Education and Skills Bill

I should like to come back to my question. Clause 22 requires the local education authority to be satisfied that the employer has contravened Clause 21. The noble Lord has said that it may have pretty strong circumstantial evidence that a young person is employed by a particular employer. It is also possible that it may have evidence that that person is employed for more than 20 hours a week. That would take some fairly high-grade snooping, I should have thought, or a statement by the employee that is entirely against his own interests, which seems a strange thing to ask a young person to do. That fact of employment is not the duty under Clause 21, which is to ascertain that proper education or training is taking place. How on earth can the local authority obtain any evidence as to what process an employer has gone through? It can act only on supposition, and how can supposition ever be enough to satisfy the exact terms of Clause 22(1)?