I agree with the hon. Gentleman. He will see that I specifically targeted the issue of the parent ensuring attendance. If a parent has responsibility for a child under the age of 18, and the family moves house with that young person, I see no difficulty in having a requirement on that parent to ring up the police to say, ''I am informing you that my son who has a conviction for a sex offence and is on the register has moved from A to B. I have told him to go down to the police station—indeed, I will take him there—but he says he will not come.'' I have no difficulty with that burden.

However, the wording of clause 90 puts a mandatory duty on a person to ensure their child's attendance at a particular place and at a particular time. That is a curious requirement in the context of the enforcement of the criminal law. I acknowledge, as I did when I moved these probing amendments, that there is the defence of reasonable excuse. I expressed some dislike of the drafting—the clause says one thing, but there is a caveat in another clause. I have raised that point in discussion of previous legislation, but I am told that this is the modern practice with which we must live. Notwithstanding that, clause 90 still makes me uneasy. I appreciate the desirability of young people attending at the police station, and of parents co-operating with the police, but it is the stark wording of clause 90(2)(b)—''the parent must ensure''—that I dislike. Words matter in the drafting of legislation. I have raised my concerns with the Minister, and as I do not disagree with the clause's intention, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 90 ordered to stand part of the Bill.