder whether that is something that the Government might be planning to get rid of, phase out or reduce. I think that we heard from the Minister during earlier questioning that the Government are committed to keeping the EMA, but they have left open what other forms of financial support there may be for young people who have to comply with the Bill. I cannot recall when the Minister said he would be in a position to tell us about the financial support structures that will be in place after 2013. I have a feeling that it would not be for some time.

Since I have a feeling that the Minister may not be inclined to accept all of the amendments today, I wonder whether we might persuade him first, to give some indication of when he or his successors will be in a position to say what the financial support arrangements will be for young people. Secondly, would he be willing to consider a process of sanctioning, as Rainer and young people have suggested, using the withdrawal of financial benefits for engaging in education and training, rather than this heavy-handed method of imposing fines on young people? In many cases they could not afford to pay, given the income of many young people and the fact that parents will be unwilling, or in some cases unable, to pay the fines. That could lead to criminalisation, which could then make those young people even less willing to engage, and less attractive to future employers.

If the Minister is not inclined to accept all of the amendments today, will he tell us when the Government will be in a position to say more about the financial support mechanisms and whether there is any possibility of adopting a more rational and more liberal approach—I will not say a high Tory approach, because I am not sure what the high Tory position on these matters would be—that was more positive and based more on providing incentives and support for young people, rather than the sanctions and penalties that are contained in the clauses?

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

Amendments Nos. 34 to 36 would replace the possibility of a prosecution and a criminal fine on breach of an attendance notice with liability for a civil penalty not exceeding £200, as the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings said. Naturally, I considered that and other options, but I concluded that a civil enforcement system would not work in practice. I have set out the reasons for that previously, although I am not optimistic that the hon. Gentleman will accept them given the hard line he took in his opening comments, saying that unless I persuaded him, he would press the amendment to a Division. However, I will have another go.

Civil penalties would be enforced in civil courts, which are not geared to dealing with young people in the way that youth courts are. For example, judges in the youth court receive specialist training on dealing with young people, and the court is not open to the general public. The amount of a fine in a youth court is set by the court, taking into account the young person’s means. Persons under the age of 18 may be sued in civil courts, but there are complex rules under part 21 of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998, such as the requirement in most instances to be represented by a litigation friend. In addition, although debts may be enforced using civil recovery methods, such as recovery by bailiffs, in practice such methods are rarely used against people under the age of 18. The local authority would have to pay a court fee to pursue the civil enforcement method, which also might not be appropriate in practice, and would leave the authority with mounting costs. Court fees and costs are added to the debt in the civil courts, which does not happen with a fine in the youth courts.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

So because English law has developed over the centuries to protect young people against the rigours of the civil court procedures, the Minister wants to use the even more rigorous criminal law?

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

I am saying that we have a specific youth court which is trained and configured around the needs of young people being brought to justice.

I have previously reassured the Committee that the offence in the clause would not be a recordable one and that the conviction would be spent after two and a half years. Although I agree that it is important to ensure we have explored all the options in relation to enforcement, civil court proceedings and subsequent enforcement in the civil courts do not present a realistic means of ultimately enforcing attendance notices. I therefore ask that the amendment be withdrawn.

Amendment No. 81 removes the provision for a fine in the youth court, but leaves it unclear what the consequences of committing an offence under the clause would be. It is important for the effectiveness of the new requirement, and to avoid confusion, to set out clearly the consequences of refusing to participate and failing to comply with an attendance notice. Accepting the amendment would reduce that clarity.

Proceedings in the youth court will always be the last stage of the enforcement process, but we need to make that last stage clear from the outset. A person found guilty of the offence under the clause will be liable to a maximum level 1 fine on the standard scale, which is the lowest category available. Currently, level 1 is a maximum of £200, with the actual amount in each case being decided and fixed by the court in the light of individual circumstances and sensitivity to issues for young people. The maximum of a level 1 fine provides protection for young people by putting an upper limit on the penalty a youth court can impose. Without that, there would be no indication of how such an offence might be dealt with and the penalty imposed could be more severe.

Financial support provided to young people in this context is principally the education maintenance allowance, but that is obviously currently conditional on participation in education or training. so I am not sure how we can introduce something else that is conditional in the way that the hon. Member for Yeovil suggested. We have explored whether to take benefits away, but very few young people satisfy the criteria for benefits—unless they are in extreme hardship—so I am unhappy about the idea of an enforcement system that is based on benefits.

I hope that that helps the Committee and that the amendment will be withdrawn.

David Laws (Liberal Democrat, Yeovil)

I am rather disappointed with the Minister’s response. I thought the ideas that I advanced on behalf of Rainer were so convincing that he would want to go away and reflect. In the light of that response, I might want to press amendment No. 81 to a Division.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

Again, we have heard a weak case from the Minister. The essence of his argument is that the civil system is not appropriate to deal with young people so, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton suggested, the Government are going to use a still less appropriate set of procedures. The difference is that the option preferred by the Minister will leave the young person with a criminal record. That is what it boils down to. A number of the most disadvantaged and challenged young people, who we are trying to encourage back into learning so that they will return to civil society and hopefully obtain employment, are going to be put through a criminal procedure. That argument does not stack up.

A reasonable person, looking on objectively from outside the orbit of the Committee, would scarcely believe that a Parliament was going to put people through a criminal court for not turning up at college. That is what it boils down to—that the Government believe in such a policy. Yet again, I urge the Minister to reconsider.

Angela Watkinson (Conservative, Upminster)

Does my hon. Friend share my concern about enabling a fine of up to £200 to be imposed on a person who is highly unlikely to have any financial means? What about the effect that that might have on their intention of seeking employment, given that the fine outstanding would be attached to future earnings?

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

We know how such a fine might be paid ultimately, because the explanatory notes on the Bill made that clear: it could be paid through a deduction of money from subsequent earnings, and I guess it could even mean seizing people’s assets, although I do not know if a young person would typically have any assets. However, it is, as my hon. Friend said, curious to the point of being bizarre that we are going to consider taking 17 and 18-year-olds, who may be acutely disadvantaged, and put them through a criminal process. As I said, that does not stack up, because it is not reasonable.

The Minister went on to say, as justification, that going through the civil procedures would cost the local authority money. Given that he has told us that it will only happen in a small number of cases, that is not the most powerful of arguments to draw from his armoury. Because it will cost the local authority a few bob, it is better put those young people through the criminal courts instead.

We heard a series of pretty unconvincing arguments in response to what was a measured and reasonable case for sensible amendments that would improve the Bill. On that basis, I am inclined to press the matters to a vote and to test the Committee’s will. Those who vote should remember this: if they vote for the amendments, they will be accepting the advice, given in evidence to the Committee, of those who work closely with the sort of young people that I have described; if they vote against the amendments, they will be voting for criminalising desperate and vulnerable young people.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

I remind the hon. Gentleman of the 10-stage process of enforcement. That is not something we would enter into lightly. The notion of people being criminalised for not turning up to college is clearly nonsense. That would never be a consequence of not turning up, but would only come into effect if a young person actively refused to participate, without reasonable excuse and after all the support and all the other stages had been gone through. I could go on, but interventions must be short.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I do not doubt for a moment that the Minister is honest in his determination to ensure that such action is the last resort. I do not challenge the idea that the 10-stage process will, for the most part, allow young people to participate who have not done so thus far. However, if the Minister is so sure about that, and without anticipating our next debate, I wonder—I am only guessing—why I feel in my heart that he is unlikely to accept the amendment that means that this offence will not be part of a police record. If the Minister does not want young people to be branded as criminals, he has a chance—

Jim Knight rose—

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I give way. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not persuade me to divert my attention from the amendments to another group that may come later.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

I wish to remind the hon. Gentleman that I told him that the offence is not recordable.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

We will deal with that matter when we debate the next amendment. I am sure that you will quickly challenge me, Mr. Bercow, if I attempt to do so now.

As I said, I am minded to divide the Committee on the amendment. I suspect that the debate will continue. I implore the Minister, who is an eminently reasonable man, to reconsider whether we want to go down the road of using criminal sanctions in pursuit of our shared aims: to inspire a thirst for learning in young people, to encourage participation and to increase employability.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

The hon. Member for Yeovil signalled that he would like a separate vote on amendment No. 81. I assure him that there will be an opportunity for that. As he noted, the amendment in question amends another clause and will be taken at the appropriate time—or rather, it is to the same clause, we have not reached it yet.

David Laws (Liberal Democrat, Yeovil)

I beg to move amendment No. 80, in clause 45, page 24, line 29, at end insert—

‘(2A) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (1) to show that he or she is—

(a) in employment,

(b) in treatment for a serious medical condition,

(c) caring for a family member, including as a parent,

(d) terminally ill, or

(e) unlikely to benefit from the service offered.’.

Anticipating that the Minister would not give ground to the previous amendment, we have tabled backstop amendment No. 80, which I am sure the Minister will agree to. The amendment would make it clear that if a person charged with an offence under subsection (1) could show that they belonged to one or more of the categories listed in the amendment, that could be used as a defence.

My hope—my certainty—is that the Minister would not want to impose a fine on somebody in any of those categories. The categories include persons who are already engaged in employment. We are therefore not talking about a young person who is determined to be disengaged from the labour market or education and training, but rather somebody who has got off their backside, found a job, and is learning useful skills. I am sure that their employer would be worried if that person were dragged through the measures envisaged in clause 45, which might end up in their having a criminal record.

The amendment details a number of other circumstances in which I am confident the Minister would not want to impose sanctions. I anticipate that he will say that all of those issues will be taken into account by the attendance panels, which are extremely reasonable, and that it is unthinkable that members any of those groups could be fined, as that would be completely unreasonable. However, if that is the case, I invite him to accept the amendment as a backstop measure that would prevent the penalty process from being extended to those whom we would most assuredly want to protect from that process.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

We believe that all young people have something to gain from participating in education until they are 18, and we do not believe that any group of young people should be treated differently from the outset, as that would risk their being given a second-class offer.

It may be difficult—and in some cases impossible—for some young people to participate, and we have built flexibility into the system so that those cases can be judged individually and the appropriate allowances made for their circumstances. However, many young people in difficult circumstances, such as those who have a serious medical condition or caring responsibilities, do participate, and that should be encouraged. We will do everything we can to remove the obstacles and difficulties that might prevent them from participating.

There are series of safeguards—the hon. Gentleman anticipated that I would say that—built into the system to ensure that an attendance notice will not be issued if it is not appropriate, and that the local authority will not be able to act if the young person has a reasonable excuse for not participating, as outlined in clause 39. I set out our intentions in some detail in my letter to him regarding what is likely to be considered a reasonable excuse. The groups that he specified in his amendment, with one exception, will not have enforcement action taken against them.

David Laws (Liberal Democrat, Yeovil)

The Minister said, I believe, that nobody in categories (b), (c), (d) and (e) would have enforcement action taken against them or incur penalties under the proposals. Is he confident that that is correct?

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

I am confident enough to say that I find it difficult to conceive of circumstances in which enforcement action would be taken against those groups. I cannot absolutely rule anything out. There might be someone in those circumstances who is offered every reasonable support and could be judged able to participate if they took advantage of all that support. As things stand, I cannot envisage the circumstances in which that would happen, but I do not want to rule out enforcement action if someone in some of those circumstances deliberately failed to participate.

We do not believe that being employed should be a defence for not participating; that would not be considered a reasonable excuse. We recognise that work can be a valuable experience for young people at this stage, but we believe that they should continue their education and training too. We discussed that at considerable length in earlier sittings. Education and training help young people to move on to successful and fulfilling lives and have wide benefits for the individual and society. It is critical that all groups of young people have the same opportunities and expectations of success. In the light of my reasoning, I hope, although I am not optimistic, that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his amendment.

David Laws (Liberal Democrat, Yeovil)

I was excited because I thought that I had wrung a valuable concession from the Minister. I believe that the record will show that he said that nobody who fell into the (b), (c), (d) or (e) categories would be dragged through the penalty process. Of course he cannot give us that assurance, because there is no such protection in the Bill. It is left entirely to guidance that we have not seen to set out how somebody will be treated who has a serious medical condition, is caring for a family member, is terminally ill, or is unlikely to benefit from the service offered. When the Minister was put under pressure on that point, he quickly rode back and said that this is all fudge and mudge. Great puffs of smoke went up in front of him and suddenly all of those great reassurances did not amount to, as the Americans say, a hill of beans—as we say in Somerset, Ohio and such places. On a reassurance scale, I think that my reassurance level is about one out of 10.

Even worse than that, we heard that the Minister can envisage that people in employment, slogging their guts out day in, day out and learning all sorts of useful skills could, because of some jobsworth Minister—referring back to the his comments the other day—end up being dragged through the courts and receiving a penalty and a criminal record. That is so monstrous and so confused that I feel I have to press the amendment to a Division.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I beg to move amendment No. 37, in clause 45, page 24, line 31, at end add—

‘(4) An offence under this section shall not be regarded as a recordable offence under the National Police Records (Recordable Offences) Regulations 2000 (S.I. 2000/1139).’.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 82, in clause 45, page 24, line 31, at end add—

‘(4) A conviction under subsection (1) shall not be recorded under the National Police Records (Recordable Offences) Regulations 2000 (S.I. 2000/1139) after the date of the person’s 18th birthday.’.

No. 178, in clause 45, page 24, line 31, at end add—

‘(4) An individual who receives a penalty under this section shall not—

(a) receive a criminal record if none already exists,

(b) have this penalty notice added to their criminal record if one exists.’.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

It may be that the amendment in my name and those of my hon. Friends and, indeed, the amendments in the name of the hon. Member for Yeovil and his hon. Friends are superfluous, given what the Minister said a few moments ago. Nevertheless, just in case I misinterpreted his remarks, I will set out our intentions clearly. The debate on clause 45 has focused on the fact that non-compliance is an offence liable to a fine. That would be bad enough, but we are moving these amendments because we are anxious about the fact that young people may also be regarded as having committed a recordable offence that might figure on national police records, although I think that the Minister has suggested that will not be so. If that is the case, he will no doubt relieve us all when he replies.

It is fundamentally important that we do not stigmatise young people who, as I said earlier, will often be vulnerable and challenged. That point was made powerfully to us by the British Youth Council in its advice.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

It might help the Committee and speed things up if I state categorically that the offence will not be a recordable offence. It will not be recorded automatically on the police national computer and will not be routinely disclosed in Criminal Records Bureau checks.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I anticipated that from what the Minister said earlier, and it is good news. However, we would do the British Youth Council a disservice if we did not flesh out its concerns, because they relate to the broader principles that we have been debating. It says:

“Young people at risk of dropping out need support not a criminal record. The ‘attendance panels’ could still operate...without the recourse to a penalty notice further along the line.”

It describes the proposals as potentially “demonising young people” and as perpetuating the negative stereotype that Ministers have elsewhere said that they wish to counter. I am relieved by the Minister’s intervention, which no doubt he will reaffirm shortly, but he will understand why we feel so strongly about the issue. Our cause is the most vulnerable citizens, because we are the champions of social justice, as you know, Mr. Bercow, perhaps better than most.

David Laws (Liberal Democrat, Yeovil)

I was temporarily stunned by the hon. Gentleman wearing the mantle of championship of social justice. Perhaps the book about liberalism that he was reading during one of my speeches the other day has influenced him.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I do not want to be unkind to the hon. Gentleman because I know that he is a thoroughly decent chap, but his grasp of these things does seem a bit limited. Compassionate conservatism is born of social justice. It was our party that throughout the 18th and 19th centuries, in the form of people such as Wilberforce, Shaftsbury, Elizabeth Fry and others, did so much to advance social justice, when his party still had members who wanted to put boys up chimneys.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

Order. At this stage I make simply two observations. First, it must of course be recognised that the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings would be reading something only if and in so far as it related to the treatment of matters pertaining to the Bill or amendments thereto. Secondly, although the hon. Gentleman’s philosophical musings are always entertaining to the Committee, they are sometimes at best tangentially related to, and at worst wholly divorced from, the Bill.

David Laws (Liberal Democrat, Yeovil)

I am grateful to you, Mr. Bercow. I will not be put off by the hon. Gentleman’s comments. I am delighted that the Minister is so enthusiastic about the amendments. We simply need to ask which of the three he is prepared to accept and put in the Bill. As soon as he has let us know that, we can safely withdraw the amendments.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

I shall be brief. As I set out for the Committee when giving evidence on 29 January, in response to question 475 from the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, only offences that are punishable by imprisonment or specified in regulations—probably the regulations mentioned in two of the amendments that we are discussing—are known as recordable offences and are automatically recorded on the police national computer. The offence of failure to comply with an attendance notice is not punishable by imprisonment and we have no plans to specify it in the relevant regulations.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

But is it beyond possibility that, in a few weeks’ time, after the Bill has received Royal Assent, a Minister could, through secondary legislation, add the offence to the list included in the National Police Records (Recordable Offences) Regulations 2000?

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

I can tell the hon. Gentleman, on behalf of the Government, that we will not specify the offence in the relevant regulations. It will therefore not be a recordable offence, will not be recorded automatically on the police national computer and will not be routinely disclosed in CRB checks.

It is true that young people convicted of the offence of failing to comply with an attendance notice without any reasonable excuse would, for a short period, have what we would understand as a criminal record—but “criminal record” is not a phrase that exists in law, which is why I could not accept one of the amendments. The main factor here is the length of time in which convictions must be disclosed—the short period of time in which someone has what we would understand in common parlance as a criminal record. As I have already confirmed, the rehabilitation period for a fine imposed by a criminal court on anyone under 18 is two and a half years. After that the conviction will be “spent” and will not have to be disclosed. In effect, that means that the young person will have no criminal record after that point.

If a young person had previously been convicted of a recordable offence and had that conviction recorded on the police national computer, that would be a separate matter; it would make no difference to this position. The offence of failing without reasonable excuse to comply with the requirements of an attendance notice would still be non-recordable.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

Do I understand, therefore, that a young person who had finished his education or training, but had been through the process and committed an offence under the clause, would have to disclose that offence in any job application made while he was 19 or 20, and perhaps even approaching his 21st birthday?

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

Yes, if it was less than two and a half years from the date of the conviction. I made that perfectly clear in evidence. I have been consistent. I think I have said that the latest age at which the measure could apply would be 21. I hope that I have been extremely clear. I urge the hon. Members not to press their amendments.

David Laws (Liberal Democrat, Yeovil)

Our sense of reassurance did not last long. We were looking for two bits of reassurance. First, we sought assurance that our proposal was so welcome and so much in line with the Government’s thinking that it could merely be plopped immediately into the Bill at the relevant place, in which case it would only be a matter of choosing between the two excellent amendments and deciding whether the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings or I should gain the credit. However, we now discover from the Minister that the reassurance that he is offering us is not as great as we thought.

Secondly, following the questioning of the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, we discover that young people over the age of 18 will, for a period, have to declare the convictions for these offences when seeking employment, which is surely not desirable and could be damaging to their employment prospects. I cannot see that the position that the Minister envisages is satisfactory. I do not know if the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings will want to press his amendment No. 37, but I will press my amendment No. 82 if there is no indication of the Minister having a sudden change of heart.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I moved the amendments in a conciliatory tone, saying that they might be superfluous. I had been gulled or persuaded by the Minister that they were indeed superfluous—until he rose to respond to the debate. However, when he did respond, it appeared not that the amendments were superfluous, but that they contradicted the Government’s position in as much as young people are going to be on record, albeit only for two and a half years. However, the two and a half years that the Minister speaks of could be critical to a young person emerging from training and acquiring a job.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

It may be semantics, but those young people will not be on record in that they will not be on the police national computer, or be discoverable by CRB check. They will simply have an obligation to disclose for that two and a half years.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

That is a fair semantic or technical point, but it does not in any way dilute the power of the argument that those young people, in disclosing what the Minister casts aside with a degree of complacency, would jeopardise their chances of achieving success—

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

To continue my remarks—achieving success, perhaps for the first time, by taking those first faltering steps into the world of work. What prospect of that could there be if they are dogged by the necessity of declaring that they have been convicted? The irony is, of course, that, following that conviction, they might have participated in purposeful work or training for more than a year. However, because the requirement to declare their previous folly remains for two and a half years, I suspect they would be unattractive to an employer even so.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

The hon. Gentleman has extensive worldly experience, including as an employer. If an applicant came to him who was perfectly adequate for the job in hand, and he asked the individual whether he had a criminal record and that person said, “Yes, I had a problem but I now want to come into work,” would the hon. Gentleman hold that against that individual and not employ him?

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

That is an unfair question to put to an untypically philanthropic person. The issue is not what I would do: it is what others might do. It is true, of course, that some employers would take a more generous view than others, but notwithstanding that, we heard from witnesses at the evidence sessions that a degree of stigmatisation will occur. In the words of the British Youth Council, people will be demonised.

A few moments ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton suggested to me that there is another risk. If we do not put these matters on the face of the Bill, a Government even more draconian than the present one, with a Minister even less sensitive to our arguments than the Minister here today, might, through a statutory instrument, sharpen the knife still more. Our aim is to fight for the interests of all those young people who we all want to encourage back to learning and work.

Angela Watkinson (Conservative, Upminster)

There may well be employers who would be minded to offer employment to a young person in these circumstances, but who were prevented from doing so by the constitution or regulations governing the organisation they represent.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

That is true. It may well be that even the most philanthropic employers will be inhibited in the way my hon. Friend describes.

Because of our doubts about the Government’s good will, because of our fear that the measure will grow into an even more vicious monster than it currently is, and because of our anxiety to support the representations we have had from the people who work the most closely with vulnerable young people, I am inclined to press the amendment, even though I acknowledge that, in its current form, it is imperfect, as is the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Yeovil. What we actually want to do is deal with the matter of disclosure, which has risen in our sights as a result of the Minister’s admission that these young people are to be labelled for two and a half years. We will press the amendment to make the very strong point that I hope has been transmitted, albeit imperfectly, in these few brief words.

Mr. Laws rose—

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I was proposing to move to a vote. Mr. Laws signalled that he wanted to press for a Division on a later amendment, which he will have the opportunity to do. However, if he wants very briefly to comment at this point, I will happily listen to him.

David Laws (Liberal Democrat, Yeovil)

I am grateful for that, Mr. Bercow, given the exchanges we have just had.

There is a danger at this late stage of the day of glossing over an important issue. What the Minister’s comments have highlighted is that there is a risk that young people will have to declare what will, in essence, look like a criminal record—an offence. I think the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings is right to say that there are employers who will be very concerned about that. I have a constituent who has a record of low-level offences, which is having a major impact on her ability to take a job which is not unrelated to the offences she committed.

Why would the Government want a situation in which these offences had to be disclosed for two or two and a half years? Is it their view that disclosure is useful and sensible, or is it simply an inadvertent by-product of the way in which the Bill will operate? The Minister’s implied that a record of such offences would not matter either way to an employer. If the Government do not think it is useful, why not accept that it would be sensible to amend the Bill, as we are trying to do—perhaps imperfectly—to ensure that the information will not have to be disclosed for that two-year period? If that were to be done, it would address our concerns. I also very strongly endorse the comments made by the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings that we want this provision on the face of the Bill. It is not at all satisfactory to have it dealt with elsewhere.

I have a final point to make. The Minister may want to respond and indicate why he wants disclosure to be obligatory. If he is not prepared to respond, his position is highlighted in its full weakness, and we shall be even more inclined than we already are to press the amendments. If he can, will he say whether amendment No. 178 would in any way deal with our concern? Is he essentially saying that the words “criminal record” would not have a meaning in law that would have any application to these circumstances? I think he is, and that he is indicating—as the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings has said—that we may have to table other amendments on the matter at a later stage. For us, that would leave an unsatisfactory state of affairs.

I think the record will show that the Minister has not been willing to defend the Government’s position.

Jim Knight rose—

David Laws (Liberal Democrat, Yeovil)

I have tempted the Minister out.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene, even though it takes up time and we have plenty to do. I felt that I had made all the arguments I could. In the end, the disagreement between us will be about whether there is some kind of incentive for people not to break the law in having, for a brief period, a modest level of conviction attached to them which they ought to disclose if asked. That is the principal disagreement.

David Laws (Liberal Democrat, Yeovil)

The Minister is in danger of standing his own argument on its head. He is now praying in aid that a young person might be incentivised to comply with the legislation through fear that he or she would have to reveal the conviction at a later stage or declare their record, which could damage their employment prospects. All that has served to do is highlight our concerns even further.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

All I am saying is that there is a disincentive effect attached to going through the criminal process. That is an extremely common theme of our deliberations in this House.

David Laws (Liberal Democrat, Yeovil)

That may be a slightly different point. It does not necessitate the requirement to declare for that period of time, which is our concern.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

The hon. Gentleman makes the point I was about to make. The Minister now says that the disincentive is going through the criminal process. A moment or two ago, he said that the disincentive was having to declare this matter subsequently. That cannot possibly be a disincentive, because the young people concerned, as we have heard from all the experts, are already rejecting authority regularly. This provision will simply make them suspicious of and hostile to authority to an even greater degree.

David Laws (Liberal Democrat, Yeovil)

I entirely agree. A powerful case has been made for the amendments.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I am delighted to say a further word on this subject, although I do not want to test the Committee’s patience too long. There may be members of the Committee who have been convicted for parking on a double yellow line or speeding. I was inclined, impertinently, to ask hon. Members to put their hands up, but that would be to embarrass my colleagues. Those things are not declarable in the way that the Government now suggest the offence under the Bill should be.

We have heard a very poorly structured argument. We have been told that the measure is principally a matter of providing disincentives, but when we spoke about the tension between civil action and criminal action, we were told that it is principally about avoiding the inconvenience of going through the civil system. Then we heard that the disclosure rather than the offence was critical in—presumably—intimidating people into participating. None of that bears any relation to and can in any way be squared with the advice we had from the experts during the witness sessions. I defy the Minister to suggest one witness who would support the thrust of the argument that he has made in the past few minutes.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

All I will clarify is that disclosure is a function of the offence being a criminal offence. That is all it is. We are not creating the requirement to disclose for the sake of this offence.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

Parking on a double yellow line is a criminal offence, as is speeding at 32 mph in a 30 mph zone, yet they are not disclosable matters. People who commit such offences are not treated in the way that the Minister wants to treat young people convicted of the offence under the Bill. We will have to press this matter to a Division, not because our amendment is perfect, but because it will send out a message that we think that it should be clear in the Bill that young people should not be stigmatised in the way that we suspect they may be if the clause is not amended.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

The hon. Member for Yeovil requested a separate Division on amendment No. 82, but he is now shaking his head. I am sure that he will clarify.

The rest of the debate is in Hansard.