---

Education and Skills Bill

moved Amendment No. 47: 47: Clause 45, page 25, line 27, leave out first ““an”” and insert ““a civil”” The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 48 and 49, and will also speak in support of the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lady Perry. In Committee, we raised fears of criminalising young people for failing to participate in education or training at the ages of 17 and 18, especially as some of them may be working but without their efforts being recognised by the Government because of the number of hours worked or because the training is not accredited. That any young person might receive a criminal record because of provisions that we pass in this Education and Skills Bill really should give pause for thought. Many organisations that work with young people share our concern. At Second Reading and again in Committee, we persistently questioned the Government about the possibility that a young person who would not participate or pay their fines might, once they had reached the age of 18, be liable to a prison sentence. Despite his initial reassurances that that was not the case, the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, had to admit that it was a possibility, so we are grateful that the government amendments in this group will not allow that to happen. However, we are still left with the likelihood that some young people will be criminalised by the Bill and we are unwavering in our view that this is wrong. If the Government insist on compulsion and the necessary sanctions they will need to impose this, the young people in question should be dealt with by the civil courts. In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, said that the Government had concluded that a civil endorsement system would not work in practice. He argued that civil penalties would be enforced in the civil courts, which are not geared up to deal with young people in the way that youth courts are. He said that judges who sit in the youth courts receive specialist training on dealing with young people and that the court is not open to the general public. I have to say that those comments have been met with incredulity by the judges to whom I have spoken. The civil courts have lots of dealings with young people under the age of 18, and to suggest that judges do not have the necessary skills to deal with them is somewhat insulting. One area in particular where the courts deal regularly with young people is when they issue ASBIs—their take on the ASBO. These are injunctions that a landlord can bring against anti-social behaviour, and quite often they are taken out against young people. The courts have the powers to appoint a litigation friend for a young person under the age of 18 and also to sit in private. The noble Lord, Lord Adonis, admitted: "““While debts may be enforced using civil recovery methods—for example, recovery by bailiffs—in practice such methods are rarely used against young people under 18””." That is true. The courts can use other final sanctions, such as attachment of earnings or benefits, which are sensitively means calculated and which must not tip a young person into poverty. The noble Lord, Lord Adonis continued: "““In addition, the local authority would have to pay a court fee to pursue a civil enforcement method which, again, might not be appropriate in practice and would lead to mounting costs.—[Official Report, 3/7/08; col. 469.]" We are constantly being told that this sanction will apply to only a handful of people. If the Government are right, the costs cannot be that great. But the risk of incurring these costs may act as another incentive on the local authority to do all in its power to engage the young person in training rather than launch proceedings against them. I cannot tell your Lordships how strongly we on these Benches feel about this. I beg to move.