Education and Skills Bill

No, these cases would always stay in the youth court and there is no question of any action leading to imprisonment. I need to make that absolutely clear. No process could be followed that could lead to a young person being imprisoned. We do not believe that Amendments Nos. 122 and 123, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, would change the Bill in any meaningful way. Failing to, "““participate in education or training as required””," would mean that the young person was failing to fulfil his or her duty under Clause 2. Therefore, the clause would still have the same meaning. In response to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and others regarding Clause 40 and the processes in place under the Bill, let me reiterate first that enforcement will always be a last resort. If there were any reasonable explanation for a young person not attending, an attendance notice would not be appropriate and we would not expect one to be issued. When a young person drops out of learning or is found to be not participating, the focus will always be on supporting them to engage in learning, helping them to address barriers and personal difficulties, and identifying a suitable learning place that might be personalised. Clauses 39 to 40 provide for that. However, as a last resort, if enforcement is required, robust checks and balances are in place to ensure that a young person is not given an attendance notice inappropriately. No action can be taken until the young person has been given the opportunity and support to engage voluntarily, and they must have no reasonable excuse for not participating. A local authority must give 15 days’ notice in writing of its intention to issue an attendance notice and, to give that notice, it must have ensured that the person has been offered suitable provision and the right support. The attendance notice will set out clearly to the young person, and to everyone who is involved in helping them to participate, exactly what is required of them. This will minimise any confusion or misunderstanding and provides a clear document that can be returned to if the young person wishes to dispute whether the provision offered by the local authority was appropriate. Young people will have a right of appeal against the notice to an independent panel. Clause 41 ensures that where an attendance notice is issued, the learning specified in it must be appropriate and suitable to the young person. The requirements to attend the learning specified must be flexible enough to ensure that if the young person is working, this is taken into account, and training has to be agreed with the employer and provider, who must make necessary arrangements for it to take place. Amendments Nos. 143 and 144 would classify the offence of breaching an attendance notice as a civil offence, and Amendment No. 145 would make the young person liable to a civil penalty not exceeding £200. We have considered these and other options in some detail, and concluded that a civil endorsement system would not work in practice. Civil penalties would be enforced in the civil courts, which are not geared to deal with young people in the way that youth courts are. Judges who sit in the youth court will 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 18 may be sued in the civil courts but the system is not designed for them, so 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, which complicates the process. While debts may be enforced using civil recovery methods—for example, recovery by bailiffs—in practice such methods are rarely used against young people under 18. In addition, the local authority would have to pay a court fee to pursue a civil enforcement method which, again, might not be appropriate in practice and would lead to mounting costs. Court fees and costs are added to debts in the civil courts, so the debt constantly increases. This does not happen with a fine in the youth court. I reassure the noble Baroness that the maximum level 1 fine a young person could receive is already set at £200, as her amendment proposes. The maximum of a level 1 fine which has been set provides protection for young people by putting an upper limit on the penalty which a youth court can impose. I emphasise that the criminal sanction comes only at the very end of the enforcement process. The main sanctions in the Bill are administrative. Amendments Nos. 147, 148, 149 and 150 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, concern the nature of the offence of failing to participate. The conviction of any young person under 18 fined in the youth court would currently be spent after two and a half years; it would therefore always be spent before they were 21 at the very latest. This is the standard length of time for all fines imposed by a criminal court on anyone under 18.