The clause places burdens on parents, or those acting in a parental capacity—having parental responsibility—in relation to the notification process. I am aware that our law imposes many burdens on parents and some of those have criminal sanctions attached to them. I am, however, bound to say to the Under-Secretary that I am a little bit concerned about how the clause has been put together.

Under 90(2)(b) a requirement is placed on the parent not only to carry out the notification procedure where there is a young offender—anybody under the age of 18—because they have a parental responsibility, but to ensure that

''the young offender attends at the police station with him, when a notification is being given.''

If there is a failure to do that, we go to clause 92, under which a failure ''without reasonable excuse'' could be met by summary conviction, or indeed conviction on indictment, for a term not exceeding five years. If somebody had the misfortune to have a young sex offender in the family, there may be many instances in which it would be difficult, if not impossible, to secure the attendance of that young offender at the police station at the parent's request. For that to result in potentially draconian criminal sanctions raises a question about whether we have got this section right.

Forgive my being pedantic, but I dislike clauses being written in the manner in which clause 90 is written. The words ''must ensure'' in clause 90 are

qualified in clause 92 with an exoneration of ''without reasonable excuse''. What does that mean in this context?

The first of my two probing amendments would delete 90(2)(b), thereby removing the burden on the parent to ensure that the young offender attends at the police station. It is all very well imposing duties on parents, and I accept that there is a duty on parents to tell the police if a young offender who is their child or a person for whom they have responsibility is moving to another address, but to compel them to bring that young offender to the police station is a step too far.

The second amendment, No. 376, would make it explicit that all that is required of the parent is to take all reasonably practical steps to ensure that the young offender personally attends the police station. It would spell out explicitly in the Bill the degree of parental responsibility. Many questions remain to be asked about such matters. It would help if the Minister would tell us who has parental responsibility and how far that extends. It would also help if he would explain the defence of ''without reasonable excuse'' and what facts would constitute an exoneration. For example, let us imagine that I told my 17-year-old to come with me to the police station to register and he told me to get lost or used stronger language than that. Is that a reasonable excuse for not producing him at the police station?

Moving on from there, is it right to impose a burden on a parent in such circumstances? Is it right that the parent should be included potentially in draconian sanctions amounting to up to five years imprisonment on a trial on an indictment? I have asked many questions, but it would be extremely useful if the Minister would explain the Government's approach.