| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
If we really want children to benefit from their entitlement to levels 2 and 3 tuition, we should let them choose how, when and where to do it. Any of us who have taught will know only too well that young people who choose to do so learn effectively, while those attending under sufferance do not.
Baroness Morris of Bolton: We share the aspirations of the Government but feel that compulsion is the wrong route. I agree with much of what the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, said.
Lord Adonis: I sense that we are going through the motions slightly, having had an extremely long debate that went through all the arguments, so I shall simply recap what I said earlier. As the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, so rightly put it, we need many more carrots than sticks, and the whole emphasis of government policy is to provide more carrots for young people to participate. We believe that by doing so we will significantly improve participation rates; indeed the evidence already shows that those rates are improving.
However, it is our view that no young person should be outside the education and training system before 18 unless there is some compelling reason which would constitute a reasonable excuse under Clause 39. As we have teased out the arguments more fully this evening, I am left wondering quite where the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, stands on this, as she and the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, appeared to support the Government’s view that increased participation is a good thing. It is difficult for a politician to start making judgments on the quality of participation, and it is hard enough tracking the figures. If we assume that increased participation is a good thing, the question then arises—and the noble Baroness is sitting resolutely on the fence—whether increased participation is a good thing. The evidence is that having carrots and sticks together will increase participation, including the sticks.
In an earlier debate I understood the noble Baroness to be saying that she accepted that sticks, as applied in legislation in other countries that I set out as operating on a similar basis to here, might improve participation. Is that then a price worth paying to improve participation? If the noble Baroness is saying that her party would settle for significantly lower rates of participation in return for not having the ultimate sanction of compulsion, then I would be glad if she said so on Report, because then we can have a straightforward argument about whether this country requires higher rates of participation if the next generation are going to be economically and socially successful.
I shall make the argument, with all the power I can bring to this Dispatch Box, that it is absolutely vital for the future of this country that as near to 100 per cent of young people as possible should be engaged in education and training. That investment will repay dividends many times over for them if they are engaged in education and training. As a Parliament we should not start permitting young people to drop out simply
25 Jun 2008 : Column 1530
Baroness Morris of Bolton: I agree with everything that the Minister said, but is he telling us that he is happy to criminalise young people? If you take the sanctions to their ultimate conclusion, that is what you are saying.
Lord Adonis: The noble Baroness uses emotive words. Am I saying that there should ultimately be a sanction for those who are not participating, in the context of significantly improved provision and of Clause 39, which ensures that reasonable excuses will be entertained and that there is a proper process? Yes, I do believe that it is appropriate that there should be such a sanction in the context of the overpowering need for higher rates of participation in education and training for the good of the individuals concerned and of the country.
Finally, at this late hour, I return the question to the noble Baroness. I would be very interested to know whether she thinks it would be good for the country and for the individuals themselves that they do not participate in education and training simply as a quid pro quo for our not having to take on board the duties set out in the Bill. If that is her view, we have a fundamental disagreement, which I look forward to rehearsing further on Report. The arguments that she would then set out about the freedom for people not to engage and about this being a matter for the individual and not for the state were precisely those used against raising the school leaving age in the 1960s and the move towards compulsory primary education by the late Victorians. I have no doubt that when future generations look at these debates, they will realise that the cause of progress lay on the side of those who were prepared to invest significantly in increased education and training provision for 16, 17 and 18 year-olds and were ultimately prepared to make it a responsibility of those young people to invest in their own future.
Baroness Perry of Southwark:Before the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, replies to the Minister, can we clarify that in one of the Minister’s earlier answers he was clear that some countries with no compulsion or sanctions whatsoever have achieved better participation than those with them? The facts that the Minister gave us are absolutely clear. Some countries with sanctions are ranked seventh or even 15th in the OECD league tables; others that have none are right up in second, third or fourth place. The noble Baroness might wish to take on board that, by saying that we do not wish to see compulsion, we are not condemning this country to having a residue of young people who do not participate.
Lord Adonis: That was, in a sense, not the point I was making. It is not that other countries have been unable to achieve higher rates of participation than us without compulsion post-16; I fully accept that some have. The issue which we have to address—and will do further on Report—is whether, taking a full judgment
25 Jun 2008 : Column 1531
My contention, on the basis of the evidence that we have, including evidence from those parts of Australia and Canada that have reformed recently, is that we would be likely to see a significant increase in participation if we implemented the whole package of measures in the Bill, which includes the ultimate element of compulsion. I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, wishes to be regarded as a progressive on these matters. That being the case, does she think it better to have lower rates of participation, with fewer 17 and 18 year-olds engaging in education and training and attaining the qualification levels that they can by so engaging, in order not to have to address the issue of compulsion? That is a respectable position, but it is precisely the one that has been used in the past, not by progressives but by reactionaries who have not wished to extend rights to education and training meaningfully over the past 100 years.
Baroness Walmsley: I do not accept that the two options that the Minister puts before me are the only two tenable in this situation. Let me be clear: I believe that, for most young people and for society as a whole, increasing their educational qualifications is a good thing. In a free society we can offer good things to many citizens, yet we should not force them to accept them at any particular moment. Despite the fact that I agree with the noble Lord’s objective, I feel that, while it is vital to upskill and increase the qualifications of as many members of society as we can, there is more than one way of skinning a cat.
The Minister puts before me only two options: compulsion, or people deciding that they are not going to upskill or increase their qualifications. He suggests that I might for some reason think that a good thing. I do not, but there is a third option that we should do everything we can to encourage: to enable and to remove barriers for all our young citizens to increase their qualifications and get into the workforce as productive members of society, not least because, if they do not, they run the risk of being idle and then getting into the criminal justice system, which none of us wants.
25 Jun 2008 : Column 1532
If a young person decides that they do not want to continue in some form of education and training between 16 and 18, it is not necessarily the case that they will never come back to education and training. They very well may. We are obliged to do everything in our power to convince them and make the case.
One of the joys of debate in your Lordships’ House is that, on the whole, the Government do not get their business through unless they have won the argument. That is what I should like to see with young people. We should do everything that we can to provide the options and the support, and to ensure that the quality is right. We should also convince them that it is in their own interests to participate in some form of further education and training beyond the age of 16, because it is for their own good—most people ultimately have self-interest at heart. That is what we should want to see.
I say in answer to the Minister’s question that I do not accept either of his options; I think that there is a third way, which is the direction in which the Government are moving. They are doing everything they can to provide the options and the support, and to ensure that people’s special needs are taken into consideration. However, we all need to see those firmly in place as an entitlement before any suggestion of compulsion. The noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, said forcefully that it is the implementation, not the rhetoric or even the legislation, that matters most.
10 pm
We should like to see a continuation of all that. Let us see how well it works before one even considers compulsion. For the vast majority of young people, taking on one or other of these various options is good for them and for society. We do not accept that the only way to achieve that is compulsion, which is why we so strongly make these arguments.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills (Baroness Morgan of Drefelin): I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
London Local Authorities and Transport for London Bill
The Bill was returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.
- House adjourned at 10.02 pm
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |