Clause
7
Relevant
period
10.15
am
Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Mr.
Gibb:
Briefly, given the importance of
clauses 7, 8 and 9, I wonder whether the Minister would introduce them
and allow us an explanation of the clause from his
viewpoint.
Mr.
Laws:
I do not know whether this is helpful or not, but I
wanted to draw attention to a couple of issues and questions around the
meaning and effect of
the clause. I can either do that now or in response to an introduction
of the clause by the Minister.
The clause
defines a relevant period when a person will be subject to the duties
set out in the Bill. The Bill provides for people to switch backwards
and forwards between different classes of obligation in relation to
formal education and training, apprenticeships and work-based education
and training. How will the relevant period be viewed in circumstances
where a young person withdraws from a course? We heard in evidence to
the Committee that the take-up and withdrawal rates from some of these
courses can be extremely high, particularly in the further education
sector. There can also be cases, which I have experienced in my local
area, where a course starts up and then collapses rapidly, usually
because of the small numbers of people that are involved or because a
specialist member of staff goes off sick or resigns. In the evidence
that we heard earlier, there was some uncertainty about what
obligations would then fall to a young person who, in the relevant
period, was not in any of the education or training settings specified
in the Bill. Will the Minister say something about how the relevant
period will be viewed, where such a course falls
away?
Jim
Knight:
The clause means that some young people in
full-time employment, for example those changing routes mid-year, will
know how much training they need to do. We recognise that some young
people want to go into employment when they leave school at 16 and that
they can gain very valuable skills and experience from doing so. At the
same time, we believe that they should continue their formal learning,
through part-time education or training, to enable them to gain the
further qualifications that will help them to progress in their careers
and adapt to changes in the labour
market.
We must set
out clearly for young people and their employers the time period within
which they are required to undertake a certain amount of training. The
basic requirement is 280 hours, as I am sure we will discuss shortly in
respect of clause 8, but we need to allow flexibility for young people
to change the way in which they are participating mid-year, and
therefore for periods of less than a year. The period should start from
whenever a young person starts participating in this way, otherwise
they could have accrued enough hours by temporarily being in full-time
education at the start of the year and then drop out and work for the
rest of the year. The clause defines that time period and therefore
must stand part of the Bill.
The hon. Member for Yeovil is
looking perplexed. If it helps him, the relevant period begins either
as soon as the young person is not participating through any of the
other routes—full-time education or training or an
apprenticeship—or immediately after the end of the last relevant
period, such as when a young person has already been participating
through full-time work and part-time training for a year, and the next
year begins. The relevant period ends on a date to be prescribed in
regulations, possibly the end of the academic year, or when the young
person starts participating in a different way—full-time
education or training or an apprenticeship—or when they stop
being subject to the duty altogether, for example when they turn 18, or
achieve level 3, or move out of England.
Mr.
Laws:
What would happen in the case of a young person aged
16, perhaps in employment, who was on a particular course that
collapsed half-way through the year? If that is the course that is
suitable for that young person, perhaps because it has a high support
component or because of their career aspirations, and it is not
possible to go on another local course until the beginning of the new
academic year, how would the relevant period be viewed and would there
be some disapplication of that?
Jim
Knight:
If the course stops, the young person should be
assisted to find an alternative. Receiving such assistance or waiting
for another course to begin are good reasons for not participating and,
therefore, no enforcement action would be taken. The technical answer
is that the relevant period would end when the course collapsed. That
is because the way in which the young person was participating would
change and a new period would begin. There is good reason for them
having to wait before they take on a new course. Therefore, the
interpretation is that during that time, no enforcement will take
place.
Mr.
Laws:
That is helpful. The Minister said that the relevant
period might end when a course collapsed. The implication was that the
young person would not start again until it was clear what courses were
available. Is that the correct
interpretation?
Jim
Knight:
That is how I would interpret it
given my current level of understanding. If my level of understanding
develops and I interpret it differently, I will let the Committee know.
I hope that that is helpful. On that basis, I hope that the clause will
stand part of the
Bill.
Mr.
Laws:
As ever, I find myself to be moderately reassured. I
had a slight sense that the Minister was winging it a bit, which is not
something that one usually associates with the hon. Gentleman. As the
issue is important, I want to seek clarification again and give an
opportunity for any pieces of paper to pass. I think that the Minister
said that it was possible that the relevant period could be suspended
and come to an end if a course collapsed and could remain suspended,
not requiring a particular attitude by an attendance or appeal panel.
The relevant period could stop for a time until courses were
re-established at the beginning of a new academic year. I press the
matter not just because of the uncertainty but because that could be
quite a
frequent occurrence. We do know that a large number of
youngsters—I cannot remember the exact figures that were cited
in evidence to us—leave courses for various reasons during a
year. Presumably, a minority of those will be because a course has
collapsed, but in some cases, it will be because a young person has
decided that the course is inappropriate for them. A different test may
be applied to those individuals. I want to clarify whether it is true
that the relevant period will be suspended when a course collapses, and
whether the relevant period will restart when the new academic year
begins. Also, will those circumstances be the same for cases in which a
young person decides to terminate their involvement in a course, or
will that be viewed differently by the
Minister?
Jim
Knight:
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving
way. My understanding has developed as I have read further and
reflected on the wording in the legislation. The relevant period starts
whenever a young person starts to participate in full-time or part-time
training. It does not stop when the course stops. The period ends when
the young person starts participating in a different way. The new
relevant period would commence when the young person starts the
course.
Mr.
Laws:
I think that the Minister is saying that the
relevant period will not be suspended, which is a refinement of what he
was saying earlier. Is the assumption, therefore, that in all of those
cases, a judgment would need to be made by an attendance panel as to
whether the person had good reason not to be in an education or
training setting? Would that then require an assessment to be made by
the panel of whether or not the person could legitimately be on other
courses that might be offered by the further education establishment,
which might involve the panel in quite difficult decisions about which
courses it felt obliged to compel a young person to
attend.
The
Chairman:
There might be a little confusion about who is
giving way to whom. My understanding is that the Minister did not make
an intervention, but a request to
speak.
It being
twenty five minutes past Ten o’clock,
The
Chairman
adjourned the Committee without Question put,
pursuant to the Standing
Order.
Adjourned
till this day at One
o’clock.
| 
