Education and Skills Bill

moved Amendment No. 124: 124: Clause 39, page 22, line 2, at end insert— ““( ) In this section, ““reasonable excuse”” includes circumstances in which a young person— (a) is homeless; (b) has health problems, including temporary illness, long term disability or ongoing mental health issues; (c) has addiction problems; (d) has secured a place on a course which does not start until the following month or the following term; (e) is recovering from giving birth; (f) has caring responsibilities; (g) has particular learning difficulties for which support has been put in place.”” The noble Baroness said: I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 125 to 127. The amendments deal with attendance notices and the much-heralded Clause 39, which states that attendance notices may be issued to those who fail to participate in their Section 2 duty without having a reasonable excuse. Amendment No. 124 is a simple attempt to state in the Bill what might constitute a reasonable excuse. This duty, no matter how well intentioned, must not fall unreasonably on those young people who simply do not have the means or ability to fulfil it. The list of circumstances in the amendment is not exhaustive, but it includes a number of situations that could make full participation difficult, such as if a person is homeless, has health or addiction problems, caring responsibilities or learning difficulties. Those are circumstances in which it could be argued that the state is failing young people. It is a double blow then to place them on notice for their failure to participate in education. These are circumstances in which the local authority’s obligations should be considered greater than the young person’s. The Minister may say that all these circumstances would fall within the meaning of ““reasonable excuse””. If that is so, there should be no problem in accepting the amendment. Placing an indicative list in the Bill can only assist in explaining the position to the parties involved. Amendments Nos. 125 to 127 are designed to emphasise that enforcement is purely a last resort. Clause 40 currently 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 are helped through the most appropriate education and training before any formal sanctions are used. There should be a well understood and transparent process that lays down the action that the local authority can take. However, there should also an absolute requirement to avoid a formal enforcement process until such time as all other options have been exhausted. This is a safeguard measure to ensure that local authorities are diligent in upholding their obligations. The Liberal Democrats also have an amendment in this group that would explicitly make enforcement a last resort, and sensible amendments to limit any potential fines. We must never forget that the young people who find themselves in this sort of circumstance will not have money to spend on fines. I had a most interesting meeting with the Reverend Paul Nicholson of the Zacchaeus 2000 Trust, which helps young people who face fines. He made it clear that punitive fines can be disastrous—a tipping point where desperate young men turn to theft and young women to prostitution. Those are extreme cases, but the noble Baronesses, Lady Sharp and Lady Garden, are absolutely right to draw attention to this potentially destructive issue. I beg to move.