Clause
40
Attendance
notice
Mr.
Gibb:
I beg to move amendment No. 151, in
clause 40, page 21, line 26, at
end insert—
‘(b) the local
education authority has taken all reasonable steps to secure that
person’s voluntary participation in required education or
training.’.
Mr.
Gibb:
I am sure that my hon. Friend will have chance to
contribute
shortly.
An
attendance notice follows the issue of a written notice by a local
authority, as provided for in clause 39. Although the written notice
must give at least 15 days’ notice of the issuance of an
attendance notice, under clause 40, the local authority has a six-month
window during which it can get around to issuing an attendance notice.
If those provisions become law in 2013 or 2015 and are not overtaken by
other eye-catching Government initiatives, it would be interesting to
see how many such notices are actually issued. A six-month window, out
of what will be in reality less than two years of a 16 or
17-year-old’s life, will eat into the time during which those
provisions can be used.
Amendment No. 51, which was
inspired by my friends in the National Union of Teachers, would add
another condition that would have to be fulfilled before an attendance
notice can be issued. In its briefing, the NUT states that
the
“purpose of the
amendment...is to help ensure the emphasis of the Bill is on the
rights of young people to participate in education or training post-16
over and above an emphasis on a punishable duty”.
I expect and hope that my hon. Friend the
Member for South Holland and The Deepings will expand on that point
when he contributes to the
debate.
The NUT went
on to state that it is arguable that the effect of the amendment is
largely cosmetic. It
wrote:
“However,
the NUT believes that such a presentational difference is vital if the
overall message is as the Government clearly intends and if the system
of enforcement is to be seen as very much a last
resort”.
Mr.
Hayes:
Such is the enthusiasm of the of the Front-Bench
team fielded by the Opposition that we can barely resist the temptation
to rise in support of the amendments that we have crafted. I am
delighted to accept my hon. Friend’s invitation to add to the
few words that he offered in support of the amendment.
As we have heard, clause 40
enables local education authorities to issue attendance notices
specifying the type of provision to be undertaken, a description of the
course and details of where and when a young person should attend.
According to the Local Government Association, there are four steps to
that enforcement process. It
says:
“The
first step will be for the learning provider to try to identify and
address the issues by providing additional support or identify
alternative learning programmes.”
Secondly:
“If
the young person drops out of learning, the local authority will have a
responsibility to contact them and work with them over a period to
identify appropriate alternative learning
options.”
Thirdly:
“If
the young person still does not
engage”—
having
been through that process with the local
authority—
“they
will be given a formal last chance to engage
voluntarily”,
and the
situation if they do not do so will be made clear. The LGA
continues:
“The local authority
will decide when the time is appropriate for this and will then have
the power, to issue an Attendance Notice, specifying precisely the
provision that the young person must attend, and where and when they
must do so. Appeals will be referred to an independent adjudication
panel, which the local authority will set up. The panel will review the
steps that the local authority has taken to ensure that there had been
sufficient opportunity and support to engage voluntarily. The panel
would have powers to confirm or dismiss the Attendance Notice and to
recommend the local authority to take action to meet the needs of the
young person.”
Fourthly,
according to the
LGA:
“If the
young person did not meet the terms of their attendance notice, the
local authority could issue them with a Fixed Penalty
Notice.”
We debated that issue
during our extensive discussions about compulsion. The provision before
us essentially means that action against the young person will be
stepped up if those early attempts to engage them by means of adjusting
what is available to them, properly informing them and providing
support and encouragement, fail.
The fourth stage, according to
the LGA, includes further measures:
“Appeals would again go
to the same panel, which would confirm or dismiss the notice. If the
FPN is unpaid the local authority would bring the case before a Youth
Court, where the penalty on conviction would be a
fine.”
That measure is regarded as the last
resort, as the Minister said repeatedly when we discussed the issue
before. The LGA states that if a fine is unpaid, the youth court has
options beyond
custody,
“including
taking money from wages or imposing an unpaid work
requirement.”
The
Minister has assured us that no one will go to prison, but the process,
although well defined and an accelerating one, ends with someone having
a conviction—being a criminal in the sense that I have
described.
Clause 40
does not require local authorities to have taken all reasonable steps
to secure voluntary participation in education and training before an
attendance notice is issued. Our amendment would clarify the position
and ensure that young people were guided to the most appropriate
education and training before any formal sanctions were used. That is
the essential point. There should be a well understood, transparent and
logical process, which accelerates the action that the local authority
might take. However, there should also be an absolute requirement to
avoid a formal process until such time as all other options have been
exhausted.
I know
that the Minister shares that view, because he expressed it earlier in
our deliberations. It is critical that we encourage young people to
commit to participation of their own will, because if they do so, there
is a much greater chance of their succeeding—of seeing their
training through and developing the skills that they need to become
increasingly employable. The amendment would ensure that the formal
process did not kick in until everything that could be—and, in
my judgment, must be—done to encourage voluntary participation
had been
done.
Jim
Knight:
Of course we want as many young people as possible
to engage voluntarily in learning, without having to use sanctions.
That is the aim of local authorities too, as John Freeman from the
Association of Directors of Children’s Services told us. He is
the director of children’s services in Dudley and in evidence to
the Committee he said
that
“we see enforcement
as the last option and, indeed, an indication that we have failed
somewhere. A disengaged young person is not just an indication that
they have failed, but that we have
failed.”——[Official Report, Education and
Skills Public Bill Committee, 22 Jan 2008; c. 72,
Q174]
That is why we have
emphasised the need to put the provision in place. Every young person,
wherever they are in the country and whatever level they are working
at, will be able to find a suitable learning option. We are focusing on
ensuring that there is the right support, from careers education and
guidance in schools, to the Connexions service and talented youth
support, for young people both to engage with, and stay in, learning
and to achieve. We will also ensure that there is extra help for those
with special educational needs.
The amendment to clause 40 is
not necessary. It might be helpful if I quickly mention the 10 stages
that we have introduced, as opposed to the four stages that the hon.
Member for South Holland and The Deepings has identified, so that hon.
Members are clear about the extent to which there is a last resort in
the courts. The first stage is support from the learning provider. If a
young person encounters problems or shows signs of disengaging from
learning, the first step is for the
learning provider to try to identify and address the issue by providing
additional support or identifying an alternative learning programme.
The second stage is notification to Connexions. If the young person
drops out altogether, the learning provider will have a duty to inform
the local authority or its Connexions service provider, which will then
contact the young person to try to identify what the problems are. Over
time, the guidance service will work with the young person to offer
advice and broker support to help them to re-engage with learning. That
is the third stage: the support from Connexions, which will identify an
appropriate learning option and provide support to take that
up. A last
chance—the fourth stage—is provided if the young person
still does not engage once a suitable programme has been identified and
appropriate support
provided—[
Interruption.
] I am delighted to
see that the hon. Member for Yeovil has arrived. I only wish that we
could all be party to the discussions that he will probably have with
the hon. Member for Bristol, West. He can be assured that an attendance
notice is on its way stating that he has missed the fourth
stage—the last chance—that I was talking about. If the
young person has been offered a suitable programme and additional
support has been provided, and they have no outstanding barriers to
participation or reasonable excuses for not participating, they should
be given a formal last chance to engage voluntarily.
The fifth stage is 15
days’ notice. There is a point at which the local authority
takes a clear decision to begin enforcement. A young person cannot
enter the enforcement system automatically or accidentally. The local
authority must consciously make that decision and then give the young
person 15 days’ notice in writing that they will be issued with
an attendance notice—the initial steps that are set out in
clause 39. Stage six is the issuing of an attendance notice. At stage
seven, the young person can appeal against the attendance notice, and
stage eight is the serving of a fixed penalty notice, which again is
appealable. There would then be a fine in the youth court and, finally,
fine enforcement. There are plenty of stages all the way down the
track.
Mr.
Gibb:
I suspect that that process will take about 10
years. What is the time scale over which the Minister believes that
would
happen?
Jim
Knight:
Until youth court proceedings have started,
the process can be halted at any stage by the young person if they
voluntarily choose to take up the support that they have been offered.
The process may take some time, but it certainly will not take years
for it to be completed. The vast majority of the process involves
providing support. Once we get to the formal enforcement stage matters
are pursued through the magistrates courts, which is a fairly familiar
process that I think we are all aware can be relatively swift.
Obviously, those in extremis who end up in court will be subject to
court processes, which can take a bit longer. However, we hope that, as
in cases where the participation age has been raised, we will not get
to the stage of court enforcement.
10
am
Mr.
Hayes:
Some aspects of the process that
the Minister described are subject to time limits, but other parts are
not. Would not it be useful to set a timetable for the various steps
that he has described—my four stages or his 10, whichever is
more appropriate? The process could begin, but not end until after a
person has aged beyond the constraints implicit in the Bill—they
could reach 18 or 19—and that would be entirely
inappropriate.
Jim
Knight:
Clearly, if the person reaches the age beyond
which the law no longer applies, the process would cease because it
would become pointless. As for setting timetables, it is right that we
should specify 15 days’ notice. The reason for doing so is to
ensure that we do everything we can to get that young person to
participate, so the sooner we can get on with the process the better.
It is not particularly helpful to specify individual time scales in
legislation, as we are some years away from the date on which these
measures come into effect. A time scale that seems reasonable now might
not be reasonable in a few years’ time. I agree that we must do
all we can to get as many young people as possible to participate
voluntarily, but the hon. Gentleman’s amendment is unnecessary.
It was a sharp contrast to see two lead spokesmen rise to speak to the
amendment, given the reluctance of any hon. Member to speak to the
earlier amendments proposed by the Liberal Democrats. I hope that both
the hon. Gentlemen will be happy to withdraw the
amendment.
Mr.
Hayes:
The Minister has made it clear
that the enforcement process leading to a fixed penalty is a last
resort, and he helpfully fleshed out the process for the
Committee’s benefit. However, it would be helpful to have some
sense of the timetable, at least in guidance, for the benefit of local
authorities. Flexibility is required, because each case is different.
The measures deal with complex issues and individuals—those
individuals have different needs and different circumstances
apply— but some kind of timetable or time framework would be a
useful addition. The Minister might want to reflect on that and return
to it later.
The
Minister handled the amendment in a conciliatory and professional way,
despite his cutting asides to the Liberal Democrats, which I thought
harsh. I had begun to think that the hon. Members for Yeovil and for
Bristol, West were one and the same person as we have never seen them
together until today, but that has been disproved. On that basis, I beg
to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.
The
Chairman:
Highly uncharacteristically, the hon. Member for
South Holland and The Deepings has overreached himself. It was
perfectly in order for him to speak to the amendment any number of
times, but I am afraid that he is not empowered to seek the leave of
the Committee to withdraw it, simply because it is not his. I call
Mr. Nick
Gibb.
Mr.
Gibb:
You will be unsurprised to know, Mr.
Bercow, that I am in complete agreement with my hon. Friend. I, too,
beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave, withdrawn.
Stephen
Williams:
I beg to move amendment No. 79, in
clause 40, page 21, leave out lines 41 to
45.
I
noticed the look of doubt on your face, Mr. Bercow, as to
whether my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil or I would move the
amendment. I was grateful for the arrival of the cavalry from Yeovil,
but my hon. Friend has said that as I have had time to think about the
amendment, I might as well move it. I was also grateful for the
peroration from the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings, as
it has given me adequate time to think about what the amendment would
do in removing subsection (5) from clause 40. The measure is too
prescriptive an interpretation of the needs of the young person.
Subsection (5)(a) will direct which institution the young person may be
required to attend for their compulsory education or training, but the
Bill does not go on to say that practical common-sense considerations
should be taken into account when it comes to selecting an institution.
A young person’s education destination might be selected against
their will.
In some
parts of the country, geography may be a relevant factor when an
attendance notice requires a young person to attend a further education
college. My right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed
(Mr. Beith) has said a couple of times in the Chamber that
the nearest college to the town of Berwick-upon-Tweed is 50 miles away.
It would therefore be nonsensical for an attendance notice imposed by
Northumberland county council, for example, to require a person from
Berwick to attend a college rather than a school. The Bill does not
allow such common-sense considerations to be taken into
account.
There may
also be reasons why an institution would not want to accept a person
who is imposed on them. As we know, some young people choose not to
stay on beyond 16 because they have had a bad experience of school, and
perhaps the school has had a bad experience of them. For example, they
may have been subject to disciplinary procedures at school; they may
have been suspended or even expelled. The Bill does not take into
account whether a school or college would wish to have a young person
imposed upon them for compulsory attendance as a result of an
attendance notice.
Subsection (5)(b) goes even
further by removing all element of choice whatever from the young
person who is subject to a notice. The measure therefore not only
determines which educational institution a person should be required to
attend, but what course they should be required to study. Subsequent
subsections do not make any reference to whether a course is
appropriate for the individual or the career that they are expected to
follow in future, or whether courses take heed of previous educational
achievements or non-achievements at age 16. For instance, in theory, it
would be quite ridiculous to impose a duty on someone to study A-level
economics if they had only secured grade F at GCSE maths, yet there is
no provision in the measure to account for the previous attainments of
a young person when specifying the exact name and description of the
course that they are to take.
The
implications of the measure for young people and the institutions that
they will be required to attend are stark, and I look forward to the
Minister’s response. As my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil has
not
intervened, I take it that I have made all the points that he would have
made, and perhaps some that he might not have
made.
Mr.
Hayes:
The hon. Gentleman makes an
interesting case. The process must illustrate maximum sensitivity both
to the person and to the institutions that, by proxy, are involved in
the process. Specifying an institution and course, as the hon.
Gentleman described, might create tensions between institutions and
local authorities and even, as he implied, reach a point at which
institutions feel that they have had imposed on them some of the most
difficult and challenging young people.
Institutions
should deal with challenging young people, but it would be better if
there was a degree of collaboration or willing co-operation. The hon.
Gentleman made an interesting point that there will come a stage, if we
are not careful, when institutions that have had increasingly difficult
young people imposed upon them see the local authority as the enemy. I
do not know whether he intended his amendment to be a probing one, but
the Minister needs to be clear about the relationship between the local
authority, institutions and individuals. It is critical to ensure that
there is maximum sensitivity in that relationship if the measure is to
work.
Jim
Knight:
The intention behind an attendance notice is to
set out clearly for the young person and everyone involved in helping
them to participate exactly what is required from them. The amendment
may reflect confusion about the purpose of including in the attendance
notice details of the type of provision that should be undertaken, a
description of the course, and details of where and when the young
person should attend. I appreciate that, to some extent, the hon.
Member for Bristol, West is catching up, and that to rush ahead and
read clause 45(2) might be more than could reasonably be asked of him,
given the role that he is fulfilling for his party at the
moment. Clause 45(2)
says:
“It is a
defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (1) to
show that he or she is, and since the giving of the attendance notice
has been, fulfilling the duty imposed by section
2.”
They do not have to
do what it says on the notice, as long as they are fulfilling their
legal obligation to
participate.
Stephen
Williams:
I acknowledge that I am playing catch-up, but
why does clause 40(5), which is the subject of the amendment, say
that
“the attendance
notice must
specify”,
rather than
“may”
specify?
Jim
Knight:
It must specify an appropriate course, location
and time, so that it is clear to everyone that there is a suitable form
of provision for the young person, but if the young person finds other
provision in which they wish to partake, they should be able to do
so.
The reason for
including the details is not to force the young person to participate
in a particular way, or to limit their options. If they received an
attendance notice they could still choose to fulfil their duty via any
one of the range of available options. In setting out the
appropriate details, we are aiming to make it easier for the young
person to comply with the duty by making it absolutely clear what is
expected of them. They are still free to participate in any other
way. On the points
that have been made about schools having young people imposed on them,
it is worth moving forward to clause 41(6)(a) and (b), which says that
the local authority must consult and be satisfied with arrangements
that have been made for education and training to be provided with the
appropriate institutions. In respect of it being suitable education for
the young person, clause 41(5)
says:
“The
education or training must be suitable for the
person.”
Mr.
Heald:
To clarify one matter, clause 39 requires the
notice of failure to comply to be given in writing, but clause 40 does
not appear to say that that is the case. Is that because the Minister
envisages that it may be necessary in certain circumstances to give an
oral notice, or it is implied in some way that it should be in
writing?
Jim
Knight:
The notice certainly has to be given in writing,
and it must be extremely clear to everyone concerned what is required,
and that the provision is in place so that it is, if necessary,
enforceable. The details are set out in the attendance notice, which is
a clear document that can be returned to if the young person wanted to
dispute whether the provision offered was appropriate. Clause 41
provides further details about the description of education and
training that must be made, and it makes it clear that it must be
suitable for the young person. If a young person wishes to appeal to an
attendance panel, the attendance notice gives a clear, written
description of what has been
offered.
10.15
am
Mr.
Heald:
I had assumed that the “written
notice” in clause 39 was in some way implied in clause
40.
What will happen
to the 40,000 people a year who leave school unable to read, write and
add up? Will these notices be explained to such people by somebody, and
if so, by
whom?
Jim
Knight:
I shall not go back
over—
The
Chairman:
Order. As the debate has progressed, it has gone
somewhat beyond the parameters of the amendment under discussion. We
have strayed or elided into what is effectively a clause stand part
debate. The Committee will naturally expect me to take that into
account in deciding whether a clause stand part debate is necessary
when the time comes. I will leave the Minister to use his judgment on
whether and to what extent to respond to the points that have
strayed.
Jim
Knight:
Thank you, Mr. Bercow. I will pass over
the fears about reading, writing and adding up. I think that I have
made it clear to the Committee that I dispute the version of events
given by the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire.
Throughout
this process, there should be engagement by the personal adviser with
the young person, talking them through the process. Equally, those
responsible for enforcement in the local authority should ensure that
the young person understands what is set out in the notice and that
they can halt the process at any point by voluntarily participating
under the provisions set out in the notice, or by an alternative route
that complies with the duties set out in clause
2.
Stephen
Williams:
I want to backtrack to before the intervention
of the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire. The Minister was
trying to give me some comfort by drawing my attention to clause 41(6),
which says that the educational institution should be consulted before,
in effect, a person is imposed on it. However, consulting on something
does not necessarily mean that the response will be respected. How will
a school be able to respond if it is invited by the local authority to
take on a 17-year-old who has previously been expelled from that
institution?
Jim
Knight:
All the various other regulations and obligations
that apply in respect of admissions to institutions would apply.
Crucially, as set out in clause 41(5):
“The education or
training must be suitable for the
person.”
In a scenario
where the institution does not want to provide education or training,
there would be questions about suitability, because the person will not
be properly engaged in the course if it is being delivered reluctantly.
We should allow for those issues to be decided according to
local circumstances. The provision offers considerable
flexibility.
I hope
that the hon. Gentleman accepts that the amendment would make it
unclear what is expected of a young person and an important protection
for them would therefore be lost. In the light of that reasoning, I
hope that he will withdraw the
amendment.
Stephen
Williams:
I have listened to the
Minister’s assurances with great care, but am not particularly
reassured by all of them. He has not dealt with the second set of
remarks that I made about clause 40(5)(b), which prescribes what course
an individual will take. Perhaps he would like to intervene to deal
with that
point.
Jim
Knight:
I apologise if I did not discretely mention
subsection (5)(b), but all of the details set out in subsection (5) are
a clear description, so that it is clear that something appropriate has
been offered and is available. Again, if an individual wanted to go to
the school, college or educational establishment named in the notice,
but to do a different course, as long as it fulfils the clause 2 duty,
the process will cease because that course will fulfil their
duty.
Stephen
Williams:
I thank the Minister for that
response. A process must be gone through that engages the young person
and the educational institution that will be required to receive them.
The appropriateness of the education that is prescribed in subsection
(5)(b) must be considered and the person’s previous record in
education taken into account. As long as the Minister gives the
assurance
that those common-sense applications will follow from the legislation, I
beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave, withdrawn.
Clause
40
ordered to stand part of the Bill.
| 
