|
The Chairman: Order. Before we go on, the Paymaster General's microphone is apparently humming so the Hansard Reporter has requested that she use another one.
Clause 7
Short Title
Rob Marris: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in clause 7, page 3, line 2, after 'Child', insert 'and Qualifying Young Persons'.
I shall be brief because the Committee is well aware of my views and concerns about the nature of extended childhood. This Bill, which I support, introduces the concept of young people who are legally adults and aged 18 or 19 being indirectly assessed as regards their dependence on or whether they are being maintained by their parents according to section 114 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992. That is why the short title would more accurately describe what is contained in the Bill if it were changed to include the words ''and Qualifying Young Persons''.
Mr. Francois: Again, I compliment the hon. Gentleman. He has been consistent and has followed up the point that he made on Second Reading with an amendment. In principle, I can see what he is trying to do, but we have no firm view on it one way or another. As he is the only member of the Committee to succeed in amending the Bill so far, I look forward to hearing whether the Paymaster General is going to grant him that compliment one last time.
Column Number: 33
Dawn Primarolo: I hate to say this to my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, but I do not like his amendment and I am going to ask the Committee to reject it. I will try to explain it clearly. His amendment seeks to rename the Bill the ''Child and Qualifying Young Persons Benefit Bill''. Although I completely understand his point about introducing the definition of a qualifying young person, it would leave us with an Act that suggests that there might be a new benefit entitled ''child and qualifying young persons benefit'' or, worse still, that we might have done something to child benefit. Child benefit is much loved and supported by hon. Members most of the time.
The Bill leaves child benefit in place and changes the definition of the person for whom it is payable. My hon. Friend has made his point well about the importance of independence for 16 to 19-year-olds and of moving forward on that basis. His view is that that sits a little uncomfortably within a child benefit Bill. As this is a modest step, it is much more important not to mislead Opposition Members or people outside the House into thinking that we have somehow abolished child benefit. I am not planning to do that. I am not attracted by the amendment and I hope that my hon. Friend will be satisfied with giving the principle a very good airing both in Committee and on the Floor of the House. It has been well taken by Ministers. I hope that he will not press the amendment to a vote. If he does, I will ask my hon. Friends to reject it.
Rob Marris: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend as I was earlier for her explanation. I would also advert to what I said earlier. I welcome her comment that in some senses the Bill is an interim measure as part of a longer-term look that will encompass the White Paper. I imagine that indirectly it will also encompass the Foster review of further education, which is just starting. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
New clause 1
Regulations made by the Treasury: voluntary work and work experience
'Regulations made by the Treasury shall include provision that a person may be a qualifying young person if the person concerned is undertaking training that is not provided through a contract of employment (such a person for these purposes being a ''trainee'') in circumstances where the person responsible for the organisation of the training concerned certifies in an approved form that the training can be expected to result in increased skills being acquired by the trainee.'.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Mr. Francois: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
May I reiterate my thanks to you, Miss Begg, for allowing us a separate debate on this? I shall do my best to respond to that positively and ensure that I do not stray back into some of the issues that were covered very fairly on clause stand part. The new
Column Number: 34
clause seeks in principle to expand the range of courses of unwaged training that will qualify for child benefit purposes to include voluntary work and work experience. We are putting this forward for debate on the basis of representations received from a number of organisations on this specific issue.
The following point was highlighted by the Prince's Trust and perhaps I should declare a minor personal interest here. The trust has been quite active in my constituency. I have been very impressed by the work that it has done with young people, many of whom are from disadvantaged backgrounds. They have often gone through very difficult experiences and so the trust's work is very challenging. I have seen a number of instances where it has helped young people who have been through difficult periods in their youth and turned them into successful business men, for example. It often brings those business people into economic activity: they then pay taxes and contribute to the wealth of the nation. That is to be applauded, and I should like to put that on the record while I have a chance to do so.
4.30 pm
Having declared that interest, I want to quote from a letter that the Prince's Trust wrote to my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester, which touched in particular on the issue:
''In our consultation with young people, many of them specifically talked about voluntary work and work experience, that these should be eligible since these were a form of training that would improve their employability skills and help them move forward in their lives. These, as well as other more informal forms of training, often provide the first steps out of inactivity for more vulnerable young people.
If it is only approved 'Government supported schemes' that are eligible, then young people may not feel they have the financial support to participate in these more informal activities. We would therefore like clarification on what is meant by 'Government supported schemes' and whether voluntary work, work experience and other more informal forms of training are going to be eligible for Child Benefit.''
Following that, the Government's most recent regulatory impact assessment states that there were some 80,000 young people aged 16 to 19 on unwaged training in September 2004, and the family resources survey also confirmed that households with dependent, unwaged trainees tend to have below-average incomes. In terms of the scope of the benefit, the Government could have opted to include all unwaged trainees in the expanded benefit, irrespective of programme, or could have defined those who qualified according to specific programmes. They chose the latter approach.
We suggest in the new clause not that the Government go the whole hog, as it were, but that they expand the eligibility criteria to include elements of voluntary work and work experience. We tabled new clause 1 to try to ascertain the Government's attitude to that and whether they have cost estimates of any kind, bearing in mind the point oft-repeated this afternoon on the paucity of data in that area, as well as whether they undertook any generalised cost estimate before deciding not to go down such a route for those categories. Can the Paymaster General provide a
Column Number: 35
general reply? If she cannot do so now, will she write to us before consideration on Report, which I understand is not so far away?
There is another related point that I want to make before the Paymaster General responds. If she is minded not to accept such a proposal and to stick to the Government's approach of nominated programmes, bearing in mind what the Prince's Trust said, may I stress once again, hoping that she takes this on board, that it will be important to make it as crystal clear as possible to all young people and to the voluntary organisations with which they work—we heard at least one example of a voluntary organisation that is asking specifically for such a clarification—exactly which schemes will or will not qualify?
I intimated earlier that it is important that young people understand clearly whether they will or will not qualify for support on some schemes. At the risk of trying the Paymaster General's patience, I reiterate the point. An additional point needs to be made: it is also important that the voluntary bodies and advisers—Connexions, the Prince's Trust, Barnardo's, Centrepoint and others—have that very clear list, so that they can give young people the most cogent advice possible.
I am harping on about this because there is clearly a need for it. In all seriousness, I shall be grateful if the Paymaster General attempts to take that on board. Perhaps she can say more on Report if she is not in a position to say anything this afternoon. I hope she can see what we are trying to achieve and I look forward to her reply.
Mr. Laws: I shall not delay the Committee for too long as the hon. Member for Rayleigh set out his new clause clearly. Perhaps I should wait to hear the Paymaster General respond, but I want to encourage her to heed some of his points.
I appreciate the Paymaster General's point about the uncertainty in establishing how many individuals are in unwaged training and why the Government would be concerned about extending the definition such that it was open to abuse or they could not be sure that the individuals in respect of whom child benefit was being received were genuinely receiving training. However, the hon. Member for Rayleigh referred to a number of categories of individual who might be on schemes that, as far as I am aware, would not fall under the definition that the Government have adopted for unwaged trainees, but that might well be fairly reputable schemes in respect of which there would be no question whether there was abuse of the category of unwaged trainee.
The Paymaster General might want to go slightly further to insist that the schemes embraced by the Bill include a training element. As the hon. Member for Rayleigh mentioned, however, there are schemes, such as the Prince's Trust, that might have a strong training element and certainly have a strong skills element. I appreciate that the Paymaster General has left the door open to further changes in this area, particularly as the Government's strategy is rolled out, but are
Column Number: 36
there a few additional categories of unwaged trainee, including those that the hon. Member for Rayleigh identified, to which she might extend these measures in the very short term?
| 
