Clause
45
Offence
of failure to comply with attendance
notice
Mr.
John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con): I beg
to move amendment No. 34, in
clause 45, page 24, line 24, leave
out first ‘an’ and insert ‘a
civil’.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following amendments: No. 35, in
clause 45, page 24, line 27, leave
out ‘an’ and insert ‘a
civil’.
No. 81,
in clause 45, page 24, leave out lines 30
to 31.
No. 36, in
clause 45, page 24, line 30, leave
out from ‘person’ to end of line 31 and insert
‘acting unlawfully under
subsection (1) is liable to a civil penalty not exceeding
£200.’.
Mr.
Hayes:
If I have been uncharacteristically quiet so far
today, and now rise, moist eyed, with a tremor in my voice, it is
because I know that we shall soon be parted, for you have told us,
Mr. Bercow, that you will not be joining us next week. May I
advise you during that brief sojourn to read again William
Morris’ “News from Nowhere”? It is a fine book
that is entirely relevant to the Bill, and indeed, to this aspect of
the Bill, because Morris understood that training was
critical—that the relationship between craft and beauty was of
immense importance in inspiring young people to acquire
skills.
Mr.
Laws:
Will the hon. Gentleman reassure me that this is not
another of the volumes that he has been reading in Committee during my
speeches?
Mr.
Hayes:
No, I was riveted by the hon. Gentleman’s
speech to such a degree that I was unable to pick up a single paper. I
was entirely preoccupied by the sagacity of his remarks.
To return to the amendments more
specifically, Mr. Bercow, you will know that at the heart of
our considerations thus far has been the concern of Opposition Members,
among whom I include the hon. Member for Yeovil, about the prospect of
criminalising young people. According to the explanatory notes for
clause 45,
“non-compliance is an offence and
liable to a fine of a maximum of level 1 on the standard scale.
Currently level 1 is a maximum of £200, with the actual amount
in each case being decided by the court in light of individual
circumstances.”
The
amendment would delete the criminal elements of the Bill and translate
them into civil penalties. In earlier sittings, we challenged the
Minister on precisely that point, and we did so in concert with many
witnesses who gave evidence to the Committee before we started our
detailed scrutiny. The amendment would therefore specify that
non-compliance be a civil matter, rather than a matter for the criminal
law.
Time and again in
the evidence sessions, we heard that young people may be criminalised
by the Bill. That is of great concern to the very organisations with
the most experience of dealing with challenged young
people—those young people who are most typically disengaged from
the system. I make no apologies for reminding the Minister, because he
seems recalcitrant about the matter, of the evidence that we took from
some of those experts. Martina Milburn, the chief executive of the
Prince’s Trust told us
that
“the bulk of the
40,000 people who we worked with last year had issues with drugs and
alcohol. What do you do with a young person who is already going down
the path of taking too many drugs and drinking too much and who just
says, ‘I’m not going to do it’ and disappears?
That happens not just in the age group
that we are talking about. I was talking to a young person yesterday who
started drinking at eight and who was on heroin by the time he was 11;
he certainly was not in school after that time. The question is how you
deal with that. Do you increasingly criminalise young people and just
say, ‘Right, we’re going to lock you all up,’ or
do you find some way of trying to reach them and sort out some of their
issues?” ——[Official Report, Education and
Skills Public Bill Committee, 22 January 2008; c. 16,
Q36.] That evidence
graphically illustrates that the young people in greatest need are
least likely to benefit from the Bill, particularly if it coerces them.
We need an approach that is founded on the principle of encouragement
of support and is sensitive to the fact that those young people might
not be in a position to abide by the terms of the Bill. As the
representative of the Prince’s Trust said, if someone is already
in the kind of dire circumstances that she described, it is unlikely
that the Bill as drafted will make much difference to them.
The Association of School and
College Leaders also submitted a briefing on the Bill. It
states:
“Our
preferred approach to achieving full participation is by persuasion
rather than coercion. In particular we do not support the potential
application of criminal penalties for what is a civil
matter.”
Our amendments
would ensure that enforcement of the provisions of the Bill would be
restricted to civil law. It is inevitable that we will oppose the
Government’s measures unless the Minister can make a compelling
case for criminalising young people who are disengaged from education
and who are some of the most vulnerable members of
society—denied a loving home, support and the knowledge and
guidance of parents.
For Conservatives, and I guess
for some Liberals too, from all that we have heard from the hon. Member
for Yeovil, education means opportunity for all, rather than
criminalising a few. Even if the Minister cannot accept the amendments
today, I hope that he will reflect on the tenor of the discussions that
have taken place over these past weeks. It is not the case that members
of the Committee who do not share his enthusiasm for criminalising
young people do not also share his enthusiasm for increasing
participation; we simply do not think that the system that he wishes to
put in place will work.
That is the best pragmatic
argument for supporting the amendment that I can make. I hope that the
Minister, in the spirit in which I have offered it, will seize it with
both hands—although I have thrown him lifelines before and he
has cast them aside—and get himself off the hook by translating
the criminal elements of the Bill into civil
matters.
Mr.
Laws:
There is no point in the Minister sighing at the
thought of me speaking. After all, I am going to speak to amendment No.
81, as it would be somewhat negligent not to since I tabled it and it
has been selected for debate. The amendment would delete lines 30 and
31 from clause 45 and thereby prevent someone from facing a fine not
exceeding level 1 on the standard scale. The hon. Member for South
Holland and The Deepings will agree with that aim.
We come back, as the hon.
Gentleman did, to a good many of the representations about these
clauses that
were received from all sorts of organisations that work with young
people, and even by some of those who support the Bill and the element
of compulsion contained within it. The Children’s Rights
Alliance for England is clearly opposed to the provisions in this part
of the Bill. The British Youth Council made it clear that it was
opposed to the clauses that impose penalty fines on young
people. Rainer, too,
has made representations to the Committee to say that it is concerned
about the proposals in clauses 45 to 48. In the useful briefing note
that it provided on Second Reading, Rainer pointed out that when it
discussed that aspect of the Bill with young people, it was
understandably the part that caused young people the most concern and
anger. The feeling was that imposing fines and criminal sanctions on
young people who may, in many senses, already be marginalised will be
of very little value and in some cases will actually be
counter-productive. The Rainer briefing paper quotes one young person
who was consulted on the issue, who
said:
“The whole
point is to get a better job. How are you going to do that with a
criminal record?”
Rainer
believes that the proposals, and the fines contained within
them,
“are likely to be
particularly damaging for those who have struggled in or disengaged
from mainstream
education.”
An
interesting part of the briefing sets out Rainer’s thoughts on
how the Government might reframe some of the responsibilities in a way
that would be more positive, and whether the sanctions regime could be
reformulated to be more rational and acceptable to young people. Rainer
says that the overwhelming majority of young people that it spoke to
thought it appropriate that they should face the consequences for
non-attendance, but felt
that
“the only suitable
penalty would be withdrawing financial incentives and support (such as
free public transportation, or enhanced benefit payments) for taking
part”
in the courses in
question. Rainer said that those incentives could be regained by
somebody who then re-engaged in education and training.
We know from a previous debate
that the Government are reticent about stating their intentions for the
future financial framework of incentives and support for young people.
Indeed, some of the comments by Ministers and officials on the record
even suggest that the Government are looking at the future of the
educational maintenance allowance. I wonder whether that is something
that the Government might be planning to get rid of, phase out or
reduce. I think that we heard from the Minister during earlier
questioning that the Government are committed to keeping the EMA, but
they have left open what other forms of financial support there may be
for young people who have to comply with the Bill. I cannot recall when
the Minister said he would be in a position to tell us about the
financial support structures that will be in place after 2013. I have a
feeling that it would not be for some time.
Since I have a
feeling that the Minister may not be inclined to accept all of the
amendments today, I wonder whether we might persuade him first, to give
some indication of when he or his successors will be in a position to
say what the financial support arrangements will be for young people.
Secondly, would he be willing
to consider a process of sanctioning, as Rainer and young people have
suggested, using the withdrawal of financial benefits for engaging in
education and training, rather than this heavy-handed method of
imposing fines on young people? In many cases they could not afford to
pay, given the income of many young people and the fact that parents
will be unwilling, or in some cases unable, to pay the fines. That
could lead to criminalisation, which could then make those young people
even less willing to engage, and less attractive to future
employers. If the
Minister is not inclined to accept all of the amendments today, will he
tell us when the Government will be in a position to say more about the
financial support mechanisms and whether there is any possibility of
adopting a more rational and more liberal approach—I will not
say a high Tory approach, because I am not sure what the high Tory
position on these matters would be—that was more positive and
based more on providing incentives and support for young people, rather
than the sanctions and penalties that are contained in the
clauses?
2.45
pm
Jim
Knight:
Amendments Nos. 34 to 36 would replace the
possibility of a prosecution and a criminal fine on breach of an
attendance notice with liability for a civil penalty not exceeding
£200, as the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings
said. Naturally, I considered that and other options, but I concluded
that a civil enforcement system would not work in practice. I have set
out the reasons for that previously, although I am not optimistic that
the hon. Gentleman will accept them given the hard line he took in his
opening comments, saying that unless I persuaded him, he would press
the amendment to a Division. However, I will have another
go.
Civil penalties
would be enforced in civil courts, which are not geared to dealing with
young people in the way that youth courts are. For example, judges in
the youth court receive specialist training on dealing with young
people, and the court is not open to the general public. The amount of
a fine in a youth court is set by the court, taking into account the
young person’s means. Persons under the age of 18 may be sued in
civil courts, but there are complex rules under part 21 of the Civil
Procedure Rules 1998, such as the requirement in most instances to be
represented by a litigation friend. In addition, although debts may be
enforced using civil recovery methods, such as recovery by bailiffs, in
practice such methods are rarely used against people under the age of
18. The local authority would have to pay a court fee to pursue the
civil enforcement method, which also might not be appropriate in
practice, and would leave the authority with mounting costs. Court fees
and costs are added to the debt in the civil courts, which does not
happen with a fine in the youth
courts.
Mr.
Gibb:
So because English law has developed over the
centuries to protect young people against the rigours of the civil
court procedures, the Minister wants to use the even more rigorous
criminal
law?
Jim
Knight:
I am saying that we have a specific youth court
which is trained and configured around the needs of young people being
brought to justice.
I have
previously reassured the Committee that the offence in the clause would
not be a recordable one and that the conviction would be spent after
two and a half years. Although I agree that it is important to ensure
we have explored all the options in relation to enforcement, civil
court proceedings and subsequent enforcement in the civil courts do not
present a realistic means of ultimately enforcing attendance notices. I
therefore ask that the amendment be
withdrawn.
Amendment
No. 81 removes the provision for a fine in the youth court, but leaves
it unclear what the consequences of committing an offence under the
clause would be. It is important for the effectiveness of the new
requirement, and to avoid confusion, to set out clearly the
consequences of refusing to participate and failing to comply with an
attendance notice. Accepting the amendment would reduce that
clarity.
Proceedings in
the youth court will always be the last stage of the enforcement
process, but we need to make that last stage clear from the outset. A
person found guilty of the offence under the clause will be liable to a
maximum level 1 fine on the standard scale, which is the lowest
category available. Currently, level 1 is a maximum of £200,
with the actual amount in each case being decided and fixed by the
court in the light of individual circumstances and sensitivity to
issues for young people. The maximum of a level 1 fine provides
protection for young people by putting an upper limit on the penalty a
youth court can impose. Without that, there would be no indication of
how such an offence might be dealt with and the penalty imposed could
be more
severe.
Financial
support provided to young people in this context is principally the
education maintenance allowance, but that is obviously currently
conditional on participation in education or training. so I am not sure
how we can introduce something else that is conditional in the way that
the hon. Member for Yeovil suggested. We have explored whether to take
benefits away, but very few young people satisfy the criteria for
benefits—unless they are in extreme hardship—so I am
unhappy about the idea of an enforcement system that is based on
benefits.
I hope that
that helps the Committee and that the amendment will be
withdrawn.
Mr.
Laws:
I am rather disappointed with the Minister’s
response. I thought the ideas that I advanced on behalf of Rainer were
so convincing that he would want to go away and reflect. In the light
of that response, I might want to press amendment No. 81 to a
Division.
Mr.
Hayes:
Again, we have heard a weak case from the Minister.
The essence of his argument is that the civil system is not appropriate
to deal with young people so, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor
Regis and Littlehampton suggested, the Government are going to use a
still less appropriate set of procedures. The difference is that the
option preferred by the Minister will leave the young person with a
criminal record. That is what it boils down to. A number of the most
disadvantaged and challenged young people, who we are trying to
encourage back into learning so that they will return to civil society
and hopefully obtain employment, are going to be put through a criminal
procedure. That argument does not stack up.
A reasonable
person, looking on objectively from outside the orbit of the Committee,
would scarcely believe that a Parliament was going to put people
through a criminal court for not turning up at college. That is what it
boils down to—that the Government believe in such a policy. Yet
again, I urge the Minister to
reconsider.
Angela
Watkinson (Upminster) (Con): Does my hon. Friend share my
concern about enabling a fine of up to £200 to be imposed on a
person who is highly unlikely to have any financial means? What about
the effect that that might have on their intention of seeking
employment, given that the fine outstanding would be attached to future
earnings?
Mr.
Hayes:
We know how such a fine might be paid ultimately,
because the explanatory notes on the Bill made that clear: it could be
paid through a deduction of money from subsequent earnings, and I guess
it could even mean seizing people’s assets, although I do not
know if a young person would typically have any assets. However, it is,
as my hon. Friend said, curious to the point of being bizarre that we
are going to consider taking 17 and 18-year-olds, who may be acutely
disadvantaged, and put them through a criminal process. As I said, that
does not stack up, because it is not reasonable.
The Minister went on to say, as
justification, that going through the civil procedures would cost the
local authority money. Given that he has told us that it will only
happen in a small number of cases, that is not the most powerful of
arguments to draw from his armoury. Because it will cost the local
authority a few bob, it is better put those young people through the
criminal courts
instead.
We heard a
series of pretty unconvincing arguments in response to what was a
measured and reasonable case for sensible amendments that would improve
the Bill. On that basis, I am inclined to press the matters to a vote
and to test the Committee’s will. Those who vote should remember
this: if they vote for the amendments, they will be accepting the
advice, given in evidence to the Committee, of those who work closely
with the sort of young people that I have described; if they vote
against the amendments, they will be voting for criminalising desperate
and vulnerable young
people.
Jim
Knight:
I remind the hon. Gentleman of the 10-stage
process of enforcement. That is not something we would enter into
lightly. The notion of people being criminalised for not turning up to
college is clearly nonsense. That would never be a consequence of not
turning up, but would only come into effect if a young person actively
refused to participate, without reasonable excuse and after all the
support and all the other stages had been gone through. I could go on,
but interventions must be
short.
Mr.
Hayes:
I do not doubt for a moment that the Minister is
honest in his determination to ensure that such action is the last
resort. I do not challenge the idea that the 10-stage process will, for
the most part, allow young people to participate who have not done so
thus far. However, if the Minister is so sure about that, and
without anticipating our next debate, I wonder—I am
only guessing—why I feel in my heart that he
is unlikely to accept the amendment that means that this offence will
not be part of a police record. If the Minister does not want young
people to be branded as criminals, he has a
chance—
Mr.
Hayes:
I give way. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not
persuade me to divert my attention from the amendments to another group
that may come later.
Jim
Knight:
I wish to remind the hon. Gentleman that I told
him that the offence is not recordable.
Mr.
Hayes:
We will deal with that matter when we debate the
next amendment. I am sure that you will quickly challenge me,
Mr. Bercow, if I attempt to do so now.
As I said, I am minded to divide
the Committee on the amendment. I suspect that the debate will
continue. I implore the Minister, who is an eminently reasonable man,
to reconsider whether we want to go down the road of using criminal
sanctions in pursuit of our shared aims: to inspire a thirst for
learning in young people, to encourage participation and to increase
employability.
Question put, That the
amendment be made:—
The
Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes
9.
Division
No.
22
]
Foster,
Mr. Michael
(Worcester)
Question
accordingly negatived.
The
Chairman:
The hon. Member for Yeovil signalled that he
would like a separate vote on amendment No. 81. I assure him that there
will be an opportunity for that. As he noted, the amendment in question
amends another clause and will be taken at the appropriate
time—or rather, it is to the same clause, we have not reached it
yet.
Mr.
Laws:
I beg to move amendment No. 80, in
clause 45, page 24, line 29, at
end insert—
‘(2A) It is a
defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (1) to
show that he or she
is—
(a) in
employment,
(b) in treatment
for a serious medical
condition,
(c) caring for a
family member, including as a
parent,
(d) terminally ill,
or
(e) unlikely to benefit from
the service
offered.’.
Anticipating
that the Minister would not give ground to the previous amendment, we
have tabled
backstop amendment No. 80, which I am sure the Minister will agree to.
The amendment would make it clear that if a person charged with an
offence under subsection (1) could show that they belonged to one or
more of the categories listed in the amendment, that could be used as a
defence. My
hope—my certainty—is that the Minister would not want to
impose a fine on somebody in any of those categories. The categories
include persons who are already engaged in employment. We are therefore
not talking about a young person who is determined to be disengaged
from the labour market or education and training, but rather somebody
who has got off their backside, found a job, and is learning useful
skills. I am sure that their employer would be worried if that person
were dragged through the measures envisaged in clause 45, which might
end up in their having a criminal
record.
3
pm
The
amendment details a number of other circumstances in which I am
confident the Minister would not want to impose sanctions. I anticipate
that he will say that all of those issues will be taken into account by
the attendance panels, which are extremely reasonable, and that it is
unthinkable that members any of those groups could be fined, as that
would be completely unreasonable. However, if that is the case, I
invite him to accept the amendment as a backstop measure that would
prevent the penalty process from being extended to those whom we would
most assuredly want to protect from that
process.
Jim
Knight:
We believe that all young people have something to
gain from participating in education until they are 18, and we do not
believe that any group of young people should be treated differently
from the outset, as that would risk their being given a second-class
offer.
It
may be difficult—and in some cases impossible—for some
young people to participate, and we have built flexibility into the
system so that those cases can be judged individually and the
appropriate allowances made for their circumstances. However, many
young people in difficult circumstances, such as those who have a
serious medical condition or caring responsibilities, do participate,
and that should be encouraged. We will do everything we can to remove
the obstacles and difficulties that might prevent them from
participating.
There
are series of safeguards—the hon. Gentleman anticipated that I
would say that—built into the system to ensure that an
attendance notice will not be issued if it is not appropriate, and that
the local authority will not be able to act if the young person has a
reasonable excuse for not participating, as outlined in clause 39. I
set out our intentions in some detail in my letter to him regarding
what is likely to be considered a reasonable excuse. The groups that he
specified in his amendment, with one exception, will not have
enforcement action taken against
them.
Mr.
Laws:
The Minister said, I believe, that nobody in
categories (b), (c), (d) and (e) would have enforcement action taken
against them or incur penalties under the proposals. Is he confident
that that is correct?
Jim
Knight:
I am confident enough to say that I find it
difficult to conceive of circumstances in which enforcement action
would be taken against those groups. I cannot absolutely rule anything
out. There might be someone in those circumstances who is offered every
reasonable support and could be judged able to participate if they took
advantage of all that support. As things stand, I cannot envisage the
circumstances in which that would happen, but I do not want to rule out
enforcement action if someone in some of those circumstances
deliberately failed to
participate.
We do not
believe that being employed should be a defence for not participating;
that would not be considered a reasonable excuse. We recognise that
work can be a valuable experience for young people at this stage, but
we believe that they should continue their education and training too.
We discussed that at considerable length in earlier sittings. Education
and training help young people to move on to successful and fulfilling
lives and have wide benefits for the individual and society. It is
critical that all groups of young people have the same opportunities
and expectations of success. In the light of my reasoning, I hope,
although I am not optimistic, that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his
amendment.
Mr.
Laws:
I was excited because I thought that I had wrung a
valuable concession from the Minister. I believe that the record will
show that he said that nobody who fell into the (b), (c), (d) or (e)
categories would be dragged through the penalty process. Of course he
cannot give us that assurance, because there is no such protection in
the Bill. It is left entirely to guidance that we have not seen to set
out how somebody will be treated who has a serious medical condition,
is caring for a family member, is terminally ill, or is unlikely to
benefit from the service offered. When the Minister was put under
pressure on that point, he quickly rode back and said that this is all
fudge and mudge. Great puffs of smoke went up in front of him and
suddenly all of those great reassurances did not amount to, as the
Americans say, a hill of beans—as we say in Somerset, Ohio and
such places. On a reassurance scale, I think that my reassurance level
is about one out of
10.
Even worse than
that, we heard that the Minister can envisage that people in
employment, slogging their guts out day in, day out and learning all
sorts of useful skills could, because of some jobsworth
Minister—referring back to the his comments the other
day—end up being dragged through the courts and receiving a
penalty and a criminal record. That is so monstrous and so confused
that I feel I have to press the amendment to a
Division.
Question
put, That the amendment be
made:—
The
Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes
9.
Division
No.
23
]
Foster,
Mr. Michael (Worcester)
Question
accordingly negatived.
Amendment proposed: No.
81, in clause 45, page 24, leave out lines 30 to
31.—[Mr.
Laws.]
Question
put, That the amendment be made:—
The
Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes
9.
Division
No.
24
]
Foster,
Mr. Michael
(Worcester)
Question
accordingly negatived.
Mr.
Hayes:
I beg to move amendment No. 37, in
clause 45, page 24, line 31, at
end add—
‘(4) An offence
under this section shall not be regarded as a recordable offence under
the National Police Records (Recordable Offences) Regulations 2000
(S.I.
2000/1139).’.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following amendments: No. 82, in
clause 45, page 24, line 31, at
end add—
‘(4) A conviction
under subsection (1) shall not be recorded under the National Police
Records (Recordable Offences) Regulations 2000 (S.I. 2000/1139) after
the date of the person’s 18th
birthday.’.
No.
178, in
clause 45, page 24, line 31, at
end add—
‘(4) An individual
who receives a penalty under this section shall
not—
(a) receive a
criminal record if none already
exists,
(b) have this penalty
notice added to their criminal record if one
exists.’.
Mr.
Hayes:
It may be that the amendment in my name and those
of my hon. Friends and, indeed, the amendments in the name of the hon.
Member for Yeovil and his hon. Friends are superfluous, given what the
Minister said a few moments ago. Nevertheless, just in case I
misinterpreted his remarks, I will set out our intentions clearly. The
debate on clause 45 has focused on the fact that non-compliance is an
offence liable to a fine. That would be bad enough, but we are moving
these amendments because we are anxious about the fact that young
people may also be regarded as having committed a recordable offence
that might figure on national police records, although I think that the
Minister has suggested that will not be so. If that is the case, he
will no doubt relieve us all when he replies.
It is fundamentally important
that we do not stigmatise young people who, as I said earlier, will
often
be vulnerable and challenged. That point was made powerfully to us by
the British Youth Council in its advice.
Jim
Knight:
It might help the Committee and speed things up if
I state categorically that the offence will not be a recordable
offence. It will not be recorded automatically on the police national
computer and will not be routinely disclosed in Criminal Records Bureau
checks.
Mr.
Hayes:
I anticipated that from what the Minister said
earlier, and it is good news. However, we would do the British Youth
Council a disservice if we did not flesh out its concerns, because they
relate to the broader principles that we have been debating. It
says:
“Young
people at risk of dropping out need support not a criminal record. The
‘attendance panels’ could still operate...without
the recourse to a penalty notice further along the
line.”
It describes the
proposals as potentially “demonising young people” and as
perpetuating the negative stereotype that Ministers have elsewhere said
that they wish to counter. I am relieved by the Minister’s
intervention, which no doubt he will reaffirm shortly, but he will
understand why we feel so strongly about the issue. Our cause is the
most vulnerable citizens, because we are the champions of social
justice, as you know, Mr. Bercow, perhaps better than
most.
Mr.
Laws:
I was temporarily stunned by the hon. Gentleman
wearing the mantle of championship of social justice. Perhaps the book
about liberalism that he was reading during one of my speeches the
other day has influenced
him.
Mr.
Hayes:
I do not want to be unkind to the hon. Gentleman
because I know that he is a thoroughly decent chap, but his grasp of
these things does seem a bit limited. Compassionate conservatism is
born of social justice. It was our party that throughout the 18th and
19th centuries, in the form of people such as Wilberforce, Shaftsbury,
Elizabeth Fry and others, did so much to advance social justice, when
his party still had members who wanted to put boys up
chimneys.
The
Chairman:
Order. At this stage I make simply two
observations. First, it must of course be recognised that the hon.
Member for South Holland and The Deepings would be reading something
only if and in so far as it related to the treatment of matters
pertaining to the Bill or amendments thereto. Secondly, although the
hon. Gentleman’s philosophical musings are always entertaining
to the Committee, they are sometimes at best tangentially related to,
and at worst wholly divorced from, the
Bill.
Mr.
Laws:
I am grateful to you, Mr. Bercow. I will
not be put off by the hon. Gentleman’s comments. I am delighted
that the Minister is so enthusiastic about the amendments. We simply
need to ask which of the three he is prepared to accept and put in the
Bill. As soon as he has let us know that, we can safely withdraw the
amendments.
3.15
pm
Jim
Knight:
I shall be brief. As I set out for the Committee
when giving evidence on 29 January, in response to question 475 from
the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, only offences that
are punishable by imprisonment or specified in
regulations—probably the regulations mentioned in two of the
amendments that we are discussing—are known as recordable
offences and are automatically recorded on the police national
computer. The offence of failure to comply with an attendance notice is
not punishable by imprisonment and we have no plans to specify it in
the relevant
regulations.
Mr.
Gibb:
But is it beyond possibility that, in a few
weeks’ time, after the Bill has received Royal Assent, a
Minister could, through secondary legislation, add the offence to the
list included in the National Police Records (Recordable Offences)
Regulations
2000?
Jim
Knight:
I can tell the hon. Gentleman, on behalf of the
Government, that we will not specify the offence in the relevant
regulations. It will therefore not be a recordable offence, will not be
recorded automatically on the police national computer and will not be
routinely disclosed in CRB
checks.
It is true that
young people convicted of the offence of failing to comply with an
attendance notice without any reasonable excuse would, for a short
period, have what we would understand as a criminal record—but
“criminal record” is not a phrase that exists in law,
which is why I could not accept one of the amendments. The main factor
here is the length of time in which convictions must be
disclosed—the short period of time in which someone has what we
would understand in common parlance as a criminal record. As I have
already confirmed, the rehabilitation period for a fine imposed by a
criminal court on anyone under 18 is two and a half years. After that
the conviction will be “spent” and will not have to be
disclosed. In effect, that means that the young person will have no
criminal record after that
point.
If a young
person had previously been convicted of a recordable offence and had
that conviction recorded on the police national computer, that would be
a separate matter; it would make no difference to this position. The
offence of failing without reasonable excuse to comply with the
requirements of an attendance notice would still be
non-recordable.
Mr.
Gibb:
Do I understand, therefore, that a young person who
had finished his education or training, but had been through the
process and committed an offence under the clause, would have to
disclose that offence in any job application made while he was 19 or
20, and perhaps even approaching his 21st
birthday?
Jim
Knight:
Yes, if it was less than two and a half years from
the date of the conviction. I made that perfectly clear in evidence. I
have been consistent. I think I have said that the latest age at which
the measure could apply would be 21. I hope that I have been extremely
clear. I urge the hon. Members not to press their
amendments.
Mr.
Laws:
Our sense of reassurance did not last long. We were
looking for two bits of reassurance. First, we sought assurance that
our proposal was so welcome and so much in line with the
Government’s thinking that it could merely be plopped
immediately into the Bill at the relevant place, in which case it would
only be a matter of choosing between the two excellent amendments and
deciding whether the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings or
I should gain the credit. However, we now discover from the Minister
that the reassurance that he is offering us is not as great as we
thought.
Secondly,
following the questioning of the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and
Littlehampton, we discover that young people over the age of 18 will,
for a period, have to declare the convictions for these offences when
seeking employment, which is surely not desirable and could be damaging
to their employment prospects. I cannot see that the position that the
Minister envisages is satisfactory. I do not know if the hon. Member
for South Holland and The Deepings will want to press his amendment No.
37, but I will press my amendment No. 82 if there is no indication of
the Minister having a sudden change of
heart.
Mr.
Hayes:
I moved the amendments in a conciliatory tone,
saying that they might be superfluous. I had been gulled or persuaded
by the Minister that they were indeed superfluous—until he rose
to respond to the debate. However, when he did respond, it appeared not
that the amendments were superfluous, but that they contradicted the
Government’s position in as much as young people are going to be
on record, albeit only for two and a half years. However, the two and a
half years that the Minister speaks of could be critical to a young
person emerging from training and acquiring a
job.
Jim
Knight:
It may be semantics, but those young people will
not be on record in that they will not be on the police national
computer, or be discoverable by CRB check. They will simply have an
obligation to disclose for that two and a half
years.
Mr.
Hayes:
That is a fair semantic or technical point, but it
does not in any way dilute the power of the argument that those young
people, in disclosing what the Minister casts aside with a degree of
complacency, would jeopardise their chances of achieving
success—
3.21
pm
Sitting
suspended for a Division in the
House.
3.36
pm
On
resuming
—
Mr.
Hayes:
To continue my remarks—achieving success,
perhaps for the first time, by taking those first faltering steps into
the world of work. What prospect of that could there be if they are
dogged by the necessity of declaring that they have been convicted? The
irony is, of course, that, following that conviction, they might have
participated in purposeful work or training for more than a year.
However, because the requirement to declare their previous folly
remains for two and a half years, I suspect they would be unattractive
to an employer even so.
Jim
Knight:
The hon. Gentleman has extensive worldly
experience, including as an employer. If an applicant came to him who
was perfectly adequate for the job in hand, and he asked the individual
whether he had a criminal record and that person said, “Yes, I
had a problem but I now want to come into work,” would the hon.
Gentleman hold that against that individual and not employ
him?
Mr.
Hayes:
That is an unfair question to put to an untypically
philanthropic person. The issue is not what I would do: it is what
others might do. It is true, of course, that some employers would take
a more generous view than others, but notwithstanding that, we heard
from witnesses at the evidence sessions that a degree of stigmatisation
will occur. In the words of the British Youth Council, people will be
demonised.
A few
moments ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and
Littlehampton suggested to me that there is another risk. If we do not
put these matters on the face of the Bill, a Government even more
draconian than the present one, with a Minister even less sensitive to
our arguments than the Minister here today, might, through a statutory
instrument, sharpen the knife still more. Our aim is to fight for the
interests of all those young people who we all want to encourage back
to learning and
work.
Angela
Watkinson:
There may well be employers who would be minded
to offer employment to a young person in these circumstances, but who
were prevented from doing so by the constitution or regulations
governing the organisation they represent.
Mr.
Hayes:
That is true. It may well be that even the most
philanthropic employers will be inhibited in the way my hon. Friend
describes.
Because of
our doubts about the Government’s good will, because of our fear
that the measure will grow into an even more vicious monster than it
currently is, and because of our anxiety to support the representations
we have had from the people who work the most closely with vulnerable
young people, I am inclined to press the amendment, even though I
acknowledge that, in its current form, it is imperfect, as is the
amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Yeovil. What we actually
want to do is deal with the matter of disclosure, which has risen in
our sights as a result of the Minister’s admission that these
young people are to be labelled for two and a half years. We will press
the amendment to make the very strong point that I hope has been
transmitted, albeit imperfectly, in these few brief
words.
The
Chairman:
I was proposing to move to a vote.
Mr. Laws signalled that he wanted to press for a Division on
a later amendment, which he will have the opportunity to do. However,
if he wants very briefly to comment at this point, I will happily
listen to
him.
Mr.
Laws:
I am grateful for that, Mr. Bercow, given
the exchanges we have just had.
There is a danger at this late
stage of the day of glossing over an important issue. What the
Minister’s comments have highlighted is that there is a risk
that young people will have to declare what will, in essence, look like
a criminal record—an offence. I think the hon. Member for South
Holland and The Deepings is right to say that there are employers who
will be very concerned about that. I have a constituent who has a
record of low-level offences, which is having a major impact on her
ability to take a job which is not unrelated to the offences she
committed.
Why would
the Government want a situation in which these offences had to be
disclosed for two or two and a half years? Is it their view that
disclosure is useful and sensible, or is it simply an inadvertent
by-product of the way in which the Bill will operate? The
Minister’s implied that a record of such offences would not
matter either way to an employer. If the Government do not think it is
useful, why not accept that it would be sensible to amend the Bill, as
we are trying to do—perhaps imperfectly—to ensure that
the information will not have to be disclosed for that two-year period?
If that were to be done, it would address our concerns. I also very
strongly endorse the comments made by the hon. Member for South Holland
and The Deepings that we want this provision on the face of the Bill.
It is not at all satisfactory to have it dealt with
elsewhere.
I have a
final point to make. The Minister may want to respond and indicate why
he wants disclosure to be obligatory. If he is not prepared to respond,
his position is highlighted in its full weakness, and we shall be even
more inclined than we already are to press the amendments. If he can,
will he say whether amendment No. 178 would in any way deal with our
concern? Is he essentially saying that the words “criminal
record” would not have a meaning in law that would have any
application to these circumstances? I think he is, and that he is
indicating—as the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings
has said—that we may have to table other amendments on the
matter at a later stage. For us, that would leave an unsatisfactory
state of affairs.
I
think the record will show that the Minister has not been willing to
defend the Government’s
position.
Mr.
Laws:
I have tempted the Minister
out.
Jim
Knight:
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing
me to intervene, even though it takes up time and we have plenty to do.
I felt that I had made all the arguments I could. In the end, the
disagreement between us will be about whether there is some kind of
incentive for people not to break the law in having, for a brief
period, a modest level of conviction attached to them which they ought
to disclose if asked. That is the principal
disagreement.
Mr.
Laws:
The Minister is in danger of standing his own
argument on its head. He is now praying in aid that a young person
might be incentivised to comply with the legislation through fear that
he or she would have to reveal the conviction at a later stage or
declare
their record, which could damage their employment prospects. All that
has served to do is highlight our concerns even
further.
Jim
Knight:
All I am saying is that there is a disincentive
effect attached to going through the criminal process. That is an
extremely common theme of our deliberations in this
House.
3.45
pm
Mr.
Laws:
That may be a slightly different point. It does not
necessitate the requirement to declare for that period of time, which
is our
concern.
Mr.
Hayes:
The hon. Gentleman makes the point I was about to
make. The Minister now says that the disincentive is going through the
criminal process. A moment or two ago, he said that the disincentive
was having to declare this matter subsequently. That cannot possibly be
a disincentive, because the young people concerned, as we have heard
from all the experts, are already rejecting authority regularly. This
provision will simply make them suspicious of and hostile to authority
to an even greater
degree.
Mr.
Laws:
I entirely agree. A powerful case has been made for
the
amendments.
Mr.
Hayes:
I am delighted to say a further word on this
subject, although I do not want to test the Committee’s patience
too long. There may be members of the Committee who have been convicted
for parking on a double yellow line or speeding. I was inclined,
impertinently, to ask hon. Members to put their hands up, but that
would be to embarrass my colleagues. Those things are not declarable in
the way that the Government now suggest the offence under the Bill
should be.
We have
heard a very poorly structured argument. We have been told that the
measure is principally a matter of providing disincentives, but when we
spoke about the tension between civil action and criminal action, we
were told that it is principally about avoiding the inconvenience of
going through the civil system. Then we heard that the disclosure
rather than the offence was critical
in—presumably—intimidating people into participating.
None of that bears any relation to and can in any way be squared with
the advice we had from the experts during the witness sessions. I defy
the Minister to suggest one witness who would support the thrust of the
argument that he has made in the past few
minutes.
Jim
Knight:
All I will clarify is that disclosure is a
function of the offence being a criminal offence. That is all it is. We
are not creating the requirement to disclose for the sake of this
offence.
Mr.
Hayes:
Parking on a double yellow line is a criminal
offence, as is speeding at 32 mph in a 30 mph zone, yet they are not
disclosable matters. People who commit such offences are not treated in
the way that the Minister wants to treat young people convicted of the
offence under the Bill. We will have to press this matter to a
Division, not because our amendment is
perfect, but because it will send out a message that we think that it
should be clear in the Bill that young people should not be stigmatised
in the way that we suspect they may be if the clause is not
amended.
Question
put, That the amendment be
made:—
The
Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes
9.
Division
No.
25
]
Foster,
Mr. Michael
(Worcester)
Question
accordingly
negatived.
The
Chairman:
The hon. Member for Yeovil requested a separate
Division on amendment No. 82, but he is now shaking his head. I am sure
that he will
clarify.
Mr.
Laws:
Mr. Bercow, with your permission and
given that we have divided on an amendment that is very similar, I do
not wish to press amendment No. 82 to a
Division.
The
Chairman:
I am grateful to the hon.
Gentleman.
Motion
made, and Question put, That the clause stand part of the
Bill:—
The
Committee divided: Ayes 9, Noes
5.
Division
No.
26
]
Foster,
Mr. Michael
(Worcester)
Question
accordingly agreed to.
Clause 45
ordered to
stand part of the
Bill.
| 
