asked Her Majesty’s Government:

Further to the answers by Lord Jones of Birmingham on 28 January (Official Report, cols. 435–36), what advice they have given to companies in the private sector on pay increases; and what controls they propose to introduce.

My Lords, pay levels in private sector companies are a matter for those companies. The Government have consistently made it clear that there should be effective linkage between pay and performance and that exceptional rewards for mediocre performance are not in the interests of companies, their shareholders or the United Kingdom as a whole.

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his reply, which showed a mild advance on that given by the noble Lord, Lord Jones, to the same Question in January. Does he not agree that the obscene rises in rewards, bonuses and the like for corporate executives in recent years mean that the voice of fairness must now be heard inside the remuneration committees of companies and similar bodies? Does he not also agree that the Government must consider, urgently and immediately, some control over the membership of remuneration committees of all public companies in the longer run and, in the short run, of those companies in which public money has been invested for shares?

My Lords, of course the Government agree with a great deal of what my noble friend has said. In its letter, the Financial Services Authority has made it clear that for banks, pay—and particularly bonuses—must be related to performance. If it is not, the Financial Services Authority will take into account a bank’s position in relation to where it receives government support.

On the more general issue of companies, from 6 April next year, a new provision will require quoted companies to report in their directors’ remuneration report on how they have taken pay and employment conditions into account when setting directors’ pay. Directors’ pay should be set only by non-executive directors, not by those who benefit from it themselves.

My Lords, over the years I have often asked Questions about how unsatisfactory it is that people who perform very badly can still get great bonuses, and the answer has always been that that is in the contract. Why can contracts not include penalty clauses as well as bonuses? The public are very dissatisfied that the BBC employee who is suspended—I think that is the word—is going to earn £16,000 a day for doing nothing on a pretty regular basis. There is great public dissatisfaction with rewards for bad performance.

My Lords, I am not sure that the issue surrounding Jonathan Ross is about bad performance; it is about one particular incident which is currently being examined, so I do not think we ought to rush to judgment. It is a matter for the BBC and, as the nation is showing, it expects the BBC to make a response to the errors which have occurred.

On the more general issues, is the noble Baroness asking the Government to have a legal position to interfere with contracts in private industry and set penalty clauses, or is she seeking to show that public opinion expects good performance only to be rewarded? On the latter point, I am with her entirely, but on the former point she will recognise just how difficult it would be for such a concept to work.

My Lords, does the Minister not accept that his Answer to the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, was exactly the same as the countless answers that have been given over the years by people in his position? Does he not accept that the world has now changed? Does he not also accept that, bearing in mind that the Government are now a major shareholder in many of our financial institutions, we need a much clearer statement than we have had hitherto as to exactly what they mean when they say that they want restraint in executive pay and bonuses in those institutions?

My Lords, that is the burden of the role of the Financial Services Authority in relation to the banks. It has indicated in its letter that it will expect the remuneration of senior bank employees to relate to performance, otherwise the authority will use powers that it has to operate sanctions against banks. Although I take some comfort from the fact that I am in line with what predecessors have said from this Dispatch Box in representing my own Government, I say that we are in a new situation and the Government expect, particularly with regard to banks and the financial sector, an improvement in the relationship between performance and pay.

My Lords, if one does not get paid for a poor performance, then half the Arsenal football team will not get paid for what it did last night. Is not the problem now how we define the private sector? I do not know whether my noble friend will able to answer the question. With all these banks now receiving all this money, are they now in the private sector or the public sector? I do not know what the National Statistician says, but to those of us who tried to follow what the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, said, it looks as if they are in the public sector, in which case they ought to follow precisely public sector pay guidelines.

My Lords, my noble friend is being a little unfair on Arsenal footballers; they just came up against a superior force in fitness in the last 10 minutes. The Financial Services Authority is of course concerned particularly about those banks in which the Government have made a significant input of resources and about exercising powers with regard to that. However, as I said in response to the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, from the Liberal Benches, the Financial Services Authority is concerned not just about those banks, but the banking and financial sector as a whole. It has made it clear in its letter that, where the companies concerned require government support, that support will be conditional on the Financial Services Authority examining the reports on directors’ pay that the firms have to produce, and that, where they reflect unsatisfactory circumstances, the FSA will act.

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, in circumstances in which many ordinary workers in financial services are now facing unemployment, if nothing is done about these very high bonuses and rewards for senior people, it will have an adverse effect on the way the public view the present situation?

My Lords, I understand the point that my noble friend makes, but she will recognise that the whole banking system has been shaken by the developments over the past few months. That applies to the highest paid as well as to other workers. She is right that many workers who have no direct responsibility for the catastrophic decisions that were taken will pay the price, but the House will appreciate that some very significant lessons have been learnt by the banking and financial sector—and the Government have indicated that they intend to monitor the situation closely.

asked Her Majesty’s Government:

Whether they plan to review the policy on the shared ownership for the elderly scheme.

My Lords, the shared ownership for the elderly scheme is a useful housing option for older people. It forms part of the Housing Corporation’s affordable housing programme for 2008-11 and, along with other low-cost home ownership schemes, is kept under constant review. From 1 December 2008, the new Homes and Communities Agency will be responsible for funding affordable housing schemes.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I understand that some housing associations are willing to allow residents to fund care and support, but the associations have to use their own resources to do that. Given the Government’s commitment to personal budgets and choice and the huge worry about the costs of care that many people face, will the Government consider changing policy to allow downward staircasing in all shared ownership housing, which would enable residents to fund care and support in this way?

My Lords, the noble Baroness knows that I am very sympathetic to innovation in how we use our housing funding as a link with health and preventive and social care for older people. I know that RSLs use their own money for this, but I am not convinced that buying back shares in shared ownership homes to help older people is the most appropriate role for social housing grants. Essentially, we need to build more homes, as the noble Baroness knows, and more quality homes for older people, not just the traditional residential homes. But I hear what the noble Baroness says and I shall discuss with her the scope for innovation across the field.

My Lords, I declare an interest as chairman of the Hanover Housing Association, which provides several thousand homes for older people, including through the excellent shared ownership scheme. Perhaps I could ask the Minister a question relating to younger shared owners, as they form a particularly vulnerable group at this time of recession. They were marginal home buyers; now mortgage repossessions are running at some 45,000 per annum and nearly 1,000 families a week lose their homes through mortgage repossessions, with all the horrors that go with that. Will the Minister use her considerable influence with the housing associations and the Homes and Communities Agency to try to ensure that there are rescue packages in place for those shared owners who run into mortgage difficulty so that perhaps they can sell back the share that they have purchased from the housing association, become tenants eligible for housing benefit and stay put where they are, so we do not see the horrors of homelessness that follow from repossession?

My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right and makes a powerful case to which we would all want to respond. Young shared owners will be eligible for help with their mortgages if they fulfil the criteria of vulnerability for the new mortgage rescue scheme that is in development now. In addition, he is quite right in saying that RSLs have the option to buy back shares if shared owners cannot keep up the payments because of a change in financial circumstances. They have the discretion to buy back a share or buy out owners so they can reoccupy the property as a tenant. I would be very happy to discuss those measures in more detail with the noble Lord, because our department is looking at all ways in which to free up the housing market and support home owners at the moment.

My Lords, those in this vulnerable group, the elderly, have, like others, huge difficulties selling their homes because of the housing slump, getting loans or mortgages because of the credit crunch, and suffer around double the official inflation rate as a higher proportion of their income goes on food and fuel. Is not that exactly the type of vulnerable group that the Prime Minister said that he wanted to help?

Yes, my Lords, we are doing a great deal. Interestingly, the affordable homes agency, the Housing Corporation, has relaxed its bidding round so that it is able to respond to registered social landlords who want to specialise in providing homes for older people. Bids are coming forward and the proportion of the funding going on homes for older people is increasing. However, the noble Lord is quite right: because we are concerned that older people do not have sufficient choice and quality in their housing, we last year produced a document, A National Strategy for Housing in an Ageing Society that addresses long-term issues as well as putting forward specific short-term help for older people.

My Lords, returning to the shared ownership scheme for the elderly—the current scheme—I understand that there have been only 500 completions since 2001. I am sure that the Government would not be so cynical as to introduce a scheme that has low take-up, so can the Minister tell the House what research the Government have undertaken, particularly into the marketing of this and similar schemes?

My Lords, it was always intended as a small and specific scheme for older people with very small incomes. Many of the people who qualified had incomes of less than £10,000, so it was never intended as a massive expansion for older people. I can verify that the scheme is based on research. We need to bear in mind that about 12,000 units are provided for older people from 100 housing associations. As I said, because we are concerned about improving access, the Housing Corporation is freeing up its bidding processes and offering incentives to local authorities to come forward with more allocations. We are looking at an expansion in what we are providing.

My Lords, in her initial response to the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, my noble friend used the words “affordable housing”. Is there a definition of “affordable”?

Yes, my Lords; it was in the homes and communities Act last year. Affordable housing includes homes for social rent—what we traditionally called council housing—and homes that are below market cost when they are sold for people in shared equity schemes or provided with financial support.

asked Her Majesty’s Government:

Whether they plan to review the constitutional role of the monarchy.

My Lords, the Government have no plans to review the constitutional role of the monarchy.

My Lords, since there is discussion about restrictions on the religion and gender of potential successors to the throne, would this not be an appropriate moment to look at the role of the constitutional monarchy? For instance, does the Minister not agree that it would be quite incompatible with the principle of constitutional monarchy were a potential successor to the throne to make highly controversial statements about science policy on medicine or agriculture—not that any member of the Royal Family would dream of doing any such thing?

My Lords, I repeat myself: the Government believe that the national interest and desire are for the country to remain a constitutional monarchy in its present form. Her Majesty the Queen acts as a focus for national identity and unity. Frankly, although political parties change constantly, Her Majesty provides a sense of continuity and stability in times of political and social change.

My Lords—

My Lords—

My Lords—

My Lords, shall we hear from my noble friend first and then the noble Lord?

My Lords, has my noble friend noted the penetrating observation of his distinguished colleague in the Government, Mr Phil Woolas, that, once you introduce elections to the second Chamber, you are inevitably on the way to disestablishment of the Church of England? Is what his ministerial colleague rightly said about the Church of England not equally true of the monarchy? Is it not therefore time for the Front Benches of the three main political parties frankly to acknowledge the secularist and republican implications of their present schemes for reform of the second Chamber?

My Lords, my noble friend knows as well as the House does that the White Paper included options for both a 100 per cent- and an 80 per cent-elected second Chamber. If there is an appointed element, places for bishops will of course be retained, but if the size of the House is reduced it would be logical for reserved places for bishops to be reduced proportionately. I should add that, as now, the number of bishops would not count towards those appointed by the Appointments Commission.

My Lords, does the Minister agree that these issues about the monarchy are best left for another reign? Would it not be curmudgeonly for this House and, most of all, for the responsible Government to raise questions about the monarchy when we have the most constitutional and Christian monarch in our history?

My Lords, the Government are not raising any issue about the constitutional monarchy. My first answer could hardly have been shorter or clearer. I appreciate the great work that the noble Lord has done in this area and his expertise in it.

My Lords, is it not a blatant discourtesy to Her Majesty and a disservice to our constitutional monarchy to describe the ministerial power, not least to make war without debate or vote, as the “royal prerogative”? Should not this piece of tattered absolutism now be universally identified as the “Prime Ministerial presumption”?

My Lords, we debate important matters of national interest in this House, day in and day out. Again, I pay tribute to the noble Lord, who I know is an expert in this field. However, I do not think that this is an immediate issue for the nation.

My Lords, do the Government agree that, before we joined the European Union, the monarch acted on the advice of Ministers, which was purely the product of our former system of representative parliamentary democracy, in which Parliament was supreme under the Crown? Do the Government accept, now that a majority of our national law is made in Brussels—to the exclusion of this Parliament—that this is no longer so? Do the Government not agree that this is a huge change on which the British people should be consulted?

My Lords, I have to tell the noble Lord that I do not agree at all—not in any way. I remember that he was concerned, when we passed the Lisbon treaty Bill, that somehow the constitutional monarch’s role would be altered. He was told then, and I tell him now, that it would not be altered in any way.

My Lords, would my noble friend accept the simple proposition that the monarchy should embrace the values of our society? Those values include not discriminating against women and not discriminating against one particular religion. Are those two arguments not sufficient to justify having another look at the issue?

My Lords, I recall the noble Lord moving the Second Reading of his Private Member’s Bill just before the 2005 general election. Indeed, in preparation for this Question, I read his speech. Of course, these are issues of great importance, but the solving of them is much more complex than it looks at first instance, and, frankly, they are not a priority for us at present.

asked Her Majesty’s Government:

Whether they support the request of the United Nations Secretary-General’s Special Representative for Congo for increased resources for the United Nations mission in the Democratic Republic of Congo.

My Lords, we are gravely concerned by the increase in violence in the Democratic Republic of Congo. The UN mission in the DRC faces an important challenge in stabilising the situation in the east of the country and supporting efforts to alleviate the humanitarian consequences. We are reviewing, with our partners and the UN Secretary-General, the current levels of support to MONUC.

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that Answer. I hope that, as the Government take part in the review, they will also take a hard look at the mandate, and the interpretation of the mandate, for MONUC in the Congo. What steps are the Government taking, with others, to gain the renewed commitment of all parties, including the CNDP of Nkunda, to the Amani programme of work on the range of issues that underlie the conflict? What is their attitude to the suggestion that emerged at a meeting in Kinshasa on Tuesday, chaired by the president and attended by Her Majesty’s ambassador, and for which France, as president of the EU, has shown some enthusiasm, for a strong force—a kind of “Artemis mark II”—to strengthen MONUC’s efforts to restore peace in the DRC and so in the region, and to restore space for pursuit of the vital Amani programme?

My Lords, the right reverend Prelate rightly draws our attention to this issue. There is chaos in the eastern Congo. The city of Goma is subject to an extraordinary degree of lawlessness. However, I can assure noble Lords that there is now a ceasefire which has held since late last night. The rebels are no longer advancing on Goma. I have within the past hour spoken to the UN special representative in the Congo and he renewed the request for European troops. I told him that we first had to see how the political situation was going to shape up and whether this ceasefire would hold. Our first priority is a political process backed by adequate humanitarian access.

My Lords, this is a colossal tragedy to which the right reverend Prelate has rightly drawn our attention. What is going on in the Congo, and has gone on for the past 45 years since the total failure of decolonisation, has been described as the world’s worst humanitarian disaster. As the Minister rightly says, it has got very much worse in the past 72 hours. Obviously, we from this island cannot solve the tragedy or help directly by ourselves, and we must work with others. Where would he put the priority? Is it in trying to get more reinforcement for the UN troops, who seem to be in no position to stop the Rwandan-backed rebels—if they are Rwandan-backed? Or can some European contribution be made given that Mr Kouchner in Paris is saying that there should be an EU force of 1,500 troops but Mr Solana is saying that he does not want troops, he only wants diplomacy? Could we really work bilaterally with our good friends in Europe and possibly avoid any undue European Union bureaucracy which would only delay things in helping these poor people?

My Lords, the root solution to this problem is the implementation of the existing political agreement which calls for the moving of rebels away from the border and the resolution of these two rebel groups by their reintegration into society in Rwanda and the Congo. A failure to act with sufficient will and energy on the agreement has led to this flare-up of violence and a renewed political effort to ensure that it is implemented is key.

Humanitarian access is now vital. There are some 35,000 displaced people moving towards Goma and we have to be able to assist them. We have made £20 million available to the pooled humanitarian fund of which £15 million has already been passed on to agencies. However, we must keep in mind the prospect that peace will not be restored. Therefore, we certainly cannot rule out an additional deployment, whether it is a strengthening of MONUC or a European force. It is too early to say whether that is necessary; and whether it would arrive in time is also questionable. We have first to try to secure a political solution backed by proper humanitarian support.

My Lords, the Minister will have seen Ban Ki-Moon’s statement yesterday that he regards this as a humanitarian catastrophe. He will also have seen the figures promoted by the International Rescue Committee that some 5.4 million people have died in the Democratic Republic of Congo since 1998. Given the deteriorating situation there, with Save the Children pulling out of Kivu yesterday and the situation in Goma which he has just described, does the Minister think that part of the political process to which he has just alluded should be a high-level diplomatic meeting between President Kabila of the Congo and President Paul Kagame of Rwanda? Given that, in the east of the Congo, one dimension is the conflict between Hutus and Tutsis, and that Kabila, certainly during a meeting that I had with him, has indicated his willingness to have such high-level diplomacy, is it not perhaps time that Her Majesty’s Government facilitated such an interchange?

My Lords, I have on many occasions spoken to both presidents to urge them to meet, and they have frequently met. The difficulty has been the follow-up, which has led to a history of mistrust between the two men. Just today, however, facilitated by the UN, the Rwandan Foreign Minister has flown to Kinshasa for high-level direct contact between Rwanda and the Congo.

My Lords, considering that 850,000 people are displaced in North Kivu, with a quarter of a million of them displaced since August, is it not extraordinary that the Security Council has not met since March and that there has been no statement by the Secretary-General since that date? What moves is the United Kingdom making to ensure that the subject is on the Security Council’s agenda?

My Lords, I am pleased to be able to correct the noble Lord on that. The Security Council has met several times this week on the issue. Last night it issued a statement calling for the appointment of an envoy, the cessation of hostilities and implementation of the political agreement of which I have spoken. The Secretary-General has also made statements and has said that the issue has been his number one preoccupation over the past month. We are working with the UN, which we feel is very much engaged on this issue.

My Lords, given the deteriorating situation in the eastern Congo and the difficulties in south Sudan and Somalia, what are Her Majesty's Government doing to strengthen the capacity of the international system to respond more effectively to conflicts in future and to try to prevent further humanitarian catastrophes?

My Lords, the noble Lord puts his finger on the real issue. We see international peacekeeping buckling under the demands being placed on it without sufficient investment in improving the quality of peacekeeping, whether it is UN or AU peacekeeping. There has been an erosion of political support for peacekeeping and a willingness on the part of local parties to conflicts and of Governments to resist the deployment of peacekeeping forces, so I am pleased to say that the Prime Minister has taken a lead on a strategy that is intended to restore the authority and legitimacy of peacekeeping while strengthening its capabilities.

My Lords, I beg to move the two Motions standing in my name on the Order Paper.

Moved, That the draft orders be referred to Grand Committee—(Baroness Royall of Blaisdon.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

moved Amendment No. 1:

My Lords, in Committee was it not indicated that teenage mothers who had children under 12 months would not be expected to attend education or training, except in parenting, and is there not an issue of whether parenting classes could be accredited? Could the Minister clarify this issue?

My Lords, unfortunately, I was not here when this issue was discussed in Committee but I would like to make the alternative case that a teenage mother needs education and training as much as any other young person and should be given sufficient support with childcare arrangements to be able to benefit from this Bill’s requirement for all 16 to 19 year-olds to continue in some form of education and training. If the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, is saying that they should be allowed to opt out of this legislation, that would be a profound mistake and not in the interests of these girls’ future.

My Lords, Dr Roger Morgan, the person charged with listening to the voice of children and young people in care and leaving care, produced a report on care leavers. One of the comments from the young people was, “If we are parents when we leave care, we want support for ourselves and not just for the babies”. So they do not want to be left in a situation where things go out of control and the baby gets taken into care; they want support from the very start. I am simply highlighting the very important work of Dr Roger Morgan and the good work of the Government in appointing such an impressive figure to make sure the voices of children in care and leaving care are heard. Whatever happens, whether young parents are obliged to stay in education and training or not, they need every support we can offer them to make the best of their own lives and their children’s. I am sure we can all agree with that.

My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, that a lot has changed in the 14 weeks between Committee and Report—not only the economy and the circumstances surrounding that but also the Minister. I am delighted to be involved in continuing the discussions started by my noble friend Lord Adonis and in continuing—faithfully, I hope—the direction of travel that he initiated.

The fundamental point of this legislation—to raise the participation age—should be to give the same opportunities to, and have the same expectations of, every young person, whatever their background or situation. As we have stressed throughout our discussions, teenage parents or any other group of young people should not be treated differently from the outset and given a second-class offer. That is the prism through which we look at these issues.

In relation to teenage parents in particular, of course young mothers will not be expected to return to formal education if they are recovering from giving birth, as is the case with young mothers under the age of 16. They will be entitled to reasonable time off around the pregnancy, as is the case for young people currently in compulsory schooling. We will provide guidance to local authorities about what this should be and will fully consult stakeholders, representatives of the sector and others affected by the guidance. There will be a range of ways in which young parents can re-engage in learning when they are ready and they will receive support in doing so. As the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, highlighted, the question of parenting classes would come in here. Where possible we look to incorporate such classes into the foundation learning tier, which will be accredited.

A set of flexible learning opportunities, timetabling and settings will therefore be available to help young parents to participate in a way that suits them. Information, advice and guidance are available to help young parents through the Connexions service and the targeted youth services, which are very important to this group.

The Government are committed to having a Sure Start children’s centre in every community, where teenage parents can access a broad range of support in one place—that is key here—including childcare, education and training, parenting support and health-related information, advice and treatment. As the noble Baroness highlighted, training in parenting skills, provision to address the mother’s other educational needs and childcare may all be integrated, enabling the young person to combine learning and caring for their child. We will look for ways to facilitate further development of programmes such as this.

There are already many examples of good and innovative practice on which to build in supporting young parents back into learning, and I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, is involved in promoting concerns such as that. For example, as my noble friend Lord Adonis mentioned in Committee, Newcastle-under-Lyme College in Staffordshire runs a learning programme for teenage parents at a local children’s centre where childcare is provided. As well as working on literacy, numeracy and ICT skills, the programme helps participants to access other support services for themselves and their children, such as those provided by health visitors. Most participants later progress to further learning at the college’s main site, so it is about giving parents the opportunity to progress.

Of course, as the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, highlighted, we must remember that teenage mothers do not always achieve the qualifications that they need to progress into further education. About 40 per cent of teenage mothers leave school with no qualifications. The ones who achieve better long-term outcomes for themselves and their children are those who gain employment, for which, as we all know, they need training and qualifications.

Research shows that young mothers who have previously been disengaged from learning are often motivated to take part when they become pregnant to help to ensure better outcomes for their babies. Thus it is often important that they can start courses relatively soon after the baby is born. That is why we do not want to exempt them from the duty to participate. It is also important that further education colleges, for example, have more flexible start dates—not just September—to capitalise on this high level of motivation that pregnant women experience.

There may be challenges in providing the same offer for this group of young people, but it should not mean that they are excluded. We already have a system of support, and we will make full use of the intervening five years to develop this further as we move towards implementation of raising the participation age. That will challenge the system to provide for everyone, and it is not right that any group of young people should be excluded, ignored or neglected. As my noble friend Lady Blackstone said, we have in mind the interests not only of the baby but the mother. We need to make sure that the mother can best serve her child. I hope that, with those reassurances and our absolute commitment to ensure that we meet the needs of young mothers, the noble Baroness will consider withdrawing her amendment.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her thorough answer. I forgive her; it was remiss of me not to welcome her to the Dispatch Box to lead on this Bill. I always felt that she was part of the team anyway, so it was not exactly new.

The noble Baroness said that we discussed parenting classes, which we did, but the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, said that that would happen only if they were for the requisite hours and it was accredited training. We would welcome that being put into the system. I do not disagree one jot with the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone. Nobody would want teenage mothers to have a second-class offer; that would not be right. Our concern is for the baby, which we discussed at great length on the Childcare Bill, when we spoke about the problems of shoving young babies into nurseries and their having lots of different carers. We just want to ensure that, when a local authority is trying to provide something for young mothers, the needs of the baby are taken into account. I would welcome a chat with the Minister between now and Third Reading to see if somehow that could be highlighted. I am sure that that would go some way towards reassuring me, but for now I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

moved Amendment No. 2:

My Lords, these are eminently sensible amendments. There is nothing better a young person can do than volunteer. They will pick up great skills for life and I hope that the Minister will be able to give us some reassurance.

My Lords, is the Minister going to speak to her amendment in this group? If not, it will be difficult to comment on it.

My Lords, I, too, support the amendments and endorse the points made. Training in the voluntary sector, on approved courses, would be hugely important as regards work experience.

My Lords, I want to speak, but I want to listen to the Minister first. I am sorry, I am being totally daft, which is not unusual: I am looking at the wrong amendment.

I understand the aim of the amendment, but I have sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, said in Committee about accreditation. The voluntary sector is pretty diverse, and to say that voluntary work, whatever it might be, counts towards a person’s education is putting it rather widely.

I am concerned about the process of accreditation which the Government envisage when it comes to entry-level qualifications. It really ought to mean no qualification at all. How can you have a qualification in an ability to work with other people, to behave in a social manner and to turn up to work on time—all the skills which many young people are leaving school without? If you are going to pick them up at 16 and turn them out as competent adults at 18, they are the first things you have to address. The obsession that the Learning and Skills Council has for everything having to lead into literacy, numeracy or some other chain of qualification is poisonous to these basic levels of education. It means that the whole structure of those courses must be bent towards box-ticking, because that is all you can do at that stage. Such bits of literacy and numeracy are entirely outside the main thrust and purpose of the education that is being provided.

I agree that there needs to be a structure and supervision, but surely the best way of handling this is through the structure which the Government are providing in later amendments; one of local authority supervision through a contract between the local authority and the young person. If under that scheme the local authority, with a voluntary organisation, is providing a programme that is aimed at getting these young people motivated, directed and involved in society and their own futures, surely that is enough. That programme does not need to go through an expensive, time-consuming and essentially irrelevant LSC process. The control is there through the local authority. Most of these courses, particularly the good courses, will be local because they will rely on being run by motivated and directed individuals and will not generally be suitable for rolling out to the ordinary run of commercial education. They will work well within the local voluntary sector. Under those structures, there should be total freedom for the local education authority to provide these courses without them having to be formally accredited in some box-ticking way.

My Lords, I shall briefly comment on what the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, said about the importance of ensuring a good partnership with child and adolescent mental health services for Connexions services working with these young people. I am particularly thinking of young people in care, or on the edge of care, because one can spend a short time in care in one’s early childhood or later on and not necessarily be entitled to the full support available otherwise. There are many other children who have experienced the death of a parent or both parents or multiple trauma and are vulnerable. It is helpful for a Connexions adviser to have the best professional support in maintaining a relationship with a vulnerable young person. It is sometimes difficult to sustain those relationships, but it can be very helpful for a young person who has experienced the loss of a parent or family member or who has had a number of placements with different carers to have one person consistently engaged in a relationship with him. However, that person needs good support, so I welcome what the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, said.

My Lords, I hope I can provide the clarity that the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, is looking for. I have a rather long speaking note, but my speaking notes get shorter as the day goes by, so I am not going to drone on for hours.

I believe that all young people should benefit from staying in education or training until the age of 18 and that appropriately tailored, flexible and personalised programmes of learning will be essential to engage some of the hardest-to-reach young people. Speaking particularly to Amendments Nos. 6 and 7, if the noble Baronesses are thinking of the kind of informal or non-formal education or training often provided through the voluntary sector—the noble Baroness referred to the Prince’s Trust—that would be covered under full-time education or training. The type of provision described in Amendment No. 6 is recognised and allowed for under Clause 4. Appropriate full-time education or training is not required to be accredited. It can be provided at a school, college, higher education institution or otherwise, which allows for locations that are not formal education institutions. That is what the noble Baroness was pointing to. They may not always lead to formally accredited qualifications, although we know it is important to break down programmes into bite-sized sections and to start recognising young people’s achievements as early as possible in whatever way is most appropriate for them. There is nothing in Clause 4 to prevent personalised learning programmes being integrated with individual support where that is needed, and it would be good practice to do so. I therefore believe that Amendment No. 6 is unnecessary.

On Amendment No. 7, our strong view is that informal learning should not count for the purposes of part-time education or training alongside employment. We recognise the value of non-formal learning, where it has a clear aim and enables young people to progress, and have made it clear that it will be allowed under Clause 4. However, since young people in a job develop their “get up and turn up on time” side, we think it reasonable to require young people in full-time education to be working toward an accredited qualification. It is important that they have the opportunity to participate in good-quality, accredited training; without the requirement for accreditation there would be no guarantee of the quality level in the training being undertaken.

In this context, the requirement for accreditation is our guarantee that, where employers are providing training, the learning that happens is substantial and of high quality. Without it, there would be a risk of creating a way out for employers—and I know that we shall discuss that concern shortly, on an amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Layard. The noble Baroness has, however, raised an important point.

On Amendment No. 2 in particular, we certainly recognise that engaging in volunteering is an extremely worthwhile activity for young people. I have personally promoted that and believe strongly in it. It can help them to gain important skills and experience that contribute to their personal development and are valued by employers and universities. We are encouraging more people to get involved in voluntary work. However, I am also clear that those young people need to continue their formal learning in the same way as those in paid employment do. It might be as part of a volunteering programme, or mean undertaking a part-time course alongside the volunteering activity. Continuing in formal accredited learning will ensure that the skills they have developed are formally recognised and that they gain further qualifications. That is important to help them demonstrate what they have learned to future employers; it will help them to find work and to progress in it.

Amendment No. 64 would put a duty on local authorities to provide health and mental health services. For a minority of young people, access to and continued participation in education and training depends not just on the quality of teaching and learning—or even the quality of information, advice and guidance that they receive on learning choices—but on their ability to access specialist support to help them overcome health issues that can be barriers to their learning. This is an important issue, but I believe the amendment is unnecessary. Under the Children Act 2004, local authorities have a duty to co-operate with health partners, including primary care trusts, to improve the,

“physical and mental health and emotional well-being”,

of children and young people. The Act also introduces a duty on local authorities to co-ordinate the production of strategic children and young persons’ plans, to set a vision for all the services that children and young people gain in an area. Guidance on that duty emphasises the need for close partnership working, to ensure consistency between children and young people’s plans and the primary care trusts’ local development plans.

Recently, there have been significant improvements in the delivery of child and adolescent mental health services, partly as a result of increasing funding in that area. For example, we have seen a significant increase in the numbers of multi-agency services there, and reductions in waiting lists. However, we want to see further improvements: that is why our Children’s Plan commissioned an external review of such services, led by Jo Davidson, director of the children and young people’s service at Gloucestershire County Council and Dr Bob Jezzard, an eminent child and adolescent psychiatrist. They will develop their report to the Government shortly, and we will be able to respond in full to the proposals for better, joined-up services. To be absolutely clear, a full discussion on the partnership agreements will be coming up later today. These are vehicles for promoting and achieving the participation of young people—not the actual participation, which we will consider later in a different part of the Bill.

I am aware that I have gone on for rather a long time but I hope I have been able to give the noble Baronesses the reassurance that they rightly require on this issue.

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. She has clarified most of the issues that I wished to be clarified in regard to voluntary activity. It was not quite clear whether the kinds of courses laid on by the Prince’s Trust would count as full-time education and that is what I was querying.

Still outstanding, however—we shall probably return to this—is what will happen to young people with relatively severe learning difficulties of one kind or another who take up some form of work but cannot be expected to go on to acquire any kind of accreditation. We discussed this at some length in Committee in relation to the Rose Trust. On the whole, these young people gain a great deal through the work experience that they get on these occasions, yet such is the severity of their learning difficulties that it is not reasonable to expect them to go on to accreditation.

On Amendment No. 64, I take it the Minister is saying that it is not necessary because Clause 56(1) states:

“A local education authority in England must make available to young persons and relevant young adults for whom it is responsible such services as it considers appropriate to encourage, enable or assist the effective participation of those persons in education or training”.

We established in Committee that such services were the Connexions services but it was left a little vague as to whether the PCTs and children and adolescent mental health services were involved. From her reply today it is clear that under the partnership agreement established in the Children Act such services are to be brought in and made available when required. I am delighted to have a clear answer to that issue and I am grateful to the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2 [Duty to participate in education or training]:

moved Amendment No. 3:

My Lords, if this amendment were agreed, I could not call Amendment No. 4, by reason of pre-emption.

My Lords, we made it quite clear at Second Reading and in Committee that we would much rather the Government proceeded with caution rather than compel young people to participate against their will, and that there should be a lot of carrot before any stick was applied. But we have not put down amendments on Report because, as I said in moving Amendment No. 1, the world has changed. We need to have as well skilled a workforce as possible and to ensure that as many young people as possible participate. As I said, we would not go down this route but we are not going to stand in the way of the Government bringing forward compulsion.

My Lords, I hope that my noble friend might in due course have an opportunity not to go down this route herself and that she will then take quite seriously what is proposed in the amendment. If we are to give people rights to educate themselves to a decent level, when the time is right for them appears to be the right way to go. To have a pupil who is motivated, who wants to learn and knows what they want to learn is so much better than having someone who is dragging their feet every step of the way. You can achieve so much more for the same amount of money. In a way, some children of 16 and 17 need some life experience; they need to get out there and learn how hard life is in the real world; they need to learn a bit more about themselves and what they want to do, and then come back to education. When that happens, they should be able to do so on the same terms as someone who already knows at 16 that they want to take a couple of A-levels and go on to university.

The idea of lifelong learning and the ability to do it should be core to our thinking. Lots of people find at certain periods of their life that they need some additional education. If they have not had a basic education and have not learnt what they should have learnt earlier in life, the easy availability of a retraining course and the money to do that which has not been wasted by keeping them in school between the ages of 16 and 18 but is available for them when they need it, is surely the right way to go. Why should they have to pay for it? To have a quick week of education available for Russell Brand and Jonathan Ross would be a thoroughly good idea.

My Lords, I cannot fault an iota of the very impassioned, excellent argument of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. My heart is with her; I wish that the Government had put their energies into providing a lifelong entitlement for people that would enable flexibility for the workforce, which will be so much more important now after the past few terrible weeks and all that that implies for the workforce of the future. I have amendments down about the criminal aspects arising from compulsion. I think that at this stage the Government will try compulsion, although there is no evidence that it works in other countries. I think we will keep our powder dry on that, although I wish very much that the Government had gone down the route that the noble Baroness has suggested.

My Lords, I agree strongly with the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. While she was speaking, I was minded of two statements by two totally different people. One was a memorable statement by Winston Churchill, that there was a treasure in the heart of every man if only you could find it; the other was a statement by the learning and skills co-ordinator in a young offender establishment in Northallerton in Yorkshire, who said to me that the main job of trainers and educators in prisons was to motivate people to learn. One of the biggest factors in that motivation was time; therefore, it seems entirely sensible that time should be allowed to apply. If people have not been able to engage and connect during school, let us not expect them automatically to go on with it until time and other things have been able to motivate them because they have somehow discovered that there is a treasure which has not yet been found and that needs developing.

My Lords, I shall revert to the Prison Service when I speak to my amendment later. I had intended to refer to a prisoner named John, who, as a result of having been diagnosed and taught as a dyslexic, was able to say that he had learnt more in eight weeks than in the previous 41 years of his life. This provision is for people who miss diagnosis.

I also remind your Lordships that the world now is very different from even 10 years ago, including the speed of change in the skills needed to prosper. Old jobs are becoming obsolete and new jobs arising almost by the month as a result of technological development. The amendment offers a way in which the mistakes that people have made in not taking their education when they are young can be turned into an advantage, because they will be able to pick up again with learning that will be contemporary with, rather than prior to, the need.

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, not only for tabling the amendment but for the splendid way in which she brought us all up to date with what had been said in Committee, which is now so many months ago that I think that quite a number of us have forgotten the detail. It is essential to reiterate what so many of us said at that time: we would prefer choice, or the carrot route, to compulsion. The more one hears about the sad situation that the world is in today, the more it would seem appropriate to look down that road. I recently attended a briefing by the Nuffield Foundation on the Engaging Youth inquiry. It made it clear that a wide range of young people will need all kinds of support before—and, one hopes, when—they see that they could engage in something rather more specifically educational. Among other things is a need for the personal mentor or helper to be around. That is where I would put a lot of my resources for these young people. Although I fear we will not persuade the Government to think again on this matter, about which I am sad, those of us who strongly prefer this route should make that absolutely clear.

My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, for bringing back this important debate. As I said in Committee, I just about favour the Government’s view: I feel that it is a responsibility of adults to ensure as far as possible that young people use their time constructively, not self-destructively, and not to let their potential go to waste. However, it is a difficult argument. The key is implementation, about which my noble friend has just spoken. As a general principle, every young person needs a mentor to help them forward. It is crucial that they find that person in the future.

The noble Baroness’s response to the question about the Government’s investment in child and adolescent mental health services, about the Children’s Plan and thinking through the needs of children—particularly for their emotional support—and about the health partnerships is very important. What she said about the review of CAMHS and how they can be made more effective for young people is also extremely important. I welcome the designated looked-after children CAMH services, which, where they are available, make a great difference. They are crucial to successful implementation, especially for the most vulnerable children, because we do not want them to slip into the criminal justice system as a result of our not quite engaging with them properly.

Let us think of a young man who experiences domestic violence. His father is an alcoholic who would come home and brutalise the boy’s mother. The boy goes on and tries to seek work. That young man then displays all kinds of difficult behaviours: he is paranoid; he is subject to sudden and unpredictable rages; he displays difficult behaviour around women. People working with such young men need to be well supported, particularly by child and adolescent mental health services, to reflect on and understand the meaning of such behaviour and how successfully to engage with the young man. I welcome what the Minister said in the previous answer. It gives me some comfort that implementation will be effective and sensitive.

My Lords, I remind the House that the proposals in the Bill would not make it compulsory for young people to stay in school. We are talking about a choice between staying on in school in full-time education, taking a job and continuing in part-time training, and pursuing an apprenticeship. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said that young people must feel that it is right for them to move on and get a job. We need to be clear that that is covered as an option in the Bill. Young people will have choices about the route that they pursue post 16.

As many Members have highlighted, in today’s fast changing economic circumstances and in a world where everyone will need skills to prosper, the Bill is extremely important. As we all know, the days when people leave school at 16 without qualifications but still make a good career for themselves by starting at the bottom and working their way up are pretty much gone. A recent CBI study showed that one in five employees still lack basic literacy and numeracy skills. The warning given to us by the noble Lord, Lord Leitch, was stark: up to 50 per cent more jobs will require high-level skills by 2020, which is an enormous challenge. Yet, despite a steady increase over the past few years, we still have a low rate of participation compared to other developed countries and we all agree that we need to go further. Our ambition must be that all young people continue in education, training or whatever choice they make. That is why we are legislating now; and that is why our legislation must be based on the principle of compulsion.

Through the September Guarantee, all year 11s are already entitled to a suitable place in learning. We are ensuring more take-up of that entitlement. However, we are aware that the new requirement does not mean all young people staying in school; it means that every young person should carry on in the right form of education or training to allow them to develop the skills that they need to succeed.

That goes hand in hand with later provisions in the Bill which ensure that adults are able to obtain basic- and intermediate-level skills. Both are absolutely crucial to meeting the future skills needs of our economy. We have set our ambition to achieve world-class skills by 2020 and we know that 74 per cent of the 2020 workforce has already left compulsory education. We need to act now to ensure that all those people who were not able to benefit from the package of reforms that we are now putting in place for young people get a second chance. At present, adults can access funding for basic skills courses—a first full level 2 qualification and a first full level 3 qualification—up to age 25.

These arrangements are significantly strengthened by Clause 73, where, for the first time, the Learning and Skills Council will be required to ensure that facilities for obtaining specified qualifications at level 1 literacy, entry-level 3 numeracy and vocational full level 2 are available in sufficient quantity and of a quality adequate to meet the needs of learners and, in so doing, increase learner choice. This is an important step forward and a significant one in improving the career prospects of low-skilled adults.

If we replaced compulsion with the concept of an entitlement that could be postponed, as this amendment would, we would risk damaging the life chances of those who stand to gain most from the Bill—young people who are least likely to participate now and are vulnerable and disadvantaged, and adults who want to improve their skills and increase their prospects but are unable to do a full two years of full-time study.

There are carrots, but we need a stick as well. We have to put pressure on the system to gear up to deliver for these young people. Yes, the support has to be there; it has to be wrapped around so that vulnerable young people and children can fully participate and make the most of the choices that we want to create for them. I hope very much that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment because we have a duty to make a significant change for young people starting school this year.

My Lords, we obviously have not persuaded the Minister, but I fear that this fixation with compulsion is yet another demonstration of the top-down, “government knows best” approach of this Government, rather than the bottom-up approach that can be so much more effective. It also shows a lack of confidence in all the good measures that the Government have put in place, within and outside this Bill, which have the desired effect, encouraging young people and taking away the barriers to their further attainment.

I very much thank the members of Her Majesty's Opposition for their support. Should they by any chance be in a position to change direction on this issue before the Bill is implemented in 2013, I shall very much hold them to what they have said. I shall be watching.

We have had a shorter but no less trenchant debate on this issue than we had in Committee. I hope that the Minister has listened to the passion with which noble Lords have spoken. There is serious concern about the possible negative effects of compulsion, should it ever come to pass. For the time being, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

moved Amendment No. 4:

My Lords, I added my name to the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, because we were strong advocates of learning and support contracts in the other place and in Committee. I, too, welcome the Government’s amendment, but I echo the noble Baroness’s plea that local authorities must have tried a learning and support contract before embarking on enforcement procedures.

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Adonis explained in Committee that our reluctance to accept the proposed new clause introducing learning and support contracts stemmed from our concern that they would be unnecessarily prescriptive and bureaucratic. However, he also emphasised our support for the approach and said that we would reflect very carefully on whether there was a case for specifying more in the Bill. On reflection, I decided that it might be beneficial to include something along these lines to make it clear that local authorities can pursue this kind of enabling approach. As a result we are introducing this amendment, and I am pleased that it has been welcomed. It enables local authorities to enter into learning and support agreements. I am not sure whether the difference in terms is material.

The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, asked a number of questions but I am not sure that I got them all. If I do not pick all of them up then I will write to her and copy it to noble Lords who have taken part in today’s proceedings. She asked me to confirm whether enforcement could proceed where there was a young person with unmet needs. I want to make it clear that that should not happen. Enforcement should not proceed where a young person has unmet needs. Clause 39 states that even the first step—giving a final written warning before enforcement action begins—cannot be taken unless the right support has been offered and the young person has been given the opportunity to take it up. In addition, as noble Lords are aware, there are further safeguards to prevent enforcement happening inappropriately, such as the independent panel, which would be interested in the steps that have been taken.

The noble Baroness also asked how we will promote best practice around learning support agreements. Clause 39 requires local authorities to demonstrate that they have provided support and the opportunity to take advantage of it before enforcement action can be taken. A learning and support agreement, as the noble Baroness explained, would be a very good way of doing that. We will encourage local authorities to pursue this or similar approaches to re-engage young people who are struggling to fulfil the duty to participate long before enforcement action is considered. We want to make sure that we allow flexibility. However, having a tried and tested model of good practice is important and we will do our best to ensure that local authorities are made aware of that through guidance. I will write to the noble Baroness in more detail.

My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble Baroness a couple of questions on her amendment. If such an agreement is entered into, could that constitute full-time education? Can whatever is agreed to under this provision constitute full-time education? If it is entered into in respect of a young person who is also in employment, will this agreement encompass all that is required to be provided by way of education? In other words, is this sufficient in itself, or does there have to be some kind of educational arrangement existing outside this agreement in order to satisfy the terms of the Bill?

My Lords, I have already sat down.

My Lords, I can pick the noble Baroness up on this; it is the point that I was trying to make on the earlier group, when I should not have made it. The Minister has an amendment in this group, so she is not closing the debate. She is speaking to her amendment and it is open to Members of the House to question her on it. She can then close the debate. She gets two bites at this cherry and we all get a chance to comment on what she has said. It is a refreshing thing at Report stage.

My Lords, perhaps it would be appropriate for me to comment now, before the Minister replies. Will the pathway plan for care leavers introduced in the Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000 be used as a model for some of these new contracts? I understand that these pathway plans have been well received, and it might be helpful to learn from best practice in this area when moving forward with these new support plans for young people. What particularly features as good practice in this area is the full involvement of the young person in designing the plan. It is such an obvious point that it is hardly worth making, but can the Minister confirm that all is being done to make the young person’s involvement as important as possible in developing these contracts? Perhaps there could be monitoring to ensure that young people are indeed being drawn into these contracts.

My Lords, I say “hear, hear”, from a standing rather than sitting position, to add force to what the noble Earl has just said.

My Lords, I am very much enjoying this opportunity, having tabled an amendment, to speak again. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for reminding me and others of the opportunity.

I want to be clear on the full-time education point. It is a something-for-something agreement. It is about ensuring that the young person is clear not only about what support is being offered but, at the same time, about what they need to do to participate. I am assuming that that includes full-time education. If they are in employment, it would include them attending 280 hours of training. It is about setting out clearly both for the young person and for the support services what the young person’s needs are and what is defined as a service to meet those needs. Young people should know what to expect so that they know where they are and where they stand.

The point made by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, is absolutely right. It is important that young people are consulted. Subsection (6) of our amendment requires the young person to be consulted. We will make it clear in guidance that parents or carers should also be involved in the process where possible and appropriate. I thank the noble Earl for giving me the opportunity to clarify that. To make it absolutely clear, we will also learn the lessons from the pathway plans as he suggests.

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for both of her contributions. I am quite satisfied that she will write to me to pick up any points that she has not had the opportunity to deal with today. I would most appreciate a comment about the involvement of parents or guardians or the corporate parent. It is very important that best practice is disseminated, and I am sure that the Government will do everything that they can to do that. Some authorities have already taken a lead in this direction. I am grateful for her assurance that local authorities will be judged on the extent to which they have gone down this path before any enforcement takes place. Many people will be reassured by the Minister’s statement. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

moved Amendment No. 5:

My Lords, it is clear that there is unhappiness on many sides about the issue of compulsion; placing the duty on young people to participate or face the consequences. If that happens, the Government must be absolutely certain that they will uphold their side of the bargain. They must put into place all the necessary investment, all the new courses, all the new provisions, so that the scheme runs smoothly from the outset. It would be intolerable to sweep young people into duty, and potentially punish them if they fail to comply, while the authorities were in a state of disarray and unpreparedness. 2013 may sound far off; it is in another decade. However, it will not be long in coming. The Government must be ready.

My Lords, I speak in favour of the Government’s position. I cannot recall any piece of legislation that has been prepared so far in advance of implementation. The normal practice with legislation and regulation is to ask schools to implement change from next September. Quite rightly, schools complain that they are given insufficient time to implement measures in a proper manner. I congratulate the Government on bringing forward this legislation and making preparations to give schools a reasonable period in which to prepare.

Secondly, there is a real danger for schools, and everybody else involved in this partnership—employers, colleges of further education and training establishments—in not being clear that, by that point, things have to be in place. I agree with the movers of this amendment that there is a tremendous onus on the Government and other partners to make sure that things are in place. However, I would resist any uncertainty about the date of implementation. The minute you bring in uncertainty, you lose the benefit of this legislation, which gives enough time to prepare and also clarity about the date of introduction. I praise the Government for giving sufficient lead-in time. It is now up to everybody in the system to make sure that everything is in order to be implemented at the point described in the Bill.

My Lords, I remind the noble Baroness that, under Amendments Nos. 221 and 222, there is certainty; change is just delayed by a couple of years. This follows advice from many sources.

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, is very persuasive. However, we have entered a new economic climate. Mention was made of the voluntary organisations involved in supporting young people. Some of them are heavily dependent on donations. Given the change in the economic climate, we need to think whether it would be wise to put back these proposals from the Government. I hope that this helps the Minister to think through the clear change in the climate for developing these plans.

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Morris for giving us her sense of realism and her reminder of the importance of certainty in promoting change. We need to remember that we are talking about changes that will affect young people who started secondary school in September this year. We need momentum in taking forward these important proposals. These amendments were discussed in committee. My noble friend Lord Adonis set out the Government’s agreement that we must ensure that there is sufficient learning provision for all young people if we are to expect them to participate. We will deliver on our part of the bargain.

Part of our rationale for legislating now is to galvanise the system to provide appropriate support and opportunities for all young people. By setting clear expectations in law that all young people must participate until they are 18, we make it clear that it will no longer be an option to forget about the student who sits quietly at the back of the class, watching the clock and waiting until they can leave.

With reference to Amendment No. 5, in March we published a White Paper, Raising Expectations: Enabling the System to Deliver, which set out our intention to transfer the funding responsibilities for commissioning 16-to-19 provision from the Learning and Skills Council to local authorities. In future, assessing the sufficiency of provision will become the role of the local authority; that is where the responsibility should lie. Local authorities will do this through the strategic commissioning plan that they will complete as part of, or alongside, the children and young persons plan.

I reassure noble Lords that we will be ready to implement the new participation age from 2013, and do not need to delay until 2015, as proposed. By 2013, the national entitlement to the new diploma—which I understand is very popular with young people taking part in it—and the apprenticeship guarantee will be in place, and the foundation learning tier for provision at entry level 1 will be established. The September guarantee, which was implemented for the first time in every local area last year, guarantees to offer a suitable learning place for all young people leaving year 11. This year it was extended to 17 year-olds. Already, we are gearing up the system.

In earlier debates, my noble friend Lord Adonis talked about the potential for this policy to bring about a change in culture; and we know how important culture is in promoting change. We need to see a change in the expectations and aspirations of young people. That is the other reason for making this change in 2013. As we know, the first young people to be affected began year 7 this September. They will start their secondary school career knowing—and with their parents and teachers knowing—that they will continue in learning post-16. We will keep our part of the bargain and create the best opportunities for these young people post-16. With that reassurance, I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendments.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her persuasive and helpful response. Might she consider producing a letter indicating where there might be vulnerability in service commitments given the recent changes in our economy? That would be helpful.

My Lords, the Bill represents an absolutely integral part of our commitment in the Children’s Plan. As the noble Earl knows, the Children’s Plan is reviewed every year. We will produce a progress report on it, taking stock of our achievements and challenges. I hope that that will be a good vehicle for meeting his concerns. However, if I can help him in other ways, I certainly shall.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply. I remind her, as I reminded the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Yardley, that our proposals would not create more uncertainty: they give a definite date. On the notion of postponing the date, there are so many reforms in hand. The noble Baroness mentioned that, by 2013, the diplomas should be rolled out and we have the new apprenticeships, foundation learning tier and all of this stuff. We want to ensure, before forcing young people to stay on in learning in some form or another, that this is working. This gives it an extra couple of years. The Minister may come to rue the day that the Government rejected the amendment. They may find things take rather longer to bed down than they think.

On Amendment No. 5, I take on board what the Minister says, but it puts a lot of emphasis on what local authorities are going to do. It is all very well having strategic commissioning plans and so forth, but they are the providers as well as the judges of whether it is sufficient. I question whether that is appropriate. Nevertheless, I accept what the Minister says for the moment, and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 4 [Appropriate full-time education or training]:

[Amendment No. 6 not moved.]

Clause 6 [Relevant training or education]:

[Amendment No. 7 not moved.]

Clause 8 [Sufficient relevant training or education]:

moved Amendment No. 8:

My Lords, we on these Benches support the noble Lord’s amendment. As a party, we have long maintained that it is important that there is education as well as just training in this context, and that off-the-job education should be provided in so far as the young person continues in training. We very much go along with the noble Lord’s arguments.

My Lords, I also support the noble Lord, Lord Layard. In childcare, many people, such as Dr Gillian Pugh, the former director of the Thomas Coram Foundation, think that the best training one can have is to allow childcare workers one evening a month, or every fortnight, to be away from the children, to sit down with a senior manager or experienced practitioner and talk through individual children’s experiences. They might say that a boy does this or that, and that they are not quite sure what to do when he does. They might ask whether the senior manager thinks that they are doing the right thing. The whole group works together to reflect on the worker’s practice and improve her relationship with the child.

That is one of the best forms of training, but it gets cut when the money is short; it is the most expensive element of training in social care. The current economic climate reminds us that tough times come and tough decisions must be made. Businesses may unfortunately feel unable to prioritise investing in young people, and may feel pushed towards simply using them to get whatever work needs to be done, possibly to their regret. Perhaps this is protection for young people to ensure that they get the investment and time to reflect and develop that we all wish them to have. I hope that the Minister can respond favourably to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Layard.

My Lords, I have put my name to the amendment and I strongly support what my noble friend Lord Layard has said. I agree with every word of the amendment, possibly even more than he did. At Second Reading, I gave the Bill a huge welcome and said that I thought it was probably one of the most important pieces of educational legislation for many years. I referred back to the 1918 Act; we have waited 90 years to move forward. After waiting all that time, we really must get it right, otherwise, in 10 years, when we review what we have done, we will sit and regret deeply that we thought we were doing something progressive to help the most disadvantaged young people in our society, but find that all our aims and hopes have been dashed because we did not quite get it right by being more precise in how we define education and training.

Funnily enough, if a young person is unemployed, they may do better out of the Bill, as drafted, than if they have a job. I am sure that that is not what we intended. We have to remember that many young people aged 16 and 17 who have left school, often with very poor levels of prior achievement, will not be in good jobs; they will be in humdrum, often dead-end jobs. The kind of training and instruction that they receive will be pretty limited, which is why it is very important that the 280 hours of training should be spent away from their work stations.

I wish to make one small point to the Minister. Amendment No. 9 proposes that some of the clause should be deleted. I hope that in his reply, my noble friend does not spend 25 minutes telling us why those provisions should not be deleted. He would probably be right to say that some should remain in the Bill. My plea is that he focus on the real issue, which is where the 280 hours of education should take place. We do not have just a loophole, as my noble friend said, but a whopping great loophole which could become a cop-out for a lot of employers who do not take the education and training of young people as seriously as they ought to. It would be terribly naive of to believe that all employers would be good citizens in that respect. Some will be struggling to keep their businesses going; others will not be engaged with the idea that it is part of their job to move the skills of those young people forward. Those employers will be more interested in survival, profit and getting the most that they can out of the young people’s work than on focusing on their education and training.

For all those reasons, and those that my noble friend has given, a huge opportunity will have been lost if the amendment, or something like it, is not accepted. I do not argue that the training received by young people at work is unimportant. Of course it is important and it is often a way of motivating young people to attach education and training to what they are doing in the workplace. However, as well as that, they should have an opportunity to spend some time in a context where, as my noble friend said, they can discuss what they are doing with their peers. If the Bill is left in its current shape, many of those young people may receive some instruction, but because they will be working, they will not be in a context whereby they can reflect on what they are learning or discuss their training or instruction with other young people, or with those who are providing it.

In anticipation of what my noble friend may say, I do not believe, first, that the education and training given to young people off the job should be theoretical. It should not be about providing more opportunities for developing their literacy or numeracy, but be closely related to what they are doing at work. I am sure that every noble Lord in this House would agree that young people can be given some kind of development away from the workplace, whereby they can think about how that work can be applied to different situations or about whether the equipment that they are using would be relevant in other contexts. We need to focus on those sorts of issues. The Government have been incredibly courageous in the way in which they have framed the Bill. They have been specific that there must be 280 hours of training, so they should also be specific about how and where the education and training should take place.

My noble friend may say that a lot of good employers have excellent and highly technical training, and that taking employees away from the workplace for training outside would somehow disrupt that. I would not be convinced by that argument, because young people can get all that excellent training with a good employer but, in addition, any good employer and anyone who has been involved in training people in the 16-to-17 age group would say that in addition they needed to do something away from the job. I hope that the Minister will address that.

While specific skills are very important for young people in that age group, transferable skills are even more important. Many of those young people will change their jobs four, five, six or seven times between leaving school and the age of 25. For that reason, if we leave this issue entirely to the employer in the workplace, we will fail in doing all the things that we want to get out of the Bill.

Finally, I hope that my noble friend will be positive in his reply to ensure that we achieve the hugely important objectives of the Bill and turn it into the progressive and lasting piece of legislation that we all hope for.

My Lords, I have signed up to this amendment and wish to speak in favour of it in support of my noble friends. This goes to the heart of the Bill, because at the moment young people between 16 and 18 are in education, employment or training. This Bill is about quality, raising aspirations and raising standards throughout the sector. None of us, on reflection, would be happy if at the end of the passage of the Bill we had not raised the aspirations of the whole nation by providing better-quality training, leading to the adult training which is provided for elsewhere in the Bill.

My starting point is that it is very difficult to imagine a situation in which good-quality training did not involve some time away from the work station, but that could happen, given the way that the Bill has been written. I am prepared to accept in the details of debate that there might be some specialised courses in some occupations with some high-tech providers where good-quality training may take place at the workplace for 100 per cent of the time. However, no noble Lord would agree that in most occupations, 100 per cent training at the workplace, with no time away for underpinning, applied skills, mentoring or talking, was necessary. The truth is that that would be possible under the Bill. If we leave the legislation as it is to accommodate the very few good employers who perhaps can make an argument for 280 hours of training at the work station that remains good quality, we leave a gaping hole that will allow the less good employers to get away with sometimes shoddy training that is masqueraded as education, training or employment with training for 16 to 18 year-olds at the moment. I say this for one particular reason. If you look at this in terms of supply and demand, there is not a powerful demand side in this. The sort of youngster who will end up with this less good training at the workplace with no time away for reflection will not be demanding any better than they are given. That is the person whom this amendment protects—the 16 to 19 year-old who does not have higher aspirations or know that they could make the argument for anything better. This amendment underpins and protects them and that is essential. Not all 280 hours have to be spent away from the work station, but a very significant amount does. I think it has to be half or more. If half or more of the 280 hours were spent away from the work station—which is not much more than half a day a week—not only would we have legislation for the first time that meant that all 16 to 19 year-olds had the opportunity of education, training, or employment with training, but that it was good quality as well.

My Lords, I apologise for not being able to take part at earlier stages of the Bill. I speak now in support of these amendments with recollections of my time as chair of a further education college and in the former Department of Employment.

We have a national problem with good modern skills training, most particularly in technical subjects, and we have a deficit both of capacity and enlightenment on the part of employers, particularly some of those small employers whose advances are so crucial to our economy. A system of training which does not require the use of the most up-to-date means available would not be tolerated by our competitor allies in the European Union. Could your Lordships imagine sitting with Nellie in Germany or Switzerland, where technical skills are so highly developed, making their companies competitive and their employees self-respecting and well paid? I hope my noble friend will heed the principles behind these amendments.

My Lords, I remember being rather attracted by this concept in Committee and I am further beguiled by what has been said today. One of the aspects that attracts me is the requirement to abolish the subsections as specified in the amendment. As I find them extremely difficult to understand and interpret, abolishing them might end up being quite a positive thing.

I am persuaded that it would be a much better system if there could be time away from the workplace both for peer group discussion and, equally importantly, with someone available to make a more detached but equally expert contribution to the skills being acquired. The point made about transferability of skills is terribly important in today’s world. I anticipate that this amendment might be favourably received and I look forward to the Minister’s reply.

My Lords, this is a very important amendment. I find myself entirely in agreement with what the noble Lord, Lord Layard, said about the importance of human interaction in a successful learning process and about getting together with one’s fellow students and in a personal way with people who know and understand the subject and can deal with you face to face. However, I see problems with the idea that you should spend all your time away from the work station. A lot of these people may be small employers. They may have their kids stuck in front of computer screens of some kind or another. To force them to provide extra computers and space for use an hour a day by the youngsters they employ is not sensible. Anyway, are not a lot of the courses they are going to be pursuing essentially distance learning courses which are designed to be absorbed at a work station? As long as there is a dedicated time set aside for it and they are not supposed to interrupt it every two minutes because another person is needed on the cash desk or whatever, the work station is going to be the sensible place for them to do it.

This problem is not restricted to this Bill. It is a direction which the Government are pursuing when it comes to learning within prisons. They are looking at getting students there to pursue distance learning individually on their own work stations rather than taught in classes by teachers. Once you go down that route, instead of having a group of pupils within a reasonably close physical proximity who are all studying the same course and are all at the same point on it, you have a group of pupils who are studying different courses, or if they are studying the same course, they are at different points on it. What is the point of getting that group of students together to discuss anything with anybody when all their interests and requirements are different? I am a believer in the old style and the way that education works. The noble Lord, Lord Layard, made a point about the importance of students as a group and students with teachers, and about the difficulty of translating that into a world dominated by personalised distance learning. The only model that I can think of—

My Lords, do not most of the successful distance-learning programmes that we know of—the Open University is the classic example—include just an element of off-the-job training of the kind that we have been talking about?

My Lords, this is the Report stage, so I think that noble Lords are able to make only one speech.

My Lords, Report stage is very tiresome from that point of view, particularly when we are getting into an interesting discussion. I was about to say that the only example that I could think of was the Open University. It is the only institution that I am familiar with where you spend a lot of time working on your own but then everyone gets together. It does not mean that the whole programme is done away from your work station or whatever, but there is a requirement for some of the programme to be conducted in a human rather than a mechanical way. Perhaps that is what we should be trying to include in the Bill; otherwise, as the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, said, the system will just be abused. No education will take place because it will be a formulaic course which happens to have been accredited somewhere and it will be delivered in a way that the students find extremely difficult to connect with. It will be a sort of blank, compulsory hour in every day that achieves very little.

For courses to be structured so that students, doing the same course at the same level, have to spend some time together and therefore presumably get away from the workplace to a proper place of education—an educational provider of some sort—seems to be the right direction to go in, but how we work that into the Bill I am not at all sure. Nor am I at all sure how we would work it for the Prison Service, and that will be a challenge for OLASS when it comes to look at that side of things. The question is how to reintroduce the human element if you go for distance learning. I think that this issue is well worth discussing between now and Report, and I very much hope that the Minister will take up the invitation from the proposers of the amendment to sit down and talk to them.

My Lords, I shall be very brief. It strikes me that the noble Lord, Lord Layard, is not asking for a great deal in Amendment No. 8. He is simply saying that the learning should be away from the work station, but it can still be in the same workplace. I shall limit myself to a question. In order to avoid a young person being exploited during these 280 hours—for example, in a hairdresser’s doing menial tasks—how will the Government ensure that, if they do not accept the amendment, the training that the young person gets will in fact be of good quality? That is the challenge: how to achieve that without an army of inspectors ensuring that it is done. I rest on that point.

My Lords, I could not help reflecting that, in dealing with my first amendment, I am up against a formidable array of educationalists: one former Secretary of State, one former Minister and the distinguished educationalists, my noble friend Lord Layard and the noble Lord, Lord Dearing. Therefore, I enter this debate with a certain amount of humility.

Amendment No. 8 specifies that the part-time learning undertaken by young people in full-time work should be done away from their workstations. It is not our policy that this learning should always be carried out away from the young person’s workstation. Of course, many young people participating in this way by combining a full-time job with part-time learning will be released by their employer to undertake training elsewhere, such as a college, so that all their learning will necessarily be entirely separate from their normal workplace. However, some other young people fulfilling the duty to participate in this way will receive part-time training provided by their employer—perhaps at a private training provider or at their workplace. We want to encourage this, as it can be very high-quality learning that meets the employer’s business needs and is immediately engaging and relevant to the young person. That is surely what we are all concerned about.

I also could not help reflecting on a recent visit that I made to the Yorkshire and Humber region, where I listened to an employer in a daycare nursery who believed passionately in providing high-quality training. They did so and the training occurred in the workplace, although admittedly someone from a further education institution was brought in to assist in the process. So successful was the quality of the training that they set up a sort of mini-academy, which attracted people from other daycare nurseries. Therefore, there is not only one single route to providing this learning. We need to reflect on and understand what people want, what employers’ needs are—a point referred to rightly by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas—and what all of us who have contributed to the debate want; that is, ensuring that we provide a quality provision. I share that concern.

My Lords, I was not suggesting that someone would be better off unemployed than in a dead-end job. I was saying that, from the point of view of the Bill, they would be better off unemployed because they would get proper education and guided learning rather than low-quality education and guided learning entirely at the workstation. Does my noble friend accept that nothing, but nothing in the amendment suggests that learning at the workplace is not desirable? All it suggests is that, on top of learning at the workstation, there needs to be some learning outside the workplace.

My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that that is not the purpose of the amendment, but it would specify that the 280 hours of guided learning has to be in that form. I was trying to make the point that if people in that age range are in employment, there is a better chance of ensuring that they will receive accredited learning and proper training. Regardless of the type of job, the Bill will provide a real improvement.

My noble friend Lady Morris said that we need to be clear what the Bill requires and that simply accrediting existing skills without teaching or learning would in no way meet the requirements of the Bill. I will consider my noble friend’s point whether, in the specific case of employers who provide and fund the accredited training themselves, we need to do more to satisfy ourselves that the requirements are adhered to in practice. That could involve an increased and more proactive role for local authorities in verifying what is happening when a young person is registered as participating in employer-funded training and checking that a course is being followed. When a course of study leading to a qualification is being publicly funded, both the relevant funding body and Ofsted would have responsibility for ensuring that the appropriate number of guided learning hours was delivered and that the quality of learning experience was high. Mechanisms are in place for these organisations to require improvement if they have concerns about the guided learning conforming to the requirements of the Bill.

I say to my noble friend Lord Layard that, in the pursuit of happiness, a subject on which he is an expert, our officials met him five times. I was present on at least one of those occasions to see whether we could reach an understanding. I regrettably cannot announce peace in our time, but nevertheless we have had a serious exchange of views and I understand his concerns. I am grateful to him for raising these important issues and to all who have contributed to the debate.

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his consideration of the points that I raised on non-government funded courses. I heard him say the word “consider” with some force. Can he say whether further amendments will be tabled on Third Reading or whether he was referring to existing, perhaps secondary, legislation? If the latter, will the guidance be statutory or non-statutory?

My Lords, if I were expert enough to give a precise assurance on that I would; but I can assure my noble friend that we will take it away and write to everyone concerned on what we will do in the circumstances I described as being under active consideration.

I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Layard for raising these issues. I hope he is reassured that the clause will not allow employers to avoid providing actual learning to young people. We are equally committed to ensuring the quality of the learning experience for young people. We will be monitoring and reviewing the situation, as I am sure he will be, and I do not rule out further dialogue. In the light of those assurances I hope that he will withdraw the amendment.

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his reply and for his offer of further dialogue, which would be fruitful as there are still a number of points that have not been fully clarified. On that basis I am willing to withdraw the amendment, though we will want to raise it again on Third Reading if we are not satisfied with the dialogue process. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 not moved.]

My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned and, in moving the Motion, I suggest that Report begin again not before 3 pm.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

asked Her Majesty’s Government what is their assessment of arrangements for the funding of British sport.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the funding of sport currently falls into three distinct areas: elite sport, funded by UK Sport; mass participation in communities, funded by Sport England; and schools funding, which is helped by the Youth Sport Trust, which gets no outside funding, and the DCSF.

In 1994 the National Lottery was started by John Major and the last Conservative Government. Four funding bodies were set up: the Millennium Commission, and bodies for sport, for charities and for arts. Let us look at what Her Majesty’s Government have done with this legacy and how it has affected the funding of sport over their 10 years in office.

Looking first at the recent Olympic successes, I point out that grass-roots and elite cycling has received £49.8 million in lottery funds and £18.6 million from the Exchequer since 1997; that is 73 per cent lottery. Since 1997, swimming has received £332.8 million in lottery funds and £14.2 million from the Exchequer; that is 96 per cent lottery. For the Paralympics, lottery funding of disabled sports, NGBs and competitors has been more than six times the Exchequer funding since 1997—£72.7 million versus £11.6 million.

Interestingly, the average age of a GB medal winner in Beijing was 28 and the average age of gold medal winners was 26. All their schooling and early training would have been under the previous Conservative Administration.

Funding of sport is down since 1997. Raids on the lottery for government pet projects have seen total spending on sport decline by £135 million—that is 25 per cent since 1997. More than 80 per cent of grass-roots and elite sports grants have come from the National Lottery. Poor budgeting is costing us our sporting legacy. The Government’s budget miscalculations and further lottery raids will cost sports distributors £70 million. Fifty-eight per cent of UK Sport grants and 83 per cent of Sport England grants come from lottery funds.

Some 800,000 children still do not get two hours of sport per week and 2.1 million children do no competitive sport. The Government were going to appoint 450 competition managers, one for every school sport partnership. Mr Burnham reannounced that they would be appointing 225.

Elite sport is funded in the UK through UK Sport. This is currently a mix of National Lottery—58 per cent—and Exchequer funding, with the vast majority of the latter coming on stream following the announcement of additional funding for 2012 in 2006.

UK Sport currently invests about £100 million per year in Olympic and Paralympic success. Around 85 per cent of this money goes direct to the world-class programmes of national governing bodies to fund and support their athlete programmes, including coaching, sport science and medicine, clothing and equipment, international travel, et cetera, as well as the athlete personal award, which contributes to each athlete’s living and sporting costs.

The funding submission, which the Government went for in 2005-06, required an additional £300 million of funding from 2006 through to 2012, taking the overall budget to £600 million. The Chancellor’s announcement was for a further £300 million but stated that £100 million of that would be raised by private investment. I wonder where that is.

UK Sport now needs to give certainty to sports for their funding for the London Olympiad between 2009 and 2013 so that they can plan and build on the back of Beijing by recruiting and retaining the best coaches, medics, et cetera for the next four years. UK Sport will make all its funding decisions at its board meeting in early December. At that time it will therefore require certainty over the amount of money available to be invested, as the board will only invest what it knows to be available. At the moment, it is able to confirm only £20 million. That has been embedded into lottery forecasts for the period, although this has not been confirmed yet by Camelot. Therefore it is looking at a shortfall of funding of £80 million. Obviously that would impact on its ability to fund sports and to support them with appropriate services over the period.

The DCMS has responsibility for raising the £100 million. It has taken on Fast Track and is developing a scheme called Medal Hopes to raise money against the World Class Events Programme, and, in particular, the athletes funded on it. Since 2006 the Government have stated that they should plan on the basis of a £600 million mission and that is what they have done. Nothing at the moment is confirmed, however, and there continues to be close work with the DCMS on this to ensure that by December we have certainty of necessary resources to make funding decisions, but we are only five weeks away.

On drugs and the national anti-doping organisation, in December last year UK Sport made a recommendation for a new stand-alone agency, which the Government welcomed. Since then, it has been building up the business case and working with the DCMS to understand both the transition and running costs involved. The challenge remains in securing the funding for this and ensuring that the new organisation is able to be world-leading and world-class, with full case-management and investigatory powers, well in time for 2012. I wonder where the money is. The Conservative Party has always fully supported the creation of a fully independent anti-doping agency. Her Majesty’s Government must ensure that it is fully funded so that the UK becomes a world leader in the fight against drugs.

Lottery funding has been crucial to the success of Team GB in Beijing. Since the Athens Olympics in 1996, 58 per cent of grants to elite sport have come from the National Lottery. With regard to Sport England’s strategy, changing directions in the past has been detrimental. Various funding strategies and lack of long-term funding and vision has caused a stop-start approach to plans to boost mass participation. Conservatives have always favoured an NGB-centred strategy to drive up mass participation. Sport England should act as the bank and the auditor of sports funding and leave the NGBs to distribute funding accordingly.

Eighty-three per cent of grants going into grass-roots sport have come from the lottery this year. The total going into grass-roots sport now is £135 million less than it was in 1997. As a direct result of Gordon Brown’s raid on lottery cash, lottery funding going into grass-roots sport has fallen by nearly 50 per cent, from £397 million in 1997 to £209 million in 2006. Due to the Olympic raids, sport now gets only 13.5 per cent of lottery funding. About £70 million has been diverted from grass-roots sport to pay for the Olympic overspend.

The Youth Sport Trust is responsible for young people’s participation in and enjoyment of sport. It receives no government funding. The Youth Sport Trust plays a central role in supporting the Department for Children, Schools and Families and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport in the delivery of the PE and sport strategy for young people. The overall aim of the PE and sport strategy is to enhance the take-up of sporting opportunities by five to 16-year-olds; we believe this to be vital.

The emphasis should be placed on primary schools. Those enthused in sport between the ages of seven and 11 are much more likely to continue playing it in later life. The Government must invest in physical education training during initial teacher training. Currently, 60 per cent of primary school PE teachers have less than six hours’ training in a year. This does not provide teachers with the confidence and capability to teach quality PE.

On 13 July 2007, Gordon Brown announced a new target for children’s participation in sport. This stated a goal to give every child the chance of five hours of sport every week; yet this was originally included in Labour’s 2005 manifesto, on page 95:

“Investment in school sports will ensure that by 2010 all children will receive two hours high-quality PE or sport per week. Building on that, we pledge that by 2010 every child who wants it will have access to a further two to three hours sport per week”.

We know that we have not got that.

The Conservative policy is to return the lottery to its four original pillars and release an extra £400 million into elite and grass-roots sport in the decade following 2012. We would use this extra money to drive increases in participation through the national governing bodies. We would give funding directly to the NGBs to increase mass participation within their sports. The Conservatives would use SNGBs to drive improvements in sport and release more money back into sport by driving down administration costs of the lottery distributors. Those involved in governing bodies distributing funds will know very well what opportunities there are. On the CASC scheme, we will increase funding to sports clubs by introducing gift aid relief on junior subscriptions. If the lottery had been left in the configuration intended by John Major and the Conservative Party, the previous decade could have been a fantastic one for sports funding.

My Lords, I hope that I will be forgiven for leaving the Chamber before the end of the debate. I have discussed this with the noble Lords, Lord Glentoran and Lord Davies of Oldham. I have to be in Manchester for a sporting event, which I promised I would attend. I had thought that the previous debate would be shorter.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, for initiating the debate. Having spent a great deal of time with him when I was a Minister in Northern Ireland, I might say that I consider him to be a friend. However, after that speech, perhaps I will revise my Christmas-card list. Seriously, as we share a common attachment to sport, we often take part in debates in this House.

We are once again addressing the vital issue of funding sport in this country. In 1997, the Government promised a high level of commitment to sport. They promised international sporting events and initiatives that would enable and inspire young athletes. To a large extent, they have delivered on that promise and can be proud of the events that this country has hosted: events such as the rugby world cup, the Champions League final, the cricket world cup and the 2002 Commonwealth Games. I am sure that these would never have taken place without the active assistance of the Government.

Looking to the future, we will be hosting the 2012 Olympics and, if our bid is successful, the football world cup, which the Prime Minister is actively pursuing alongside the bid for the 2014 Commonwealth Games in Glasgow. So the Government have demonstrated their commitment to the nation as regards sport. The phenomenal success in Beijing was the biggest medal haul since 1912; a total of 47 medals, 19 of which were gold. The Paralympic Games boasted incredible success, too, with more than 100 medals. Those successes are the icing on the cake but, in my view, every cake needs a cherry and that cherry will be London 2012.

The task now is to match or improve on that total at the London Olympic and Paralympic Games. Praise is due to the noble Lord, Lord Coe, and his team’s great efforts in winning the 2012 bid. In part, it is testimony to Britain’s superb facilities and history as a host of world-class events. I am sure that all noble Lords will want to congratulate him on becoming a sports personality award winner and a Knight of the British Empire.

However, we all realise that the credit crunch and the downturn in the economy will impinge on the ability to give as much cash as the Government and the Olympic bodies would wish. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport has announced a new national sponsorship scheme called Medal Hopes. It is intended to offer UK business national, regional and local authorities the opportunity to support British athletes as they prepare for 2012.

The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, the chairman of the British Olympic Association, has said that we need a full four-year programme so that we can attract the best coaches and performance directors at the high market price which most of them rightly demand. If we do not, many other countries will poach them from us. The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, was right in saying that the main reason for our recent success lies in the investment put in place by the National Lottery. However, if he were to read the debates—I led for the Labour Party in the other place on the lottery—he would see that most of the thrust for changes for sport came from the opposition Benches. Of course, there is the Exchequer cash for both the Olympic and Paralympic Games.

There is more to be done before 2012, as a number of sports did not figure in the medal tables. UK Sport, the body responsible for helping to maximise the performance of all sports, recognises that it will not be easy to achieve. Its ambitions and ours will require a certainty of funding, but also leadership and consistency of approach. To this end, UK Sport has developed Mission 2012, a means of monitoring each element of performance and assessing potential danger areas. It will encourage sports bodies to stay actively aware of how their system is performing and to be creative in problem-solving.

Winning the bid for London means that the international spotlight will be on London and our home-grown elite athletes, but it also comes with a duty to inspire those at all sporting levels to get involved. We will host the Games in world-class venues such as Wembley, Wimbledon, Lord’s and the Dome. However, we must also ensure that we make local venues and facilities accessible nationwide.

There are measures that must be taken at the grassroots level. The CCPR acts to promote sport and recreation as part of a healthy society. As such, it is campaigning for gift aid to be made available on subscription to community amateur sports clubs. I hope that noble Lords will join in this campaign, as I pledge so to do. Gift aid would mean that it would gain 28p in every pound. This applies to subscriptions to the National Trust and the Youth Hostelling Association and would be of enormous support to local sports clubs. With £538.4 million diverted from community sport to pay for the London 2012 Olympics, it needs all the help it can get.

Sport England has announced its strategy for the next five years, and pledged £800 million in community sport, a major contributor to the Government’s commitment to five hours of sport per week for five to 19 year-olds. Sport England has set itself quantifiable targets to reduce the number of youngsters who leave sport post-16. This will help to lay the foundations of the Olympic legacy. It should be noted that any negligence to cater for the vast majority of people who are disengaged from competitive sport will prove costly in the long run. Elite success is predicated on mass participation and it is crucial that we, as a country, continue to promote mass participation in physical activity in its broadest sense. If Sport England is to focus entirely on sport, other government departments, specifically the Department of Health, need to promote the wider participation agenda.

Those of us who are lovers of sport recognise a great opportunity to boost national pride in our sporting heritage. After all, we gave the world many of the sports that took place in Beijing. It is now our duty to ensure that the enormous hopes and talents we brought home from Beijing are not jeopardised in future.

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Glentoran for securing this debate and congratulate him on his excellent presentation. The enjoyment of sport is a near universal activity that transcends differences between human beings. It is hard to come across anybody who has not been touched by sport at some point in his or her life. Sport brings people together and occupies a key part in the lives of many people across all countries and sectors. A love of sport is shared globally, and pride in the successful performance of particular teams can be a strong unifying factor in any community.

At a time when the economic outlook appears grim, people will instinctively turn towards sport as a means to exercise some of their frustrations and to raise their spirits. Governments have rightly been encouraging more people to engage in sporting activity as part of a healthy lifestyle. We cannot, however, avoid the fundamental truth that there is a considerable reduction in participation in sport between the ages of 16 and 18 and when moving into adulthood. That is why promoting and facilitating grassroots sport is so important. Although a number of initiatives have been developed, I want to pay particular tribute to the work of the Rugby Football Union in taking action to promote its sport through the Go Play Rugby initiative. The success of that effort has been rehearsed in other forums, but I want to repeat that it is a good example of how best to re-engage people who may have lost touch with regular sporting activity. We need to learn from its experience and apply the lessons more widely.

Another key example can be found in the England and Wales Cricket Board, whose investment has significantly increased the number of children and adults playing cricket at grassroots level, and that has had an impact on performance at elite levels. County cricket clubs are better able to choose high-quality players when the pool of people playing the game is increased.

It is very difficult to debate a subject such as the Olympics without also reflecting on funding. The unfolding chaos in the Government's approach to the 2012 Olympic Games is a clear demonstration of that point. I share the concerns stated by the shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport that the Government's use of lottery funds to pay for the 2012 Olympics, largely as a result of their dithering on how best to leverage private sector investment, will have regrettable consequences for sport at the grassroots.

I would be grateful if in his reply to this debate the Minister would assure the House that sports such as rugby union, cricket and netball will not lose out as a consequence of the Olympic Games. There is very real concern on this point, and it would be most helpful if the Minister could clarify the Government's position.

I wish to focus my contribution this afternoon on the funding of grassroots sport and specifically on what could be done to the taxation regime to facilitate investment in grassroots sport. Whatever delight and success may be achieved as a consequence of the Olympic Games in London in under four years' time, if the price to be paid is reductions in resources available to local and community sports clubs we should ask whether that is really a course that we should want to progress.

The interests of specific sports are, by and large, protected and promoted by national governing bodies, such as the England and Wales Cricket Board, the Rugby Football Union and so on. The taxation regime that they face is identical to that of companies, with this exception: national governing bodies do not obtain tax relief for expenditure on grassroots sport development, which is comparable to a company's research and development expenditure. As a consequence, sport governing bodies are taxed on their investment in grassroots sport activity and have to bear the burden of the administrative costs incurred in achieving tax compliance, which is a rather complicated regime.

On that basis, I wonder whether the Minister would consider granting statutory tax relief for grassroots sport expenditure by national governing bodies. If, as seems reasonable, economic circumstances are going to make investment complicated, we should be examining options to facilitate the actions of national governing bodies in delivering grassroots sport activities in local communities. Another potential solution would be a corporation tax exemption for national governing bodies. A recent study has calculated that the cost of a tax exemption would be between £5 million and £10 million a year and would significantly reduce the amount of time spent by governing bodies on tax planning, compliance and payment. A recent study conducted by Deloitte found that, of the 26 European Union states that responded, all except the United Kingdom provided either a tax exemption or special relief to national governing bodies. Effectively, sport bodies in other countries across Europe do not pay corporation tax.

One argument advanced is that sport governing bodies should establish charities in order to benefit from the tax advantages afforded to them. The economic benefits of this route are, however, dubious. The time and costs associated with running a charity are considerable, possibly as much as £5 million a year for national governing bodies. Not all grassroots expenditure would meet the strict definition of charitable expenditure, and charities are unable to reclaim value-added tax, which may result in a substantial VAT bill. I understand that a number of national governing bodies have been in regular communication with the Government to press this point, with limited response.

Given that we are entering difficult times, sports bodies have genuine concern about their revenue streams. We have to acknowledge that the Olympic Games could prove more expensive than originally anticipated, particularly given the failure of the Government effectively to engage with the private sector. The stories that abound of sports professionals awash with money are not reflected in the experience of those involved at grassroots level. The National Lottery is increasingly being used to pay for projects that the Government deem worthy, and the original intentions are being undermined. In those circumstances, I urge the Minister to revisit what could be done with the tax system to assist sport governing bodies, and I very much look forward to his response to this debate.

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, for raising this subject. I have always felt that sports funding is rather a Cinderella subject—at least, it has been in the past—because it is the thorn around the rose. It is the thing you do not want to grasp, or the thing that will always come back and bite you. As the noble Lord pointed out in his opening speech, the lottery has covered up what was, shall we say, the refusal by Governments to take this subject seriously for many years. There was a culture of not taking sport seriously. When the lottery was set up, however, I remember the discussion was that it was supposed to be for three good causes. So, whoever took the knife to cut the lottery cake first, it is undoubtedly true that the present Government have taken many more little slices here and there.

Those slices may be for very good causes, and we would not want to be in the middle of a coffin-waving contest over whether we should have research into somebody dying of cancer rather than a playing field, because everyone now admits that we can ultimately come back to this fact: many cancers are stopped or made less frequent by good sporting activity. We have a counter-productive argument there, one that is circular but which we often refuse to acknowledge as being so. If we take only part of that arc, how do we go from here?

Whatever the problem with the Olympics—and I appreciate that there is one about resources being transferred—they have given a seriousness to the discussion of sport that was not there before. That is undeniable to anyone who has followed the subject, and non-Olympic sports are feeling that they should up their game to try to get in on the edges. I will plead again that rugby sevens should have been included, as it is a wonderful day at a sporting event. I base that on the 2002 Commonwealth Games, which were probably why we have got the Olympics, for after a series of disasters—let us remember Pickett’s Lock, if we are trying to be as fair as possible—we proved that we could do it. Where do we go from here?

If we accept that private sector funding will be much more difficult to obtain in the foreseeable future, and that the lottery cannot cover everything, we must try to tie in what is going on. To give the Government some praise—of course, it will only be half-hearted, but that is why the Minister is there—the new policy from the Department of Health builds in greater physical activity, but what does it mean by that? If there is greater activity, is that sport? Reading some of the policy documents and information we have had so far, I do not think that it knows. Are we telling the Department of Health, “You should make sure that there are enough facilities for recreational sport or casual exercise, within certain parts of government such as local authorities, and you are now the gatekeeper on that level of investment and maintenance”? That is the logical extension of bringing in that department.

I have spoken about this subject before, but are we telling the Department of Health that sports medicine should be pushed further up the pile to ensure better access so that injured people, if they have had some form of accident but have neither a great deal of money available nor access to the top echelons of a sporting body, can get their bodies repaired so that they can carry on playing sport? One contributing factor in sport being played more by the middle classes than by those from traditional working-class backgrounds is that if you take part in work that uses your body, you will be less keen to risk damaging it. Why? Because many people with whom I played rugby gave it up after the third time of not being able to put weight on their knee for two weeks. It threatened their mortgage payments. That does not occur to many people who have not been there, but there it is.

How do we tie this all together? After scanning through websites to find out exactly what this new initiative means, I am not sure. There is talk of healthy weight, then talk of the body mass index. I will refer back to a nice, 10-minute rant that I had about that being a medical thing that appears in every doctor’s charts but does not take into account that muscle is heavier than fat. You can thus be an extremely fit athlete and have stopped yourself from being a less fit person, yet have gained considerable weight. Are they taking it seriously? Are they tuned in enough to do that? I suggest that people need to address that slightly more closely. What will they actually take on, and what are they going to do? I should greatly appreciate it if the Minister could give us the first hint today about how that thinking is going on and what is being encouraged.

There is also an incredible number of departments involved. We all know that it is one thing for Ministers to say, “There shall be co-operation in Whitehall”; it is quite another to get people actually to co-operate. Everyone has their own primary objectives within their own department, which we see—let us be honest—in the bids for which gets a Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, is not here, but I am sure that while his experience in fighting for territory, which inspired “Yes Minister”, may have changed a little, it will probably not have done so by much. We have to try to see how those departments are brought together to address this issue.

On some more specific points, I was going to talk about amateur sports clubs, but the noble Lord, Lord Sheikh, has done us a service by taking that on and asking: if there is a level of taxation, how do we fit in? We do not know. The noble Lord, Lord Pendry, spoke about Gift Aid, but the thing about that is that it has covered up many cracks in our sporting culture. The amateur sports club has survived in spite of what government—generally, and not government by any particular party—have done to it, not because of that. Over time, the current Government have acknowledged that the clubs are a great asset and should be supported, but it is also fair to say that they have taken a lot of pushing to get there.

Generally, this Government can stand up and say, “We have done more in this field than anybody before us”. The answer is, “So you should have, because you are there now with the knowledge”. The same responsibility will fall on any future Government, who should carry on being able to make that boast. What are we to do about that, and can we refer across again? I understand that the Learning and Skills Council no longer funds coaching courses to get people out there. If ever there was something counter-intuitive to much of the Government’s approach of bringing government together, that is it. You are not giving as much funding towards your coaching courses, which allow your people to take part in a positive and safe way. It also makes sure that you have control over what goes on in the sport, to encourage greater participation in and enjoyment of it. Moreover, you have removed funding because it did not fit another government target about getting people skills for employment, and for the young. That was a laudable aim, but how do you bring the two together until there are employment opportunities—not as many as for skills levels in coaching, perhaps—when you have contradicted yourselves?

I could go on like this for some considerable time—but only, I see, for another minute-and-a-half—yet the fact of the matter is that the Government are making moves and noises that sound about right. What guarantees will they give that they will make real efforts to ensure that all parts of government talk to each other about sport funding, that there are to be no more cuts into the lottery cake in the foreseeable future, and that we can start to say that spending to support activity, for instance, in the Department of Health, will support sport? We will thus make sure that sports funding is guaranteed and increased, to help that department, rather than saying “Well, if the Department of Health is doing it, we will cut sport because we are already doing it twice”, for double-minus counting is still double counting.

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this brief debate, and particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, for introducing it. I thank my noble friend Lord Pendry, who is under enormous pressure because of his obligations to sport elsewhere in the country, for his contribution. I am sorry that he is taking the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, off his Christmas list and hope that relationships will be re-established by then. I am not taking the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, off my Christmas list but, like my noble friend Lord Pendry, I was shocked by the nature of the challenge put forward by the noble Lord. He suggested that all was doom and gloom in government policy in relation to sport and that we had a fairly blasted landscape in the area of sporting achievement. That is not correct, so let us be absolutely clear about the facts.

If we look at what the situation was in 1996, we certainly see a different position today. I remind the House that at the Atlanta Olympics we won only nine gold medals. If the noble Lord is saying that the extraordinary achievement of our athletes to win 19 gold medals and finish fourth in the medals table in the recent Olympics is down to their efforts and their coaches primarily, I agree with him wholeheartedly. If he is saying that government funding has a part to play, I agree with him on that too. If therefore we have four times the achievement in the Olympic Games in 2008 compared with 1996, which was at the end of a two decade period of Conservative rule, I can say only that our record compares very favourably with that.

On school sport, the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, berated me because the Government have not yet hit their target of five hours of sport and exercise for children. However, that target relates to 2010 and, like all government targets, it is an ambitious one.

Two hours.

Two hours. But in the past decade we have seen a substantial increase in the number of hours available to children for exercise. The noble Lord identified the minority of children who are not getting two hours, sport and exercise a week; but 90 per cent of our children are. When his party was last in power it was 20 per cent.

The sale of school playing fields was rife under the previous Administration. We have put a stop to that. On the few occasions when playing fields are sold because of development possibilities or because they are substandard, it is on the strict condition that sporting facilities must be enhanced as a result of the sale. As we all know, through the 1980s and early 1990s, there was a massive reduction in the availability of facilities and playing fields for our schoolchildren.

On swimming, it is now the case that 61 per cent of the country’s total swimming stock and 52 per cent of public sector swimming pools have been built or refurbished since 1996 and the Government are now able to talk in terms of guaranteeing the over-60s free access to swimming pools. What a contrast with the perspective that we had when we came to power. So the charges of the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, against the Government’s record on sport are ill founded.

I have listened carefully during the debate for suggestions on where we might get extra resources for sport. Having some responsibility as a government spokesman in this area, I am always eager to see how we can enhance opportunities for our people. I share with the whole House and everyone who has participated in the debate the sense of importance that sport represents in terms of opportunities for our people and for the health of our people. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, will recognise that health is not to be the lead department. In fact, the co-ordinating role for the onslaught on obesity is held by the Treasury as the funder; we have made clear that the Treasury has to have a role in this. But health has the statistics which measure the levels of obesity in the country, particularly among children, and it must play its part if we are going to make a successful onslaught on what we all recognise is one of the worst features of our children’s development. In western societies with ready access to the wrong kinds of food, we have levels of obesity which lead to ill health subsequently and are a significant factor in the difficulties faced by children. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, will recognise that the co-ordinated strategy involving the budgets of departments other than the DCMS is of significant importance.

I listened for ideas on how to obtain extra resources and two sources were suggested. The noble Lord, Lord Sheikh, said that we should look for a way in which we could exempt sports clubs from VAT. That is not an easy issue to advance and at the same time to suggest that it would not be a demand on public resources. Although it does not represent public expenditure, the withdrawal of such VAT would represent a significant reduction in government receipts, which is the other side of the ledger. We have been more concerned to promote schemes, particularly relationships with sports clubs, which yield grass-roots success.

The noble Lord, Lord Addington, said that sports clubs have filled the gap which society has otherwise left. That is not how I look upon sports clubs. Sport will always be a voluntary activity; the majority of organisations providing local and community sport will be voluntary ones. Would we want anything else? The only alternative would look dreadfully like state centralism and I shudder at the very concept. Of course sport at a local level is going to be voluntary; the question is how we can, through public resources, encourage the successful development of that voluntary activity and aid sports clubs which play such a significant role in this.

Before the Summer Recess we debated in the Moses Room aspects of rugby union with regard to this factor. We have had debates in which we have discussed giving sportsmen chances to shine and a mix of government matching private resources to give opportunities to young cricketers. An intelligent way is to advance government resources to encourage partnerships between schools and private clubs. This is an absolutely crucial link to forge and one which a decade or so ago reflected a marked discontinuity which we have sought to bridge. We are concerned to give help to clubs, support in terms of resources for professional coaching and links between clubs and schools in order to overcome exactly the issue to which the noble Lord, Lord Sheikh, drew attention.

The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, berated the Government for their failure to produce the necessary resources, but we have provided four times the resources for Sport England than obtained in 1996-97. So when he berates the limited resources at the present time, let us put that into the context of the resources that were available in the past.

I listened for suggestions on the crucial issue of where the resources should come from, and what did I get from the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran? Having berated the Government for having raided the lottery, he suggested better organised use of lottery funds. What else did I get? That we should cut red tape and the administrative costs of the lottery. By heavens, the last refuge of the Conservative politician is to talk about admin costs and red tape, and then to reflect exactly the way in which the Government have been addressing the issue of sport in this country, with no new policy prescription whatever. I reject the point made by the noble Lord.

I recognise that the Olympic Games are an important cost in the sporting arena and that inevitably there will be pressures on community sport as a result of our determination to make the Olympic Games a huge success, but let us be clear about a number of things. In terms of sporting recognition for the nation, hosting the great and successful Olympic Games of 2012 will do more to boost interest and participation in sport than pretty well anything else that we can conceive of. We are right to concentrate our efforts on making sure that the Games are successful, and on making sure that British athletes are equal to the challenge which, inevitably, competition at Olympic level requires.

I make absolutely no apology for concentrating resources on elite athletes. I take pride, as, I am sure the whole House does, in the achievements of our Olympic gold, silver and bronze medallists, and indeed other competitors who acquitted themselves extraordinarily well at the Olympic and Paralympic Games this last year, giving a great lift to the nation. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, that we must have due regard to community sport. I recognise that we need to make sure that Sport England is equipped to play its full role in that respect. We guarantee that Sport England will have a greater budget over this forthcoming three-year period than it has enjoyed in the past. We recognise the limitations of that body, which has expansive plans and opportunities, and wants to fulfil its role in those terms. It has behind it a Government with a decade of significant achievement in sport. At the end of the day, this is not the responsibility of government, but the responsibility of sportsmen and women up and down the land, to whom we ought to pay tribute.

I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 3 pm.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

[The Sitting was suspended from 2.52 to 3 pm.]

moved Amendment No. 11:

My Lords, my name is added to that of the noble Baroness, Lady Howe of Idlicote, in supporting the amendment. The noble Baroness mentioned Article 12 of the UN convention. In addition, Article 4 requires the Government to undertake all appropriate legislative measures for the implementation of the convention’s provisions. This is a call for legislation, not just to spread best practice.

The children’s Minister recently accepted the Government’s obligations under the convention, saying:

“We have an obligation under international law to ensure that the rights set out in the convention are given effect”.—[Official Report, Commons Public Bill Committee, 24/6/08; col. 45.]

Legislation is clearly required here, given the gap that the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, has mentioned.

As the noble Baroness said, there was some criticism that our previous amendment was a little too prescriptive, and we have tried to respond to that. There are many ways in which schools—at least, those which demonstrate best practice—very effectively listen to the voices of children and give their views due weight. I would like to give one example of the way in which that is done. In doing so, I declare an interest as a trustee of UNICEF UK.

I refer to the Rights Respecting Schools programme. If any of your Lordships have not visited such a school, I think that they would find it very inspiring to do so. I have visited them at primary and, more recently, at secondary level, at an Andover school. I have never been to schools where the children are so empowered, happy, inspired and engaged in their education. That is because they really are valued, not just by the support staff and the teachers but because they value and respect each other. That respect is built on their understanding of their rights under the convention. Their rights are very overt in the curriculum and, as a result of those rights, so are their duties and responsibilities to each other. It makes for a happy school, high-quality learning and responsible and well adjusted young people; and it can only be to the advantage of everybody that young people grow up in schools such as those.

That is just one way of involving young people and taking account of their views and, while it is one of the best ways, it is not the only one. That is why our amendment is not prescriptive. I welcome the fact that since we had our debate about this in Committee, the Equality and Human Rights Commission has supported our amendment. It says that Article 12 of the UN convention, which covers respect for the views of the child, states that when adults are making decisions that affect children, children have the right to say what they think should happen and have their opinion taken into account.

The commission believes that this amendment will help to protect that right. So we hope that the Government, who have made great strides in listening more to the views of children and giving them their rights under the convention, will listen to the calls on all sides for this right to be heard to be enshrined in UK legislation. This Bill is the first opportunity we have had in legislation to put into effect what the Committee on the Rights of the Child called for in its report of 3 October, so I hope that we will take this opportunity.

My Lords, I am not sure whether the noble Lord, Lord Young, is going to reply, but it rather looks as though he is. Perhaps I may take the first opportunity that I have had to welcome him to his new post and to wish him the greatest success in it. I hope that, by joining the list of people with whom he has to deal, I have slightly reduced the height of the fence that he feels he has to jump.

I apologise to your Lordships, first, for not having attached my name to this amendment and, secondly, for, with disgracefully bad manners, tabling an amendment after today’s Marshalled List had been printed, both of which I deplore. Unfortunately, three and a half of the past 10 days of my life have been wiped out by a virus. In the haste to catch up with other things that have become undone in that time, some things to do with this Bill have fallen by the wayside.

I support the amendment. It has already been demonstrated that the Government are under a legal obligation to include a provision of this kind in the Bill. That bears repeating: they are under a legal obligation to do so, as the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, made clear. I shall add only a grace note or two to what has been said already. The benefits of consulting children are obvious when they are drawn into the process, but they lie elsewhere as well. The noble Baroness, Lady Howe, did not mention the exercise, which she mentioned to me earlier, whereby an education authority consulted children about the architectural design of their school. It learnt a great deal of valuable material from it; in particular, ways of avoiding little secret places in which small children could be bullied by bigger children. Lower down the age range, it is very useful for a six-foot architect to be talked to by a three-foot child about what it is like to be in a room designed by the six-foot architect. These things are very valuable.

It is an opportune moment to mention that the Government are engaged with rather less publicity than one might have expected in a 15-year programme of pulling down almost all the schools that exist and replacing them. If there was ever a moment when children’s advice was terrifically needed, it is now, and this amendment, therefore, or something very like it, should go straight into the Bill.

My Lords, the amendment, as the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, pointed out, was moved in a slightly longer form in Committee by my noble friend Lord Elton. My noble friend Lady Morris then agreed that it was desirable to take the views of children into account, but sounded a note of caution that it would not do to lay down to every school how they should go about it. The amendment has been tailored to meet that small concern and I am happy to offer my support for it.

We have argued, sometimes—quite rightly—at length, that one of the biggest obstacles to getting young people to continue in education is the lack of engagement that some feel. It is quite right, therefore, that schools and local education authorities make an effort to encourage such engagement. Of course, there may be concerns about giving a veto to mischievous children, but I think that the wording of this amendment avoids that risk. I agree with the spirit of the noble Baroness’s arguments.

My Lords, I am sure that the whole House will agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, that the voice of pupils and young people is extremely important. This Government are committed to involving young people as widely as possible in matters which affect them.

We make decisions that impact on children and young people every day. Ensuring that their views are heard and valued not only has the potential to improve services for young people, as the noble Lord, Lord Elton, pointed out, but has a positive impact on the school environment and the local community.

Through effective pupil participation, schools give young people the opportunity to develop critical thinking, advocacy and influencing skills, helping every child to fulfil their potential. This is clearly very positive, and the Government seek to encourage it.

My Lords, I am pretty disappointed with the Minister’s reply. Having done exactly what the previous Minister in charge of the Bill required by taking away the prescriptive requirements for exactly how the obligations should be carried out, I should have thought that the Government would have been more than pleased to adopt what is suggested. It surprises me that a number of noble Lords seem to think that there is a legal requirement to put this into practice under the Bill, and that this right has to be adhered to by schools, local authorities and governing bodies. In Scotland, children have had this right since 2000 and there has been no problem there at all. Indeed, Wales and Scotland have a much better record in this respect. Are we really prepared to be second to them in how we carry out legislative requirements?

All I can say is that I am very disappointed, as I had expected a much more sympathetic response. I do not mind at all being told that certain words or commas are wrong and that the amendment should be taken away and redone, but we made it clear that children would be consulted in accordance with their age and maturity. We obviously do not intend that children should be consulted who cannot give any form of constructive reply that makes any sense.

I shall for the moment withdraw the amendment because, not expecting anything but warm encouragement, I had not even bothered to think in terms of dividing the House. However, there may well be a need to do so at Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 11 [Educational Institutions: promotion of good attendance:]

moved Amendment No. 12:

My Lords, in Committee the Minister raised the issue of good attendance while addressing Amendment No. 12, and we on these Benches agreed that it seemed inconsistent to list on the face of the Bill only some of the institutions that are to have a duty to promote good attendance but not others. When the Minister responded on this point, he made a somewhat less than watertight argument against the need to accept the amendment. He said that the city technology colleges,

“and the one city college for the technology of the arts are, without exception, successful schools with very high levels of post-16 participation from committed pupils with good attendance and behaviour, so we do not think it appropriate to extend the statutory duties to them”.—[Official Report, 3/7/08; col. 402.]

That raises two points.

First, I am sure that some if not all of the institutions listed in the Bill will be dismayed by the implication that they have been included because they are unsuccessful schools with uncommitted and poorly behaved pupils; in other words, they cannot be trusted in the same way as the Government’s handpicked favourites. I hope that that is not the message that the Government wish to send out.

Secondly, the exemption from being placed under a statutory duty seems to be based on a potentially ephemeral criterion. These colleges are successful now, and their current crop of students is currently committed, but will that always remain the case? What will happen if that fortunate situation changes? I can see the loophole in that argument opening up before our eyes.

I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, merely used a poor choice of words to express himself. However, the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, is right to seek clarification. I agree with her that the two words “and reasonable”, which would be inserted by Amendment No. 13, would improve the drafting of this clause. It may seem a trifling point. However, as my noble friend Lord Lucas said when he spoke in favour of the amendment in Committee, simply asking the local authority to do what is possible is not practical in a technical sense. A local education authority could go to any number of lengths to establish the identities of those who are not complying with the duty; but not all will be feasible. It is right that there should be a duty for local education authorities, but it must be reasonable and practical.

My Lords, I strongly support the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, on Amendment No. 12. It is time that the Government faced up to the problem of these funding agreements and put in primary legislation what they actually intend. We spent most of this morning saying that this is a flagship piece of legislation that will change the world and make life different for all young people between 14 and 19. It is essential to the economic prosperity and well-being of our nation. It is even more important now, given the economic recession that may be coming, that we make sure that this is as good as it can be.

Apparently, through all the debate, there has been a caveat that exempts 16 to 19 year-olds who go to city academies or other schools outlined in this amendment. I do not for a minute think that the Minister intends that this legislation should not apply to 16 to 19 year-olds who attend these schools; I would be amazed if she stood up and made that point. Presumably the answer is, “Well, we deal with that in a separate way, by making it part of the funding agreement”. However, there is no reason for a twin-track approach. These are publicly funded schools. Every penny of revenue funding for these schools comes from the taxpayer. Life has indeed changed, and the money that formerly was given by sponsors to support these schools—accounting for 10 per cent of the cost of academies—is now no longer given in most cases, and never did arrive in the case of city technology colleges 20 years ago. The first question for the Minister is, why should wholly publicly funded schools, that take in children who are funded under the same financial regulations as any other child attending a state school, not be subject to this flagship legislation?

The second is, can the Minister give your Lordships an example of any circumstance in which she or a ministerial colleague would negotiate a contract in which abiding by this legislation was not a part? If she can, I would be amazed. The truth is, by not including these schools in primary legislation, she gives the impression that there is a separate negotiating business deal going on; that she is prepared to sit down with the funder who is going to sign the sponsorship agreement and talk to him or her about whether this legislation should apply to children in their schools. I do not believe that she is going to do that.

The possible answer is, “Why do this? Why not just accept the funding agreement? You have accepted that what I intend will be implicit in this piece of legislation”. There are two reasons. I praise the Government, particularly under the leadership of the new Secretary of State, for trying, over the past 12 months, to draw academies and city technology colleges into the family of schools. Minor legislative changes have covered the teaching of core subjects of the national curriculum and admission arrangements that were included in the previous flagship Education Bill. The Secretary of State has been clear that academies will have to abide by these good things. I cannot think why the Government have not seized this opportunity to build on this, by making this the piece of legislation in which academies and city technology colleges are listed as institutions to which it will apply.

This is about transparency. In primary legislation, it is transparent to all parents and taxpayers that this legislation will apply to children in maintained schools. The funding agreement is secret. I am not even sure that it is published. It is certainly not amendable through representations by the public. I do not think that it is even covered by the Freedom of Information Act, but I will stand corrected if I am wrong on that. There is no way in which the voter, the taxpayer or parent of the pupil can have an input. I find it difficult to think of any of my political colleagues who can make a case for it being acceptable to put into this flagship piece of legislation a secret funding agreement, negotiated on a one-to-one basis behind closed doors rather than openly and transparently.

My final plea is that this legislation is not about schools, sponsors and the Government but, to my mind, about giving entitlement to young people. It gives entitlement to young citizens of this country between the ages of 16 and 19 to expect that we, as adults in this legislature, give them a right to high-quality education and training. Why are we creating a situation in the law of the land whereby this adult Parliament gives that right by primary legislation to all 16 to 19 year-olds apart from those who attend academies and city technology colleges? It is about time that the Government looked seriously at how they deal with these funding agreements. I am surprised that the Secretary of State has not taken the opportunity to do it now. I could not speak more strongly in favour of Amendment No. 12. It makes sense. We owe it to the 16 to 19 year-olds who will attend these schools, and their parents, to ensure that their entitlement and opportunities are defended in primary legislation, just as they are for every other 16 to 19 year-old.

My Lords, first, I apologise to noble Lords who did not receive a copy of my noble friend Lord Adonis’s letter to the noble Lord, Lord Elton. I am not sure why it did not get to other Members who participated in Committee. I shall ensure that that letter is circulated.

On the points on the use of the language to which that letter referred, we agree that we should limit the burdens on local authorities in general. Clause 12 forms a key part of the local authorities’ overarching duty to promote participation. It is clear that, for a local authority to fulfil its duty of promoting participation, it will need to know who is not participating and what is being done to re-engage them.

If the amendment were accepted, it would weaken that duty on local authorities and could lead to them failing to provide the necessary support to help some young people re-engage. While Clause 12 would require the local authority to go beyond what is merely reasonable, we intend to make clear in guidance the kind of arrangements that, if made, would be taken to satisfy the duty; that is exactly what the noble Baroness was asking about. There will be guidance to help local authorities understand exactly what is expected of them.

However, I also suspect that the difference between our interpretations of the use of this language is not as great as it seems. While many of us in this House are familiar with the term “reasonable” in legislation, as opposed to “possible”, I assure noble Lords that there are in excess of 200 examples on our statute books of the phrase in question. I have not counted them, but I am advised that this is the case. While there may be a fine distinction between the terms, an interpretation of what is possible—I cannot believe that I am saying this—would also encompass what is reasonable. Altering the wording as proposed in Amendment No. 13 would give the wrong impression to local authorities on the importance of the duty. We are concerned that suggesting that local authorities should not use their best endeavours would downplay the pivotal importance of identifying young people who have fallen out of the system.

On Amendment No. 12, I have received advice to reiterate strongly the words of my noble friend in Committee. He said we are requiring academies, through their funding agreements, to have regard to the same guidance as maintained schools on improving behaviour and attendance. I am hearing an impassioned plea that I should perhaps expand on those words in a more demanding fashion. I heard very clearly the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, and my noble friend Lady Morris that this House wishes to hear in a convincing tone our commitment to making sure that the Bill is there to benefit all children; that is exactly what we seek. I would be very happy, if given the opportunity, to come back and attempt to do that again for noble Lords.

My Lords, if my noble friend is to approach the funding agreements by saying, in even stronger words, that she would not under any circumstances negotiate a funding agreement with an academy that did not incorporate adherence to this legislation, would she also not wish during her time in office to make sure that no future Secretary of State could negotiate a funding agreement with an academy that meant that it did not have to follow the legislation? Perhaps she might reflect that the point of primary legislation means that, beyond her decisions in her office during her time as a Minister, the opportunities laid out in the legislation will be available to children and young people. I spoke in support of the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. I am not satisfied by a promise of just stronger words. Perhaps my noble friend might reflect on whether she might come back at Third Reading with a government amendment.

My Lords, I fully understand my noble friend’s interpretation of the purpose of legislation to create entitlements and commitment in perpetuity. That is very much what we are attempting to do through this landmark Bill, as it has been described. I certainly understand and hear very clearly the message she is giving me.

My Lords, the Minister and the House know that it is my life’s ambition to make life easy for this Government. Therefore, I suggest that instead of amending the ambition to have 400 academy funding agreements, it would be much easier to put it in legislation and add it to the list. The noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Yardley, has made a most telling point, which I failed to do, and I pay tribute to her for that; it is a matter of transparency and of how it looks. If the Government want academies to be seen to be giving the same rights and entitlements to 16 to 19 year-olds as everyone else, there is no reason why Amendment No. 12 should not be accepted. We will come back to this issue.

On Amendment No. 13, we are rather like angels dancing on the head of a pin but the Government seem to be saying that in guidance they are going to define what is possible. It is not possible in guidance to define what is possible, unless it is extremely long guidance. It is possible in guidance to define what is reasonable, and I recommend that the Minister think again about this. Guidance can certainly advise local authorities on the range of things they could put in place which the Government would regard as reasonable in carrying out this duty to identify young people who are not participating. I accept that they cannot carry out their other duties unless they know who the young people are, but it is not possible to define in guidance everything that it is possible for a local authority to do. If you do that, you are not defining what is reasonable. The Government might think they are limiting what a local authority would have to do but I think what they are proposing is actually broadening it and opening the cheque book that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, who is not in his place, has warned us about. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 12 [Duty to make arrangements to identify persons not fulfilling duty imposed by section 2]:

[Amendment No. 13 not moved.]

moved Amendment No. 14:

My Lords, we on these Benches very much share the Opposition’s reservations about the degree to which data are given proper protection but we do not agree with them in relation to all the provisions that they have written into this series of amendments. In particular, we agree with the argument put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, when we debated this matter in Committee: given the constituency of young people to whom this provision is addressed, it is unnecessarily bureaucratic to expect them to have given their written consent to this information being included.

However, we very much go along with Amendment No. 15, which requires that:

“Each educational institution shall, at the beginning of each academic year, write to every student attending its institution informing them of their rights under subsection (4)”.

They should know what information is being provided about them and they should have the right to check that information, as everyone has under the Data Protection Act.

I want to speak specifically to Amendment No. 18, which is in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Walmsley. It suggests that the Border and Immigration Agency should be included in the list of institutions at Clause 16(2). We retabled this amendment because the answer provided in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, was inconclusive.

The issue is whether the Border and Immigration Agency should be added to the list of information providers in Clause 16(2). The list comprises all the agencies that are expected to supply information to the local authority about the activities and movements of young people so that the local authority can build a comprehensive database of all young people in its area. It includes the health authorities, police and probation services, and young offender services. We pointed out that, with the substantial number of people immigrating into this country, and especially with the arrival of a considerable number of unaccompanied minors, the Border and Immigration Agency should also be on the list. The Minister responded by saying that the list exactly reproduced that in the Learning and Skills Act 2000 and he did not see that the Border and Immigration Agency would provide information that could not be obtained elsewhere. However, when I questioned that, giving the example of eastern European families settling in some areas of the UK, he promised to go away and think about the issue further, asking officials how such a family might otherwise be picked up. I wonder whether the department has indeed had further thoughts on the subject, and I shall be interested to hear from the Minister what they are.

My Lords, I strongly support my noble friend on this group of amendments. Young people can be acutely sensitive about their personal data and what is known about them—perhaps in some ways more than adults are. They mind very much what people say about them—behind their backs, as they would see it. On many occasions, the information about us is wrong; there is a lot of sloppiness and carelessness. You are very dependent on the people who enter the information being scrupulously careful, but that is not always the case. I have seen my own health records and was appalled at the number of errors there were. I am sure that that is multiplied many millions of times over in the huge plethora of information that various government agencies now hold about us all.

A young person should know that this information has been recorded. They should see it so that they can find out whether it is correct. They should understand who holds it and who has access to it. I understand very well why my Liberal Democrat colleagues feel nervous about young people’s ability always to sign things. The only way to know that somebody has actually read something and knows what is being said about them is if they send back a written return. Otherwise they may just shove it in the bedroom drawer and not bother to read it. It is terribly important that they know what is being said about them and that they have an opportunity to correct it. I very strongly support the amendment and hope that the Government will think seriously about it.

My Lords, I simply add my concern that the information we are talking about, in Clause 14(3)(c), does not provide any restriction on what it may be about as long as it relates to the child. It does not say that it must be relevant to any of the functions of the authority or school. If I am wrong, I shall be glad to be reassured but it seems that there could be some eccentric gathering of information that could be quite harmful to the individuals concerned. That being so, it is all the more important that consent should be sought before such information is distributed.

My Lords, as far as I am advised, the noble Lord, Lord Elton, is wrong, but by the time I have finished speaking, I may have further inspiration so that I can give him a fuller answer. If I do not get further inspiration I shall ensure that he gets a fuller answer.

I shall start my response to this important discussion by outlining some of the general points about the information-sharing provisions in the Bill. It is worth being clear again that this information sharing is not new. The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, alluded to that. Information sharing between learning providers and Connexions and between Jobcentre Plus and Connexions has been in place since the Learning and Skills Act 2000, as my noble friend Lord Adonis made clear in Committee. Schools, colleges and job centres currently provide information to Connexions so that it can track young people and provide appropriate and timely support.

Accepting the amendments would add bureaucracy and complexity to the system, although I understand the concerns that have motivated them. They would reduce the ability of local authorities to provide the timely and appropriate support to young people that is so important. We know that interventions that are rapid are most likely to be effective in getting a young person back into learning. That is what is so important. In addition, and probably most importantly, a number of safeguards are already in place. Under the Data Protection Act individuals have the right to request a copy of the personal information held on them by an organisation. As the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, said, if there are concerns about accuracy, that is the route for people to ensure that information is correct. The organisation must inform the individual if personal data relating to him or her is being shared, if notification is practicable. That is a very important safeguard.

Amendments Nos. 14, 16, 17 and 66 require consent. There is a great risk of inertia in any system in obtaining consent, whether written or not. If consent were required, many young people or their families might simply forget or neglect to sign and send the necessary form. This is a particular risk for young people who have a wide range of needs and may have chaotic lifestyles. If a young person did not provide consent to his basic identification information being passed on, the local authority could not track the person or know when that person had dropped out of education or training. That local authority might not be able to provide that person with any support, let alone timely support that was tailored to their needs.

My Lords, the Minister makes that assertion, but I would be grateful if I could be told from where in the statute it arises.

My Lords, I will have to get some help in obtaining an answer to the noble Lord’s question, so I will write to him.

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to the debate. My noble friend Lady Perry raised a strong argument in our wishes to empower young people. These amendments offer the opportunity to provide that empowerment.

I have listened with care to the Minister and I still believe that this is an area where we need to accept bureaucracy if it is to safeguard personal data and avoid the implications of data being recorded wrongly or found in the wrong hands. I am not sure that I agree with her argument, but I shall read Hansard carefully tomorrow. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 15 not moved.]

Clause 15 [Supply of social security information]:

[Amendment No. 16 not moved.]

Clause 16 [Supply of information by public bodies]:

[Amendments Nos. 17 to 19 not moved.]

moved Amendment No. 20:

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, said that in Committee I said that her Amendment No. 20 was in the wrong place. I maintain that it is still in the wrong place. It is between a chapter on local authorities and one on employers. The right place to put this amendment is before Clause 60, which is about careers education. However, the noble Baroness persists in putting it early on, which leads us to discuss careers education now.

I supported her then, and I support her now, in maintaining that there is much to be improved in the information, advice and guidance given to young people and the careers education they are given in schools. I know that the Government are doing their best at that and have increased the amount of money going to Connexions so that it can improve its service. I hope that that is so because it is important that young people in primary schools are given access to knowledge about careers and begin to think about what careers they might pursue at a later stage. Of course, children often change what they want to do, but it is extremely important to get them thinking about jobs and what they involve. Good careers education, particularly in the lower half of secondary school, is vital.

On Amendment No. 67, the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, quoted me saying that face-to-face interviews are important. We cannot rely just on information, advice and guidance through the internet or over the telephone. The interview with the careers adviser at the appropriate point in school is vital. We cannot do away with careers advisers in schools; a specifically trained Connexions careers adviser is vital. There is no reason why teachers should not provide careers education, but they must be given training. If we are going to use general teachers, they should have specific CPD training on careers education. Many of them do not know about issues outside.

Amendment No. 67 is concerned with getting specific information about particular careers and talking to people who are pursuing them about what they involve. I mentioned last time, and I shall mention again, the website horsesmouth.co.uk. Another website called Vitae is being developed by the Cambridge-based Careers Research and Advisory Centre. It involves people who practise particular careers talking about what they do. In that sense, an internet exchange is quite useful. Horsesmouth.co.uk is interactive, so a young person can ask questions of the person who has pursued a career.

My Lords, I will speak briefly on Amendment No. 67. I pricked up my ears when the noble Baronesses, Lady Verma and Lady Sharp, spoke. They reminded me of a programme broadcast 10 years ago, where a black man in America, who had run a programme for young black boys in schools, had recruited professional black men to go into schools to help boys with their reading. After a period of months, it culminated in those men taking the boys to their place of work and showing them around. If that is what the noble Baroness is driving at here, then it is very welcome. People with professional experience coming from outside to talk to young people would give them the benefit of that experience.

That prompts me to ask the Minister about Criminal Records Bureau checks, because, while children are concerned that people working with them have those checks, they can be an obstacle for people working outside to coming in and engaging with young people. Particularly, it appears that there is often quite a long delay in processing those checks. Perhaps the Minister might write me a little note on what is being done to speed up Criminal Records Bureau checks and ensuring that they are not repeated too often. That would get the balance right between ensuring that someone is safe and avoiding too much bureaucracy.

My Lords, I hope that I am not out of order in addressing these amendments, and particularly the last of them, Amendment No. 68. I do so because I tabled an amendment in Committee on non-stereotypical careers advice and work placements and I was so reassured by the Minister’s answer that I did not put down any amendments for Report. However, I have since had some correspondence from the Equality and Human Rights Commission, which was very disappointed to learn that,

“the ‘Work-related training guide’ produced by DCSF”,

for employers, schools and colleges does not, in fact, mention that issue once. Of course, that has rather upset the commission. It believes, not unnaturally, that this must be addressed because the current work placement model is deficient. Obviously it can operate in a number of ways. Those who are well connected find their own placements, usually of good quality; some people will choose from lists because lists can be presented to them; and the third group will be allocated to placements. That means that some people are still being stereotyped in the decisions made for them. As we all know, they will be those who have less information, who are more likely to be at the bottom of the pile and who have less access to those who can advise them more carefully. The commission found, for example, that only 15 per cent of girls and boys received any advice on non-traditional placements.

I ask the Minister to again look at this area to see whether an outline of how schools and employers can tackle stereotyping in work placements can be produced. A statement of information and guidance should not be limited because of assumptions about gender, race, disability and so on. Education-business partnerships could perhaps be developed, with careers advisers being more proactive in supporting and/or finding non-traditional placements.

I hope I have not taken the Minister unawares but I received this brief only this morning and this is too good an opportunity not to bring it up now, not least because we were all reassured by what she said on the previous occasion which, sadly, so far has apparently not been put into action.

My Lords, I do not support Amendment No. 20, not because I do not think careers guidance is important—I do—but I am not sure that a review at this time is needed. I support the content of the debate about the importance of careers education and guidance and I should like to make a few brief points.

As we move more towards a personalised curriculum and give people more choice, the more important careers education and guidance becomes. However, there is a danger in concentrating too much on the provision of information. It is absolutely crucial that the provision of information is accurate, timely and of high quality, but that by itself will not produce a good guidance system which is supportive of people in making appropriate decisions at appropriate times. That is far more complex and difficult to legislate for. Will the Minister assure the House that her department is considering how young people make decisions and what support they need?

In the north-east there is a 14 to 19 commission which includes all the partners at regional, school, FE and employer levels. They are coming together to try to make the 14 to 19 agenda work. I have the privilege of chairing the commission at the moment. We have set up a youth board so that young people can advise us on what they think. Interestingly, they put proper careers education and guidance at the top of their agenda. They did so because they felt it was the part of the system that was not working. This part of the legislation covering careers education and guidance is for young people and this is a time when we particularly need to hear their views and their voice. Perhaps my noble friend will also reassure us that there is provision for the department to listen to young people about how they think careers education and guidance can be best provided to them and at what point in their lives.

My Lords, I hope I can reassure not only my noble friend but all those who have spoken in the debate that we see careers advice, information and guidance as being extremely important and worthy of a great deal of attention at the highest levels within the department. I start by responding to Amendment No. 67 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Verma. She is right: it is the amendment that came up when I was surprised to be sitting in the hot seat. I am delighted that the noble Baroness has tabled the amendment for debate again today so that I can respond. She explained very eloquently the need for young people to have access to the widest possible arsenal of tools to help them in making their decisions about future career options.

The national service, Connexions Direct, offers information, advice and support to young people in England. It has been extremely successful. The service provides profiles of more than 800 jobs through its jobs4u careers database, which is an important resource. This does not detract from other resources, such as horsesmouth.co.uk. The jobs4u careers database includes case studies of personal experiences in specific roles, and the profiles are frequently updated. If a young person cannot find information on the specific role that they want, Connexions Direct will provide more information for them via the website, and find an appropriate case study. It is about giving young people access through the internet to real-life examples of careers. The provisions that the amendment would make are already available, and it is our intention that the service should continue to offer advice and information of this kind, and to make sure that we are connected to the services that other providers make available to young people.

Amendment No. 20, which would require the Secretary of State to commission an independent review, is not necessary. Noble Lords will be aware that there have been reviews on this subject, as the noble Baroness highlighted. They have been undertaken in recent years. That is not to say that further consideration of this vital subject is not important, but the end-to-end review of careers education and guidance, which reported in July 2005, and the Leitch review of skills, completed in December 2006, also addressed the issues of careers services for adults.

We have listened carefully to the arguments for an all-age careers service and we do not disagree with them per se. We see that there is a need for a joined-up service that meets the needs of people at all ages. Teenagers face different challenges from adults, not least learning choices and the personal issues associated with the transition to adulthood. The Connexions service, working in partnership with schools and colleges, is best placed to meet these needs. Clause 56 will transfer, as noble Lords know, the delivery of the Connexions service to local authorities. This will help local authorities to embed Connexions within integrated youth support arrangements to improve support for the most vulnerable people, which must be key.

The Government have accepted the recommendation of the noble Lord, Lord Leitch, to establish a universal adult careers service, which will be operational from 2010-11. The key elements of this service are described in the Adult Advancement and Careers Service prospectus, which was launched yesterday, I believe. We will ensure that links are made between the adult and young people’s careers services; for example, through case conferences between adult advisers and Connexions advisers. We are talking about an all-ages strategy, which is very important.

Amendment No. 68 would extend the requirement for schools to provide careers education to include learners aged 16 to 18. Section 46 of the 1997 Act, which is the focus of this amendment, already allows regulations to be made to extend the age for careers education in schools and requires further education institutions to provide a programme of careers education. Therefore, new primary legislation would not be required to extend these duties to pupils above the age of 16.

I do not believe that this amendment is necessary, but I believe that the subject is extremely important. High-quality, impartial information, advice and guidance help young people to make choices that position them for success in life. As my noble friend highlighted, and as I know from when I was working with students to find out what they saw as priorities, information, advice and guidance came top of the list.

My Lords, I take on board what the Minister says about primary legislation not being necessary. However, the Government have not used their powers of regulation to extend it to 16, 17 and 18 year-olds. Are they proposing to do so?

My Lords, I am looking for advice from my colleagues, and they are shaking their heads. I hope that I will be able to convince the noble Baroness that we have a strong enough commitment. We see this as very important. It will become more important as our 14 to 19 reforms offer young people a wider choice of learning and increasing numbers stay on in education and training. Diplomas are delivered by partnerships of schools, further education colleges and other learning providers. To begin delivering diplomas, each consortium must demonstrate that it offers high-quality information, advice and guidance to young people. This is a key part of our strategy.

My department is offering support to all consortia to ensure that the guidance they offer meets our national quality standards. Those standards, which were debated recently, focus on independent high-quality advice for young people. We are also working with the National College for School Leadership and the Learning and Skills Improvement Service to raise the profile of careers advice and to help school and FE leaders improve the quality of their provision.

This is a challenging agenda, but we can also take time to celebrate success. The recent Ofsted review of 14 to 19 implementation found that the quality of information, advice and guidance was good or better in 12 of the 16 partnerships visited and at least satisfactory in three others. That is encouraging, but we need to continue to improve information, advice and guidance services.

These reforms are important and I hope that they will be welcomed. We will put forward further proposals in the spring in support of provisions in the forthcoming apprenticeship Bill and the new education and skills Bill, in which we will cover the development of the adult advancement service.

Officials met with the Equality and Human Rights Commission this week, and we are taking forward its concerns about the work-related learning guidance. I shall be very happy to talk to the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, about this at any stage should she wish to do so. I am also happy to write to the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, about Criminal Records Bureau checks. That is another huge area of interest to me, but now is probably not the moment to go into it in detail.

My Lords, I thank the Minister and all noble Lords who have spoken. On understanding information, it is really important to include personal interaction so that young people can raise issues and concerns that are not always addressed through the internet. I am disappointed that the Minister will not consider further an all-age careers service. I think that we are missing a great opportunity to respond quickly and flexibly to career changes and opportunities, especially when young people will make several different choices throughout their working life.

I will consider carefully the Minister’s comments. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 22 [Financial penalty for contravention of section 21]:

moved Amendment No. 21:

My Lords, I welcome the Government’s amendments, which reflect concerns raised by the Constitution Committee. It is very important for employers—and I speak as one—to know exactly where they stand. It is crucial that they are able to appeal fines imposed on them under these clauses. I am pleased that the Government have taken on board the widespread concern that provisions in the Bill risk adding to the burdens that small businesses must carry. However, I reiterate my concern about the necessity for a system of fines and penalties at all.

My Lords, we on these Benches also welcome the direction in which the amendments are taking us. There is a recurring theme throughout this debate: the balance between persuasion and coercion. For the measures in the Bill to succeed, employers must be fully engaged with colleges, schools and other learning providers. Their active involvement is fundamentally important. It is far preferable that they be willing participants and convinced of tangible benefits both for the young people concerned and for their business.

We recognise that if young people are entitled to receive appropriate training in their employment, it will impose duties and responsibilities on employers. But it should be as a very last resort that enforcement is required. I welcome the Minister’s assurances on that score.

We are pleased that provisions have been introduced to clarify what employers can expect if they do not meet requirements and that the Government have responded so positively to concern expressed by the Committee on the Constitution that employers should have opportunities to set out their objections to a penalty notice. We also welcome the assurances that any reduction in penalty would be repaid with interest.

In the debate on 3 July, noble Lords asked questions to which the answers remain unclear. How are Clauses 22 and 23 going to work? How will a local authority find out if employers do not allow access to education and training when they should? The noble Lord, Lord Adonis, stated that information could be obtained through the Connexions service, through engagement with young people and through contact with employers, where it may transpire that young people are not participating in education or training. But it may not be a simple task to obtain sufficient reliable information to prove contravention. This could be time consuming and tie up resources that the authority may feel would be better spent elsewhere. Even if a local authority has obtained convincing evidence, it could have reservations about enforcing penalties. We had assurances from the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, that the word “may” in Clause 22 meant that the local authority had discretion over whether to require the employer to pay a financial penalty.

Enforcement is going to take resources of time and finances and, as the CBI and others have advised, risks deterring employers from taking on young people. It would not help the aims of the Bill if the penalties alienate small businesses, where the majority of young people find employment. Since this was debated in Committee, the economic climate has not made it any easier for employers large or small to give high priority to training programmes and a light touch on enforcement is even more desirable than before. Recently, the Government have been particularly encouraging of the public sector to increase its work placements. I wonder how enforcements will be managed within the public sector and what safeguards there are that public sector resources will not be diverted to cover appeals and penalties.

The Government have responded encouragingly to the concerns raised previously and, while we might like a few further assurances, we congratulate the Minister on taking note of suggestions and views expressed and thank her for introducing these more detailed amendments.

My Lords, I am more than happy to write in detail to the noble Baroness, answering her questions in full. However, my main point is that in the Bill the whole emphasis on enforcement is to create a power not a duty. We are very much expecting local authorities to take a balanced and proportionate approach to this whole question of enforcement. I appreciate that we have tabled some fairly lengthy new clauses on this and we are pleased to respond to the Committee’s concerns in full. I hope very much that I can answer all the noble Baroness’s questions in detail and copy that answer to the rest of the interested Peers.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

moved Amendment No. 22:

moved Amendments Nos. 23 and 24:

moved Amendments Nos. 25 to 30:

moved Amendment No. 31:

moved Amendments Nos. 32 and 33:

moved Amendments Nos. 34 and 35:

moved Amendments Nos. 36 and 37:

moved Amendments Nos. 38 to 43:

moved Amendment No. 44: