|
Dawn Primarolo: I am a little perplexed by some of the comments from the hon. Member for Rayleigh. I concur with him on the excellent work done by the Prince's Trust and other organisations. The Prince's Trust works very effectively and we certainly appreciate that. The new deal has been effective in getting the age range that we are discussing into training and employment, but, given that the Conservatives have declared only in the past day that they will abolish it, I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman is making a slightly different point.
The hon. Gentleman's new clause relates to volunteering, which is slightly different. The entry to employment schemes in relation to which the Government fund any programme come within the provisions and will be listed in the regulations for clarity. It has already been said that the DFES and the DWP are committed to write guidance for parents and advisers in time for the launch in April 2006. In practice, the DFES will work with schools and the Connexions service, as was discussed on Second Reading.
The new clause specifically considers volunteering and informal skills; there is a big issue about how to monitor those. In my opening remarks, I tried to make it clear that, in principle, certain types of volunteering could be considered. I have sympathy with the points made, but the question is when and how.
If the purpose of the new clause is to see whether our mind is closed on the question of volunteering, I can say to the hon. Gentleman that it is not. However, I do not agree with the time scale or the mechanism that the new clause would introduce. Nor, as yet, do we have a clear way forward, but the broad entitlement for which the new clause provides would probably entail substantial additional costs. There would also be a question whether the volunteering was contributing to the skills and experiences that clearly need to be achieved for the 16 to 19-year-olds.
The proposed new clause states that
''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.''
That is not really good enough. We are trying to improve things, so saying ''can be expected'' and ''may result in'' is not sufficient. Moreover, the new clause does not provide for the Revenue or the DWP to supervise or to verify entitlement. Clearly, such proposals carry significant risks, not just of poor value for money, but of fraud and disincentives to young people to progress to formal education and training.
The Russell commission is examining the whole area of volunteering. The Home Office and a number of other Departments have also been working closely on that matter to see whether there might be a solution because, as the hon. Gentleman said, certain types of volunteering may be suitable for inclusion in terms of the additional skills accessed.
Column Number: 37
I cannot accept the new clause, nor can I find a way to introduce such a provision at this stage, although the regulations will allow us to revisit the matter, which is important. Young people themselves, although they do not have any solutions, have identified the fact that volunteering is important in making a contribution to their local communities and in understanding obligations as well as rights. They, as well as organisations such as the Prince's Trust, are keen to see whether we can find a way forward.
I hope the hon. Gentleman does not press the new clause as it would be a shame to divide the Committee on a principle that we want to be supported, although we cannot find a way to do so at present. No doubt he will want to return to the matter, not just in the context of the Bill, but as those reports are published and more information becomes available. Regrettably, if he presses his proposal to a vote, I must ask my hon. Friends to oppose it.
Mr. Francois: I must thank the Paymaster General for a thoughtful and considered reply, which did not appear to upset the microphones in any way.
The purpose of tabling a new clause such as this in Committee is to try to provoke debate and to nudge the Government's thinking along a little. It is evident from the Paymaster General's reply that the Government have already given the matter considerable thought in deciding to adopt that particular policy line.
The Paymaster General made the reasonable point that, as the purpose of the Bill is to facilitate draft regulations, which can then be amended by the statutory instruments procedure, it is possible that, once the Government have reflected further on the matter, they may decide—or a Government of any other colour might decide—that there needs to be a further expansion of qualifying courses and that therefore the regulations could be amended to take that into account. She made the point that the door was not closed on the matter, which is a reasonable reply.
In response, I would say that I chose the Prince's Trust as one example of the organisations that are pushing for such provisions, first, because I admire its work and, secondly, because I thought that it made a good case. However, a number of other organisations would like to see change in that area. I see that the Paymaster General assents to that remark.
Moreover, in order for such measures to be put in place and if the criteria were expanded in that way, we admit that there would need to be precise financial quantification of exactly what the additional burden would be on the public. The Paymaster General made it clear in her reply that additional costs will be involved, but no one is absolutely sure at this stage what they will be. That being the case, it would be churlish to press the new clause to a Division. She gave a reasonable and fair reply. I ask her and her colleagues to keep the matter under review. If there is any way in which she can offer a slight movement on
Column Number: 38
Report, perhaps to say that studies have been started, we would welcome it. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the Chairman do report the Bill, as amended, to the House.
4.45 pm
Dawn Primarolo: I wish to thank you, Miss Begg, for the way in which you have chaired the Committee. I thank all members of the Committee for their contributions to the debate. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West—
Rob Marris: Won two, lost two.
Dawn Primarolo: Yes, a score draw. I wondered whether such matters would encourage my hon. Friend, but I then realised that he needed no encouragement at all, and that he was determined to do whatever he could to improve legislation, for which I thank him. I thank the Clerk, the Officers of the House, the police and the Hansard writers for their assistance in our smooth proceedings, as I do the hon. Members for Rayleigh, for Chichester and for Yeovil for their participation. I thank my hon. Friends for supporting me so magnificently in the debate this afternoon. Finally, I wish unusually to congratulate the Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury, my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde because I believe that this has been his first Bill as a Government Whip. I cannot think of any finer Bill for him on his first occasion than a Child Benefit Bill. I am pleased that I am soon about to have a cup of tea.
Mr. Francois: I thank you, Miss Begg, for chairing our proceedings with a light touch and so admirably this afternoon, and for allowing us to organise the business in such a way that we have had a cracking debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West on having amendments accepted. I can hear his election address being rewritten as we speak. No doubt, he will make much of it. I shall be intrigued to receive a copy to know exactly how he has spun such a triumph.
Rob Marris: I never spin.
Mr. Francois: Nevertheless, as the hon. Gentleman has managed to amend the Bill, we should pay tribute to him for that. [Interruption.] But if I were him, I would not become too carried away.
I thank the Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury, the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde, for what he has done to assist the progress of the Bill. I have served in the Opposition Whips Office, so I know that such work is both interesting and challenging. I whipped my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester for a time, so I confess that I knew the answer to the question on Iraq even before the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West posed it. Nevertheless, it can be busy in the Whips Office—important work goes on behind the scenes—so I acknowledge that it is the first Bill for the hon.
Column Number: 39
Member for Stalybridge and Hyde and I echo some of the comments that the Paymaster General made about him.
I thank the hon. Member for Yeovil for his contribution, and I look forward to his even tabling an amendment or two the next time that I serve on a Committee with him. In the meantime, I thank him for chipping in on the work of others. It has been a pleasure to have him with us this afternoon. No doubt he will get back at me on Report for that.
Finally, I thank the Paymaster General. At times, we got into some lively debate. Before this afternoon, some people might have expected the discussion to be rather dry and technical. Nevertheless, we came alive at one point, even to the excitement of the sound engineers, so we can fairly say that we have provoked some genuine parliamentary debate. I make no apology to the Paymaster General for having been mischievous; I confess that I thoroughly enjoyed it. I thank her for her responses to our points. By and large, allowing even for a bit of knockabout, she gave thoughtful replies to the questions that we put to her, and we look forward to exploring some of the matters further on Report. I understand that that will be in the not too distant future.
| 
