---

Education and Skills Bill

I shall speak to Government amendments Nos. 100 and 105, and try to respond to as many points as possible. I want particularly to focus on new clauses 6 and 9, but before I do so, may I say to the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) that I very much understand the points that he makes? The work that we are doing on studio schools and alternative provision deals precisely with the issues that he raises. All the powers that we need to provide vocational opportunities outside the school setting are already in place—we do not need new legislation—but I would be happy to ensure that he receives detailed briefing on that matter as we move towards our alternative provision White Paper. A number of other detailed issues were discussed at length in Committee. I know that because I have been told as much by my hon. Friend the Minister for Schools and Learners, who described to me the length of the Committee debates. He seems to have managed to organise today's business to reveal to me just how lengthy the debates were; he has ensured that I have dealt with all today's debates rather than him, although he will get an opportunity on Third Reading. On amendment No. 29, I can reassure the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) that young people in custody will not be excluded from the Bill's provision and that we will ensure that their needs are properly addressed. I can reassure the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) that information and guidance are paramount to our thinking too. He rightly says that they are integral to the success of the Bill, but I do not think that strengthening the Bill in this regard will make any difference, because what really matters is ensuring that we deliver, with the local authorities, on the information and guidance requirements that we have set out. As we have discussed before, I think that Alison Wolf is far too pessimistic on the jobs issue, not least because 65 per cent. of young people aged 16 to 18 who are in work will not be affected at all by these provisions. They are working part time—they are doing less than 20 hours a week—so will be entirely unaffected. Her estimates are far too pessimistic, but we are determined to work with the CBI and other employer organisations supporting the Bill to ensure that there is no negative impact on the youth labour market. As somebody who worked closely on the minimum wage to ensure that it had no negative impact on the youth labour market, I can assure hon. Members that that is of paramount importance to me. On amendment No. 70, I say to Opposition Members that there will not be a need for employers to check with individual learning providers on enrolment—that will not be a matter for them. I know that those issues were discussed at length in Committee, and we have been true to what we said then. I do not think there is a need to amend the Bill; the important thing is to ensure that we deliver on the commitments that we have made, and we will do that. Youth appeals are a matter for the Ministry of Justice—the penalties regime—rather than for our Department, but we will ensure that we consult it fully. On information sharing, I know that there has been a report today from the Joint Committee that oversees human rights issues. We will respond in due course and ensure that our response goes to hon. Members in advance of those issues being discussed in the Lords. As we have discussed, new clauses 6 and 9 have been raised by Barnardo's and by Rainer. We are grateful to them and to Opposition Members for the part they have played in highlighting the approach being set out with learning agreements and for the work done on the education maintenance allowance, which is all about a quid pro quo—something for something, whereby young people have to demonstrate that they are learning and attending to get the money. We have also introduced issues around behaviour to the EMA. That shows that we are sympathetic to this approach. We are piloting and delivering a similar approach in activity agreements and learning agreements for 16 and 17-year-olds who are not in education, employment or training. Many voluntary sector organisations, including Barnardo's and Rainer, have played an important part in that ““something for something”” contract. The issue is whether we need to put that in the Bill. We believe that many local authorities will want to go down that road. It is part of ensuring that sanctions and penalties are very much a last resort, as was discussed in detail in Committee. We would go further and strongly encourage local authorities to pursue the approach being proposed by Rainer and by Barnardo's, and to go down that road before considering any formal enforcement action against a young person. We support that approach and will specify that in guidance to local authorities, but we do not think that the right thing to do is set it out in primary legislation. It is better to leave flexibility and discretion to local experts who know the needs of particular young people. It would be too inflexible and encumbering to specify it. At this stage, the right thing to do is work with careers services and local authorities to ensure that these measures are genuinely tailored to the needs of young people and we will do so—