Education and Skills Bill

moved Amendment No. 1: 1: Clause 1, page 1, line 7, at beginning insert— ““( ) This Part does not apply to any person who— (a) has full-time caring responsibilities for a parent, sibling or other relation, (b) is a parent of a child under the age of 5, (c) is engaged in full time voluntary work, (d) has an illness requiring significant medical attention, or (e) has a terminal illness.”” The noble Baroness said: I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 2, 8, 19 and 20. Before I get to the substance of our amendments, I restate that we share the Government’s aim of raising the participation age for education or training to 18. It is a positive step and a worthy ambition. Our goal, like that of the Government, is to see more young people improve their life chances by participating as fully as they can, but we are not convinced that compulsion is the right way to achieve this. Throughout the course of the Bill we will ask the Government to think again. Our first amendment seeks to exclude certain persons from the operation of Part 1. Similar amendments have been tabled by the Liberal Democrats. As I have said, it is no secret that we are concerned about compulsion. The Government have looked at the problem and come up with the right solution, but gone about it the wrong way. The best way to achieve these aims is not to make it compulsory for 16 and 17 year-olds to participate in education and training. That debate will raise strong passions on both sides and we will deal with it fully in the group of amendments tabled on Clause 2. These amendments concern Clause 1, which is a paving clause, and substantially increases government control over 16 and 17 year-olds. If the Government are determined to press ahead with their plans—I dearly hope that they can be persuaded otherwise—we must deal with the issue in a realistic way. First, we must look at to whom this new law will apply. The Bill will place great demands on young people. It will require commitment, time and dedication from them. We must be wary, when we look at the problem of underachieving young adults and teenagers who have decided to drop out of education as soon as they can, of making the rash assumption that they are all alike. It would be a grave mistake to assume that all the young people who will be caught by this Bill are sitting idle, wasting their lives, ignoring opportunities and simply waiting to be given direction by an all-knowing state. We must recognise that, around the country, there are young people who fall into none of those categories because the circumstances of their lives are different from those which the Government seem to have anticipated. These amendments are an effort to recognise that there are young people with perfectly valid reasons for not wanting—or, indeed, who are unable—to be in education or training after the current statutory leaving age of 16. We have attempted to draw up several exemptions, so that these perfectly legitimate cases do not find themselves hounded by the authorities for failure to observe the compulsory duty in the Bill. Quite often these are unfortunate, even tragic, circumstances, where it would be appropriate to show some understanding and leniency. Those who are, for example, engaged in the full-time care of a relative, may well yearn for the opportunities which are to be created by this Bill, but it simply may not be feasible to expect them to oblige the Government. A desperately sick parent or sibling cannot be put on hold so that their young carer can rush to the designated course or class, however much he or she may want to. Similarly, there are parents with very young children. Sadly, some of the young people we are talking about could well have a child nearing the age of five. I would be the first to acknowledge that one of the best ways of reducing teenage pregnancy is to raise the ambition of young girls. Sadly, too many children are having children. When this happens, and the young girl in question makes the brave decision to keep and bring up her baby, we should do all we can to help and to ensure that, as far as possible, her education does not suffer. There is also a small child to take into consideration; its early years are precious. During our debates on Bills concerning children we have spent many hours discussing secure attachment and we must not ignore it now. If a young mother chooses to stay at home to look after her young child once she reaches the age of 16, we should welcome it. After all, she could be said to have a pretty much full-time job at home. Of course, once the child has reached school age the picture changes and I hope that such young girls will resume educational training for their general well-being and that of their child. However, one area where the objectives of the Bill might be satisfied for young girls with babies is through parenting classes. At a recent meeting of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Children to discuss the Bill, the noble Baroness, Lady Tunnicliffe, speaking on behalf of the excellent charity What About The Children?, suggested that this would be a great time to get young girls with babies involved in child development. Can the Minister say whether this would count towards the required training? For a young person who is seriously ill or who has a terminal illness, what purpose does the Minister think will be achieved by forcing such people into the schemes of the Bill? Why compel them to gain training or skills for a lifetime of work which, sadly, they may never be able to enjoy? What is to be gained by trapping these people into a system of compulsory education and then punishing them when, because of their personal circumstances, they are unable to comply? It may well be that they will choose to continue with education or training, but it should be their choice. Further amendments in the group, which apply to Clause 2, would ensure that the Secretary of State must make appropriate orders to specify the responsibilities and duties of those caring for relatives or their own children. I have also included those young people who are engaged in full-time voluntary work. Someone who is so engaged is already displaying a commendable approach to their own development and they should not be overlooked because they are not producing a quantifiable economic benefit. Voluntary work is extremely useful and beneficial and should be encouraged. People engaged in such work will undoubtedly pick up skills along the way, not least self-discipline and motivation. These are the categories of persons to whom Part 1 of the Bill should not apply if compulsion is to remain. We must legislate in a way which includes not only compassion but also common sense. I beg to move.