"(1) Regulations made by the Treasury under section 142(2) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 and section 138(2) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits (Northern Ireland) Act 1992 shall include provision that a person (who has not attained such age as is prescribed in the regulations) shall be a qualifying young person if he satisfies the condition that he is attending an unwaged training course of a description specified in a list published by the Treasury.

(2) The Treasury, working with other Government Departments as required, shall ensure that reasonable steps are taken to publicise this list, to assist people in understanding the courses a person may attend whilst continuing to be a person in respect of whom another person may be entitled to child benefit.'.—[Mr. Francois.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 2—Regulations made by the Treasury: qualifying training—

"(1) Regulations made by the Treasury under section 142(2) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 and section 138(2) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits (Northern Ireland) Act 1992 shall include provision that a person (who has not attained such age as is prescribed in the regulations) shall be a qualifying young person if he satisfies the following conditions—

(a) that he is undertaking training of a description specified in the regulations that is not provided through a contract of employment, and

(b) that the person responsible for the organisation of the training certifies in the manner prescribed by the regulations that the training can be expected to result in increased skills being acquired by the trainee.".

In speaking to these new clauses, I should reiterate our view that this is a brief but none the less important Bill. We examined it in Committee and explored a number of issues, including why the proposed age limits have been set as they have. We gave notice that we would want to pursue two particular issues on Report, both of which I intend to touch on this afternoon. My hon. Friend Mr. Tyrie will then make some more general comments on Third Reading. Incidentally, when we reach that stage we hope to discuss an idea first suggested by Mr. Field on Second Reading. We hope to hear more from him in due course—if he manages to return in time from a conference on pensions that he is attending. We shall see whether he manages to join us and to make that contribution.

I turn to new clause 1. The Bill extends the payment of child benefit to the families of young people who are in unwaged training. In seeking to define the qualifying young people to whom the Bill will apply, the Government had two options. They could have included all unwaged trainees in the extended benefit qualification, or defined those who would qualify according to specific programmes of activity. They chose to use the second and narrower of the two approaches, even though it could exclude a number of people undertaking voluntary work or work experience. I shall say more about that in a few minutes' time when we reach new clause 2, but assuming for the moment that the Government remain committed to their present policy of defining entitlement by qualifying courses, it is important that as many people as possible understand exactly which courses will qualify for the extended payment of child benefit.

It is fair to say that there was near unanimity on Second Reading that the existing system of financial support for young people is already very complex. Indeed, the Government's own social exclusion unit, in a report from a few years ago entitled "Bridging the Gap" summarised the problem in these terms:

"A young person's entitlement to state financial support varies according to their personal status (for example whether they are a lone parent or disabled), what they are doing in education, training or work, whether they are unemployed, and whether or not they are living at home. Money is paid through at least eight different agencies, (with a ninth heavily involved) on behalf of two Government departments. The system is so complex that someone has written a book of around 130 pages about it for young people and their advisers."

That broad area remains a live issue up to today. In fact, as recently as yesterday, in the context of educational courses available to young people, the chief inspector of schools, David Bell, said:

"It is just conceivable that 4,000 educational qualifications are needed for 16–19 year olds. But for each young person the choice may appear so daunting that there is no rational way of making it."

We tabled new clause 1 with that in mind. It requires the Government of the day to publish a specific list of the courses that will qualify in future for the extended payment of child benefit. In addition, the new clause requires the Treasury, working with other Departments, among which the Department for Education and Skills and the Department for Work and Pensions spring readily to mind, to take reasonable steps to publicise the list to make it as obvious as possible which courses qualify.

I understand that the Government are already working on revised guidance notes for parents and advisers, in time for the scheduled roll-out in April 2006. In fairness, I welcome that, but given the relative confusion that currently exists in this area, we need something beyond it in order to get the message across more broadly. On that point, given that the overall advertising budget has expanded tremendously under the Government, could not just a little of it be diverted to the very practical purpose of helping to publicise the list of courses that will qualify under the Bill? That seems to me to be a more profitable way of spending some of the Government's advertising budget than having a 160-page supplement of public sector non-jobs in The Guardian once a week.

The new clause should not just assist young people who are considering whether to undertake periods of unwaged training and trying to work out the financial implications of their choice but should be of material benefit to the organisations that work with them, such as Connexions, Barnardo's, Centrepoint, the Prince's Trust and others to whom young people look for advice in seeking to make their choices. I put down a marker on the matter in Committee and asked whether the Paymaster General would say more about it on Report. If the Bill is to have the desired effect, it is important that its provisions are clearly understood in what already amounts to a complicated field. I look forward to hearing what she has to say, before deciding whether to press the new clause to a Division.

New clause 2 relates to volunteering and the types of training that would not qualify for the extended payment of benefit under the Bill and the present draft regulations, but that might qualify in future if the regulations were to be amended. The Committee also touched on that matter, but our purpose in tabling the new clause for debate this afternoon is to expand the discussion and ascertain whether the Government are minded to be flexible about the subject.

The issue of extending the provisions of the Bill to encompass voluntary work or work experience has been raised by the Prince's Trust, among others. I paid tribute in Committee to the work of that organisation, and I do not intend to repeat all of that now. Suffice it to say that it does very good work in this area, which I hope the whole House will commend.

I remind the House of the point made by the Prince's Trust in connection with this element of the Bill. In a letter to my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester, it stated:

"In our consultation with young people, many of them specifically talked about voluntary work and work experience, that these should be eligible since these were a form of training that would improve their employability skills and help them move forward in their lives. These, as well as other more informal forms of training, often provide the first steps out of inactivity for more vulnerable young people.

If it is only approved 'Government supported schemes' that are eligible, then young people may not feel that they have the financial support to participate in these more informal activities. We would therefore like clarification of what is meant by 'Government supported schemes' and whether voluntary work, work experience and other more informal forms of training are going to be eligible for Child Benefit."

That seems to me to be a very reasonable and measured way to put a case.

In addition, Barnardo's raised the issue in its briefing note in connection with the Bill. It stated:

"If approved activities are to encompass a wide range of provision to meet the needs of these young people—and we would argue that they should—there is also the question of who will assess, approve and monitor the activities. Barnardo's would like to see a range of specified professionals empowered to do this, dependent on the circumstances of individual young people. Such specified people could be a Connexions adviser, a leaving care adviser, a social worker, a youth offending team worker, a CAMHS worker etc."

In Committee, we pressed the Government to provide some financial estimate, however broad, of the additional cost of extending measures to include those additional categories of young people. We appreciate that some definition issues are involved, and that there are also problems arising from paucity of data, and we acknowledge that this is not an easy question to answer. Nevertheless, I specifically asked the Paymaster General if she might be able to provide us with such an estimate on Report.

In addition, I presume that there must have been some outline costings when the two alternative policy options were being considered—not least because this is, after all, a Treasury Bill. So what was the higher estimate, and therefore the additional cost, of widening the scope of the Bill? The House needs to know that estimate if it is minded to accept it. It would be rather odd if a Treasury Minister, of all people, were not able to answer such a financial question, so I hope that the Paymaster General will be able to enlighten us on the matter in a few minutes.

Although I am requesting further financial information about the implications of such a change, fairness demands that I point out that the Paymaster General indicated a willingness to consider the matter further. She will recall that she told the Committee:

"The new clause specifically considers volunteering and informal skills; there is a big issue about how to monitor those. In my opening remarks, I tried to make it clear that, in principle, certain types of volunteering could be considered. I have sympathy with the points made but the question is when and how.

If the purpose of the new clause is to see whether our mind is closed on the question of volunteering, I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that it is not."—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 18 January 2005; c. 36.]

This Bill is essentially an enabling measure whose details will be fleshed out in subsequent regulations that can be updated from time to time. It is not inconceivable that, at some future date, the Treasury of the day could change those regulations, away from the draft that exists already, to facilitate such an expansion. The Paymaster General has indicated already that her mind is not closed on this subject, so does she have anything further to add this afternoon? Have the Government considered the matter further between Standing Committee and Report?

We are unlikely to press new clause 2 to a Division, as it is largely intended to air the issue on behalf of certain voluntary groups that have made representations to us, but we seek to ascertain specific figures for the likely costs of any such change, if any Government of whatever colour considered making it in future. I would therefore be pleased to learn of anything further on the subject that the Paymaster General can add, bearing in mind her intimations in Committee only a couple of weeks ago.

I should like to say a few words in support of both new clauses. My hon. Friend Mr. Laws sends his apologies as he is unable to attend. He was immersed in the detail of the Bill and supported its broad outlines. I will deal with the Bill's final stages but, as a newcomer, I lack his depth of understanding.

The new clauses deal with an issue that my hon. Friend raised on Second Reading in several interventions and in his speech. How do we define the boundary and the limits? Who should be included and who should be excluded? As Mr. Francois helpfully summarised, the Government had two broad choices. They could have opted for universal inclusion of everyone on unwaged training. The widest possible provision is very much in the spirit of Bill, but clearly there were problems with enforcement and cost, so the Government adopted a much narrower and specific definition based on Government-approved schemes. That enables the Government to give a precise figure—80,000—and, hopefully, to be reasonably precise about the cost of £105 million. I suppose that that is why they have chosen the narrower route.

The hon. Member for Rayleigh made the case for breadth or inclusion. I saw some of the submissions from the voluntary organisations, particularly Barnado's, which stressed that many young people on training schemes—presumably, the Bill is trying help them—are difficult to reach as they are not on approved schemes, so they will be excluded. We should therefore try to find ways of including them as much as possible. As the hon. Gentleman has made the basic arguments, I shall try to anticipate the Government's objections to the widening of the measure. The first, presumably, is cost. Having read the debates, although I did not attend them, I found it unsatisfactory that I could not gain any handle on the total number of people who are included or excluded. A rough approximation would help us to understand the parameters of the debate.

The Bill is bound to change behaviour so, in any event, there will be a migration from unapproved schemes to approved ones as people take advantage of the benefits that become available. The costs will probably be larger than the Government estimate, and some of the people whom the new clauses are designed to include will be paid for as a result of that migration. As for enforcement, I understand the Government's nervousness. After the problem with individual learning accounts, we know how easy it is for fraud to proliferate on the fringes of the training industry. I therefore understand why the Government do not want to get their fingers burned again by using loose definitions. The authors of the new clause have thought about the problem and have tried to devise sensible mechanisms that provide standards.

To be slightly mischievous, the hon. Member for Rayleigh rested his case rather heavily on the ability to promote the schemes through advertising. I do not know whether he has read the James report—it has kept me busy for many evenings—but the section on advertising is particularly enlightening, because most of that budget would disappear and the scope for the activities that he described would be circumscribed. Fundamentally, however, that mischievous point aside, his remarks were helpful. He could have pointed out that it would be useful for the Government to make more use of trade associations of electrical contractors, plumbers, builders and so on, as they are active and effective in many areas and could help to identify acceptable, quality training schemes that are not necessarily supported by the Government. In general, we should be moving in the direction of statutory self-regulation, rather like the medical profession, whereby professions and trades set their own training standards and identify acceptable schemes in their remit. Much could be done at that level without direct Government involvement. None the less, if the Government were proactive and talked to the trade associations, they could identify a wide range of schemes that, while not necessarily Government supported, were reputable.

On the point about volunteering raised under new clause 2, we all know as MPs that volunteering and work placements are an important entry route into employment for young people who are learning our trade. The practice is common outside this place and we hope that it is supported in much the same way. I acknowledge, however, that there is a problem, which has been pointed out to me by people in my constituency. There is an underground world in which some disreputable companies hire a growing number of volunteers, keep them on for one or two years, encouraging them to believe that there will be a job, but then lay them off and start again with a new round of volunteers. In effect, such employers are getting labour without paying for it. It is not at all clear how that practice could be policed or stopped, but exclusion from the current schemes means that such young people are doubly disadvantaged: not only do they have no job security and employment, they have no access to the child benefit provisions either. New clause 2 would be helpful in bringing those young people within the remit of the Bill.

The new clauses are constructive and well worth supporting. There are some practical difficulties with them, but if the Government were constructive they could help to find a way through those difficulties. I happily support the new clauses, especially if they are pushed to a vote.

We crossed this ground in Committee; we shall cross it again.

The Government consulted on a number of issues in the review on financial independence for 16 to 19-year-olds. Some were short-term, and some were for long- term solution and consultation, precisely for the reason given by Dr. Cable. It is one thing to want to achieve an objective, but quite another to find the route that delivers it.

The first set of consultations, which deals with the proposals in new clause 1, was specifically with regard to defining the courses that would be covered and the training for unwaged trainees. To pick up the point made by the hon. Gentleman in his closing remarks, two real issues emerged from the consultation. The first was the complete lack of proper information about the number or type of so-called unwaged trainees who were outside the Government schemes. That has real dangers, on which he touched. Unwaged training should be properly accredited; that is, it should be training with a result—a skill.

I am attracted by the apparent intent of both new clauses. Will my right hon. Friend address directly the point made by the hon. Member for Twickenham in relation to the parallels with the ILAs? That was a sad and sorry saga that I am sure we shall not repeat.

I was coming to that point; my hon. Friend anticipates me. If the Government are to sponsor schemes and allocate entitlement on the basis of training, we have to be sure that the training is delivered to the standard required. Indeed, the consultation process made it clear that the Government could have approached unwaged, approved training in two ways. The first approach would involve trying to articulate in legislation the principles that must be followed. People would then measure their training to find out whether it met that standard. Of course, that would require regulation and enforcement, and all that goes with that.

The second approach, which was favoured during the consultation, was that the Government should clearly define the approved training and education. In fact, regulation 2 includes a complete list at paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) of those unwaged training courses that the Government consider fall within the meaning of "approved training" in the Bill, thus ensuing a quality-controlled outcome. On that basis, following the consultation I decided to define unwaged training in the regulations by reference to a list of named courses, precisely to satisfy the second point that the hon. Member for Twickenham raised in respect of transparency and clarity, to ensure that people do not have to make a judgment against principles; such things would be specified by their inclusion in the list.

Of course, a wider issue remains to be settled in relation to unwaged trainees who may be elsewhere in the labour market. They may be called unwaged trainees, but they may be young people who are being exploited for a number of reasons. They may not be receiving any recompense and certainly not any training, and a great deal of work still needs to be done on that.

I am most grateful to the Paymaster General for being so generous in giving way. Is she certain that the Bill, when implemented, will reduce to an absolute minimum the chance that the collusion and coercion of young people on low wages will decant them into unpaid work, so that the value of that work must be met directly by the taxpayer and the Inland Revenue? Can she reassure the House on that point?

I assure my hon. Friend that provision has been made to stop that happening, but I also assure him that the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills, my hon. Friend Mr. Lewis—who will follow up a number of other issues that relate to 16 to 19 skills—and I intend to monitor the wider issues. This is the first step that the Government have taken in this area, but it needs to be monitored and that is a high priority. I am certainly satisfied that that is the best that we can do. Unfortunately, I cannot say that unscrupulous people will not seek ways to exploit the system, but we will do our best to combat that and to try to ensure that it does not happen, and monitoring is one way to do so.

The proposals in new clause 1 that relate to the list are dealt with in the regulations, which can be amended and developed as we become satisfied about the proposed schemes that may be added at a later stage.

On how to ensure that young people are properly informed, I will not be as mischievous as the hon. Member for Twickenham with regard to the Conservative party's future plans about publicity and how it would make cuts in that respect. A much more important point needs to be made about the March 2004 report, "Supporting young people to achieve". Again, as I pointed out to Mr. Francois, that report commits the Government to ensuring that information about the financial support available for post-16 choices is given at the same time as general advice about post-16 choices. The Department for Education and Skills and the Department for Work and Pensions are working on that and will ensure that such proper advice is available.

New clause 1 is, frankly, not necessary because it would duplicate work of the Government that is already under way. I hope that the hon. Member for Rayleigh will not press it to a Division.

New clause 2 relates to volunteering. I wondered whether I needed to speak about it, because the hon. Gentleman made my points for me by quoting my comments from the Committee. I fully support the principle that he is putting forward, as did many members of the Committee. In "Supporting young people to achieve", which was published last March, we recognised that volunteering and informal training could provide an effective means of re-engaging young people, especially those who are marginalised. Indeed, during my consultation with young people they flagged up not only the benefits of volunteering, but the problems involved in providing volunteering that is recognised as being relevant experience and part of a qualification while preventing young people from being exploited.

It was concluded that we should take the consultation a step further. As I explained to the hon. Gentleman in Committee, this will be the second stage of the consultation. We will report the results of our consultation on volunteering, and the question of whether it could be accredited through such bodies as the Prince's Trust, in the forthcoming Budget. The Government will respond to what has been said and explain how they can take things forward.

The Government, however, have done more than just that. They have set up the Russell commission. Additionally, a conference on volunteering was held in the Treasury on 31 January, which was announced as part of the pre-Budget report, to examine specifically with the sector how volunteering and mentoring could be taken forward to provide an additional avenue of experience for young people.

For the reasons identified by the hon. Members for Twickenham and for Rayleigh, it would be dangerous to introduce such a measure at this early stage. We would not be able to quantify it, or know whether it would work. We would not know the benefits that young people would receive, and we could inadvertently provide for their exploitation. The question of extending such financial support has thus been left to one side although, as I explained in Committee, the door has not closed. We are waiting for the Russell commission's report and want to conclude the consultation in which we are engaged. We will report back on the consultation and the next steps to be taken at the time of the Budget. The Home Secretary and the Chancellor led the conference in the Treasury on 31 January, so they are keen to take the process forward.

I hope that the hon. Member for Rayleigh will agree that he has pushed far enough to make it clear that volunteering will be addressed. After taking account of the responses that we receive, we will try to find a way of updating things. I am happy to ensure that he and other hon. Members are kept fully informed of developments. On that basis, I hope that he will not press new clause 2 to a Division. If he does, I shall reluctantly have to oppose it—not on principle, but because such a mechanism could not be introduced practically or sensibly at this stage.

I have listened carefully to the remarks offered by the Paymaster General. In responding, I shall take the new clauses in reverse order.

The right hon. Lady rightly points out that we must await the conclusions of the Russell commission, which has been looking into volunteering in the broader sense. The type of voluntary activity that we are discussing this afternoon clearly comes within the bailiwick of that commission and, like the Government, we await its report with interest. She intimated that more would be said about volunteering in the Budget. We await the specific detail of that, too.

At this stage, however, our aim in new clause 2 was first, to keep the subject alive for debate. I believe that we have succeeded in doing that and the Paymaster General responded in the right spirit. Secondly, our aim was to get at least an outline financial estimate of how much expanding the Bill's provisions to cover the larger categories would cost. She rightly points out that there are issues of definition to be dealt with; none the less, some outline figure should have been available when the policy decision was taken. I find it difficult to believe that, of all Departments, the Treasury had to choose between two policy options, only one of which was costed.

It is simply not possible to put a cost on such provision for volunteering. We need more information and the results of the consultation to do so. Similarly, costing the inclusion of unwaged trainees outside the identified schemes is not possible because the data do not exist in a form that would enable a secure and proper estimate to be made and given to the House.

I know that the hon. Gentleman is sometimes sceptical about some of the Government's estimates, even when I assert them forcefully from the Dispatch Box, but I assure him that if I had a figure, I would prefer to give it to him. I am not concealing anything. We are dealing with a difficult and uncharted area and part of the work that we have to do is to get information so that we can produce proper costings and answer the sort of questions that he is raising, and which I, too, want to be answered.

I thank the Paymaster General for that detailed intervention. I shall fully respect her right to be assertive—I suspect that she probably never needed to go on an assertiveness training course, but that God gave her that talent—as long as she respects my right to continue, on occasion, to be sceptical.

The right hon. Lady said that the Government will have more to say on the subject in the Budget—it would be helpful if she told us when that will be—and that they want to consider the conclusions of the Russell commission. It seems most sensible to wait for the Budget, so even though the right hon. Lady has been unable to provide a financial estimate—my hon. Friend Mr. Tyrie will have more to say on Third Reading about the absence from the Bill of financial information—we shall not press new clause 2 to a Division.

On new clause 1, however, we disagree. There is a lack of detail in the draft regulations. The Paymaster General intimated that the draft regulations lay out a list of all the courses; in fact, they do no such thing. Under the heading "Interpretation", regulation 2 starts "In these Regulations—" and then simply lays out headings for the multifarious courses that will be covered. It does not specify the courses themselves, only the types of course, and there is no appendix that lists specific courses. That is not the comprehensive list that we have been trying to elicit from the Government. We argue that there should be a concise list of precisely what courses are covered, which should be publicised so that people will know whether they are likely to qualify for an extended child benefit payment if they take a certain course. A list of headings does not meet that requirement.

I shall deal with the point made from the Liberal Front Bench. I should mention as a matter of courtesy that Mr. Laws let me know that he could not be present this afternoon. I am sure he also informed the Minister's office of that. It is a pleasure to have Dr. Cable with us.

On publicity, the James review ascertained that a large amount of spending on advertising was wasteful. Having examined it in detail, we are convinced of that. However, there might be a practical purpose in using targeted Government money to advertise something specific. We are in no way arguing for an enlargement of the advertising budget—quite the opposite. We want to spend the money far more effectively, and one way of doing that would be to advertise the list that we advocate in new clause 1. That might not please the advertising department of The Guardian, but it might help a large number of young people who are deciding on their career futures. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend Mr. Osborne suggests from a sedentary position that we should put the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Mr. Milburn, in charge, but the right hon. Gentleman may have other things on his mind at present.

We propose publicising a specific list to assist people who might be in a position to take advantage of those courses, and those who advertise their ability to advise them on whether they could take advantage of the courses. We made that specific suggestion in Committee and gave the Government an opportunity to return to it on Report. Unfortunately, they have not listened to the point that we were trying to make, so we shall test the will of the House on the matter.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 110, Noes 229.

Question accordingly negatived.

Order for Third Reading read.

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

As has been said repeatedly, the Child Benefit Bill is a small but significant piece of the jigsaw to give all young people the means and opportunity to participate in education and training beyond the age of 16. It builds on the success of our economic reforms to date, which have provided macro-economic stability, low unemployment and record employment. We are determined to transform the United Kingdom into a high-skill economy, where everyone, regardless of background, can benefit from the opportunities that global change offers.

As part of that overarching objective, we are committed to ensuring that all our young people reach the age of 19 equipped with the skills and qualifications that they need to make the most of their talents and aspirations. Our long-term ambition is that, by 2015, UK staying-on rates after 16 will move from one of the lowest in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development to one of the highest.

Our strategy for achieving that target has three complementary elements: making the education and training curriculum more attractive for 14 to 19-year- olds, improving the provision of information and guidance on the opportunities available, and reforming the financial support system to make it more coherent and accessible to young people.

The Bill is an important step, but not the only step, in delivering the last strand. It will enable us to remove the distinction between education and unwaged training in the financial support system, thus supporting young people to choose the learning route that is most appropriate for them, rather than basing their decision on financial considerations. The new entitlement will apply to all 80,000 unwaged trainees on Government-arranged training.

The Bill will also enable us to extend financial support to 19-year-olds who are completing a course of education or training that they started before their 19th birthday, thus ending wasted investment for young people who, because of financial pressures, drop out at 19 before they have achieved their qualifications.

For the long term, we have been consulting about the activities outside formal education and training that should be entitled to financial support. As we have discussed again today, volunteering and informal skills courses provided by the voluntary sector clearly need to be considered. I repeat that the Government will respond to a consultation on that specific subject in the forthcoming Budget.

The Bill will provide us with the flexibility to extend entitlement to such activities in the future, once the necessary mechanisms are in place. It is clear from the Opposition amendments and the backing for the principle that I can look forward to their full support in taking forward the reforms.

I want to put on record my gratitude to all the young people, parents, voluntary sector organisations, business and learning providers who have again contributed their time and valuable experience to our consultation. Their experience, views and opinions have played an invaluable role in informing the development of our proposals.

Improving financial support for 16 to 19-year-olds in education and training is an investment in the future and aspirations of our young people as well as in the long-term strength and stability of the United Kingdom economy. I have been pleased to hear Members on both sides of the House reaffirm that view and offer their support, in principle, to many of the points in the Bill. That consensus provides us with the foundation to take forward our plans to remove the remaining financial barriers to education and training after 16. I commend the Bill to the House.

We have managed to discuss this Bill, as we did the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Bill, with a reasonable amount of civility, and to avoid the brickbats that are often associated with the passing of legislation in this place. I would like to thank the Paymaster General for listening, on the whole, to the points that we made and for responding to many, if not all of them. In some cases, we still feel that we have not had an answer, as I have made clear. She has certainly tried, however, and she has done more than merely go through the ritual process that she could have fallen back on in this modern age of programmed legislation.

The Bill makes a number of simple changes to the eligibility rules for unwaged trainees and people aged 19. We have made it clear that we do not oppose those measures. However, we must bear in mind the fact that although this is a simple Bill, it forms part of a number of other proposals which, together, make it much more complicated. Whether the Bill turns out to be worth while will depend very much on the follow-up in the Budget and on the longer-term simplification proposals that have been set out—albeit only in very sketchy form, which worries me, as the Paymaster General knows—in "Supporting young people to achieve", the consultation document published a while ago.

In Committee, the Government accepted that the current system was horrendously complex—I will not list all the major changes that have taken place since 1997—and that it needed radical simplification. They also accepted that there was something curious about giving child benefit to adults—that is, to people who in every other respect are legally entitled to do all the things that adults can do in society, except one. I realised as I was writing my notes that they would not be eligible to be Members of Parliament. For that, they would have to wait until they were 21.

My second point is that even this simple measure will not come cheap. In Committee, we tried to find out whether it would provide value for money, and we were unable to get enough information to do so. I will not rehearse all the arguments that we had about the regulatory impact assessments, of which there have been two. Both of those rather curious documents were wholly inadequate, and neither amounted to very much at all.

We do have estimates of the cost of extending child benefit to unwaged trainees. That has been given as £105 million. We also have an estimate of the cost of extending it to students of 19. That cost is given as £65 million. However, when we look closer, we discover that those numbers do not mean very much, because the Government have made no estimate of the behavioural effects that the measures might have. Dr. Cable made that point earlier, as did Mr. Laws and I, at length, on Second Reading. With this type of support, it is the behavioural effects that we are looking for. The Government are using public money calculatedly and deliberately—and probably rightly—to change behaviour. It was therefore not unreasonable of the Opposition to ask them for their estimates of what those changes in behaviour would be.

I agree that it is not easy for the Government. I sympathise with the Economic Secretary's comments on Second Reading:

"we all share the problem that there is a sparsity of information available about unwaged trainees—the group of people we are most concerned with in this context."—[Hansard, 12 January 2005; Vol. 429, c. 364.]

All the same, bearing in mind the fact that this is the central issue, I was surprised that Ministers have not been prepared, since we first raised the point, even to have a stab at making an estimate based on some simple assumptions. I think that we will return to this issue after the Budget—and in a few months' time, when we are running policy—and it is worth spelling out in a bit more detail the questions that ought to have been answered. They could even have been answered through sampling, for example, which would have given us some information.

First, what is the Government's overall estimate of the effect of extending child benefit to unwaged trainees—we now know that it is only those who have become eligible, because they are already on Government supported schemes—and on the overall number of unwaged trainees? We do not know the answer. There will be an Exchequer cost in terms of child benefit for young people who are encouraged to take up this form of training. Set against that, the Exchequer may save some money—a point made by Mr. Laws and me on Second Reading. That will come to the extent that people are drawn into unwaged training from formal education. We are therefore looking for a net number, and we have not had it.

Does my hon. Friend agree that with such difficulty of assessment, an alternative or perhaps additional way would be to ensure, in the formulation of the Bill, a specific opportunity to look back and see what has happened? One of my worries is that the House is increasingly asked to make such decisions, perfectly reasonably, as we do not know enough about the position, but we are not yet good enough at allowing ourselves to insist on the kind of independent outside assessment that a business would undertake in such circumstances? A business would take the risk, but be prepared to have a really independent look at it a reasonable time later.

That is an extremely thoughtful intervention from a senior former Cabinet Minister. If he cares to look at the amendment paper, he will see that I tabled an amendment with that specific purpose in mind—perhaps he already knows that. Unfortunately—I am not sure how far I can stray down this path—it was not called for debate this afternoon. But it goes to the heart of the matter: when such measures are introduced we need to be clear how we will assess whether the money is being spent usefully. If we have that clear in our minds, we can work out later what yardsticks we will watch to find out whether adjustment is needed. We have not had that from the Government.

I am very surprised and disappointed that we have not had such estimates. Secondly, how many people will be encouraged by the extension of child benefit for 19-year-olds to stay in full-time non-advanced education? As far as I can tell, the behavioural effects will only work one way: there will be costs and no savings for the Exchequer—but I may be wrong, and I may have missed something. Again, I would have liked an estimate, and I have not had it.

The Government could have provided that through sampling, as I have mentioned, or some kind of survey. We all understand that we will not get an exact figure—I hope that we would be intelligent enough not to hold the Government to such a figure if it turned out to be something else. But we should have some indication that the Government have been thinking about the issue and trying to find the right yardstick by which to measure it. After all, we are talking about nearly £200 million in expenditure, and it may be much more if the behavioural effects are considerable. We need to know what the deadweight cost is, but we do not know.

At the heart of all this is a very important group of people. The Government claim to have helped them through the new deal and other measures, but they have not really helped them as much as they say—although we heard the customary noisy bluff and bluster from the Chancellor during Treasury questions today.

Surely the group about whom we should be most worried consists of those who are not in employment, education or training. The latest figures show that far from diminishing, over the past seven years that group has grown larger. More than a million young people are now economically inactive and not in education. That is worrying, and it should be close to the heart of the Bill. Through various measures, the Government's support for this overall area runs into billions, but the policy does not seem to be delivering what we should expect of it.

I am by no means alone in being worried about the absence of proper cost estimates. I have taken soundings from a large number of people and groups, including the Prince's Trust, Cornwall and Devon Connexions, the Foyer Federation, Barnardo's and the Association of Colleges. Many of them allude to this issue in one way or another. They do not oppose the Government's intentions; they do not even oppose the principle behind the Government's approach. That is territory that we share. What worries them is that the Bill may not have the intended effects. The chief executive of the Association of Colleges says:

"the limited information on the costs of the reforms during the consultation period and on the publication of the Bill make it difficult to assess the impact . . . It is surprising that the same government that spent 3 years testing EMAs"

—education maintenance allowances—

"in more than 50 local authority areas is introducing a reform", also costing a lot of money, without testing it, and with only one year's implementation.

That is very gently worded. The chief executive makes a number of other serious points about the risk of fraud and the need for good advice for young people, and the danger that the Bill could make obtaining such advice more difficult.

I have raised all those points not because I want to oppose the Bill, but because I want to encourage the Government to think more clearly about the questions that they are asking civil servants in order to justify it here. I am sorry we have not been told enough to be able to make an informed judgment on whether the money involved will be used effectively. There is much in the Bill that gives us pause for thought, and much that may cause concern among those on the ground. There is a lack of clarity about the Government's destination. A page in one of their consultation documents refers to "the long-term vision", and provides about 100 words on the subject and a rather curious diagram. That does not constitute a long-term vision worthy of the name, and again there is a lack of clarity about the Bill's likely effects.

Let me end with a point which, although highly controversial, needs to be made time and again. How on earth can a Treasury Minister be presenting a spending measure? It is extraordinary that the Treasury should be both gamekeeper and poacher, responsible for controlling public spending and at the same time arrogating to itself the power to write very large cheques.

It does not surprise me at all that the No. 10 policy unit, and, we are told, the Prime Minister and John Birt, are working together vigorously to create an effective public expenditure control system for implementation in the event of Labour winning the election and the present Chancellor being moved to another job. Perhaps part of the reason for our inability to obtain clear answers to the questions I have asked this afternoon is the fact that we have a Department that is not suited to such tasks. An Inland Revenue Department is trying to run part of the benefits system. That inevitably leads to the question whether the right people are doing the right things in the Government. All sorts of problems concerning not only the implementation of policy, but whether policy is being devised intelligently and sensibly, will occur down the line.

Has my hon. Friend looked through the records to find the last time the Treasury produced a child benefit Bill? It would be more normal for another Department to perform that function—or have I been here too long and missed something?

That question contains an element of elegant disingenuousness. My right hon. Friend knows that the existence of such a Bill is most unlikely.

rose—

Oh, wait a minute. Perhaps I am wrong, and have not been in the House for long enough.

The hon. Gentleman may have been here when child benefit was transferred to the Treasury, and I do not remember the Conservative party opposing that legislation.

I am certainly challenging that legislation now, and I have the strong support of the No. 10 policy unit, John Birt and probably the Prime Minister. The Paymaster General will be pleased to hear that I am coming to the end of my remarks, because we have moved on to a sensitive subject.

I wonder whether we have succeeded in getting to the bottom of the exact effects of spending the £200 million. I have my doubts whether we even know within a factor of about 50 per cent. how much the measure will cost, which should be a cause for concern. On this occasion, the concern is not sufficient to divide the House on Third Reading, but we will certainly keep a close eye on both costs and value for money.

I reaffirm my hon. Friends' broad support for the Bill, which, as the Paymaster General said, is "small but useful". If my hon. Friend Mr. Laws were here, I am sure that he would confirm what Mr. Tyrie said about the civilised and thoughtful way in which the legislation has progressed.

Having read Hansard, it seems to me that there are two underlying reasons why the Bill was introduced, and merits support. The first reason concerns broad grounds of equity and fairness. A group of people who are not in formal education have been arbitrarily excluded from child benefit, and the Bill rectifies that unjust situation.

The second reason concerns the promotion of training. In her speeches on Second and Third Reading, the Paymaster General relied heavily on that argument. Broad support clearly exists for the idea that we, as a country, should do more training, but it is not clear whether the Bill will encourage training in general. Most of the people who will receive those benefits would be in training anyway. As the hon. Member for Chichester said, a dead-weight cost problem exists, and we do not know the extent to which the Bill will incentivise training. If the Bill incentivises training, however, that is a desirable and positive outcome.

I agree with much of what the hon. Member for Chichester said about the underlying weaknesses. We do not know the consequences of the proposed changes, and a great deal of uncertainty exists. The regulatory impact assessments were not massively helpful either on the facts or in analysing the economic consequences. We can probably isolate various behavioural changes that could take place, some of which are desirable and some of which are not. The desirable changes include the possibility that people will be encouraged to leave economic inactivity or unemployment and enter training or education as a result of the Bill, which would benefit everybody. As a result of removing the previous discrimination, people may be tempted to leave formal education and enter vocational training, which, given how the situation has been distorted in the past, is almost certainly desirable.

Another change, which is neither necessarily good nor necessarily bad, is that people will be encouraged to move out of unapproved schemes into Government-approved ones, simply because of the definition issue, which we discussed earlier. Another possible and probably less desirable change is that some people might be encouraged to move out of work and into training. That could be a good thing if they were investing in their long-term knowledge capital; equally, there could be a loss to the economy and to the Treasury. So there is a mixture of gains and losses, and as the hon. Member for Chichester emphasised, we do not really know what the net effect will be. We will doubtless have to return to this issue in the next Parliament.

Finally, as has already been pointed out, the immense complexity of the benefit system is extremely intimidating, particularly for those of us who have come to the Bill rather late. The Bill touches on but one tiny corner of that complexity. The argument about the proliferation of benefits and tax credits has been well rehearsed in many quarters. There are many unforeseen consequences of such proliferation, not all of which are desirable. On balance, this legislation probably helps, because child benefit is not means-tested and, unlike many selective measures, it does not have the perverse effect of providing disincentives.

In the next Parliament we will have to have a major look at the proliferation of tax credits and benefits, the unintended consequences of which are often severe and very negative. Ministers often plaintively ask why they do not get more credit for all the good things that they are doing in helping to tackle child poverty, for example. One reason is that many of our constituents simply cannot comprehend the complex system that they have to grapple with. They have to wander through a quagmire of complication, so the system will have to be simplified. The Bill deals with only one corner of that much bigger problem. That said, broadly speaking this is useful legislation. Unanswered questions remain, but I am happy to subscribe to the Bill and to support it.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.