Education and Skills Bill

I had not meant to bring the noble Lord’s remarks to such an abrupt close. It is kind of him to greet my remarks with such eager anticipation; they are not always so regarded. I welcome the fact that, in all parts of the Committee, there has been general support for the measures in the Bill to promote higher participation among 16 to 18 year-olds. The issue before us now is whether whole groups should be exempted from a requirement to participate. Our argument here is simple. While we believe that there should be elements of flexibility—I will say more about those in a moment—we also believe that the expectation and opportunity to participate in education and training should, in principle, apply to all young people and that, far from being kind and considerate to whole groups of young people by seeking to exclude them, the amendments would be the opposite. They would deny opportunity and expectation to some of the most disadvantaged and vulnerable young people. In fact, irreparable harm would be done to those young people’s life skills and future social and economic success if we were to exclude them in the way proposed. That is not simply the view of the Government; it is the view of many reputable organisations that have made representations. In its representations on the Bill, Barnardo’s says that it welcomes, "““the proposal to raise the age of participation in education or training to 18, which represents an important opportunity to improve provision for the many young people who leave school at 16 with few skills and poor long-term prospects. Young people from disadvantaged backgrounds are among the least likely to stay on, perpetuating the cycle of poverty from one generation to the next””." On compulsion, Barnardo’s says that, "““if steps are taken to find the right course for a young person and to put in place the necessary support””—" the flexibility of provision to meet their needs is a vital requirement— "““then it is fair to expect them to participate—if necessary, through some system of enforcement, including powers for local authorities to prosecute as a last resort””." The Special Education Consortium takes the same view, saying that it, "““welcomes the proposal to extend to the age of eighteen the requirement to stay in education or training. … The Consortium recognises that in order to draw disabled young people and young people with SEN into continuing education and training, compulsion may be needed””." The Equality and Human Rights Commission says the same. It says that, "““the main focus and priority must be to ensure that there is flexible, varied and quality provision of education and training available and that young people, whatever their circumstances or situation, will receive the necessary support to enable them to participate””." We, of course, endorse all that. However, it also states: "““The Commission recognises that a requirement to engage with additional education and training can only unlock potential if it adequately identifies and addresses the reasons for disengagement and underachievement. But we remain concerned that, without the principle of compulsion, the most disaffected young people will not engage and the success of the Bill will be limited””." That is also the position of the Government. The proposals in the Bill need to be seen in the context of what we are providing for, which is a flexible, one-day-a-week or 280-hours-over-a-year training requirement for those who are in work, and a 16-hour work-based learning requirement or education course for those who are not. This is on the basis of a considerable increase in provision for 16 to 18 year-olds in areas that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, rightly said, have been underprovided for in the past, notably vocationally oriented courses delivered by schools and colleges—hence, the new diplomas, which are starting this September, and the significant increase in apprenticeships, which will enhance the work-based training routes. I turn to the additional area of flexibility called for by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, and mentioned by other noble Lords in the debate. Decisions on enforcement in individual cases depend on the officer responsible for enforcement in a local authority having regard to Clause 39, under which they must be satisfied that there is not a reasonable excuse for the young person in question not to be participating in education or training. That is a crucial aspect of the Bill, too. It will deal with some of the cases within the whole cohort of 16 to 18 year-olds that are extreme and exceptional and to which noble Lords have referred. My honourable friend Jim Knight, the Minister for Schools and Learners, followed up extensive debates on this issue in the other place with a letter to David Laws, the Liberal Democrat spokesman on education and skills. The letter is dated 13 February 2008. Noble Lords may have seen it, but I shall circulate it to all Members of the Committee. It specifically sets out our view of how the Clause 39 requirements, which local authorities must implement where there is not a reasonable excuse, might work. The letter states: "““I do of course accept that there will be young people who temporarily or for a longer time, cannot in practice participate due to their individual circumstances””." He then gives examples of what this might mean in practice. He says: "““If a young person is homeless this could prevent them from participating in learning until they have a permanent residence and a more stable home life””." I think that that addresses one of the main concerns of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, about care leavers who may not have proper accommodation that enables them to lead a stable life. My honourable friend also referred to young people with, "““health problems, whether temporary illness, long term disability or ongoing mental health issues””." That deals both with the point raised by the noble Earl and part of the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Perry. He goes on to highlight other cases: "““Where a young person has addiction problems they may be unable to participate until they have successfully completed treatment for those problems … When a young person has secured a place on a course but it does not start until the next month or the next term, they would have a reason for not participating in the meantime … After giving birth””—" this responds directly to the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Perry— "““a young mother will need time to recover (for mothers of compulsory school age guidance sets out that the normal period of time is a maximum of 18 weeks) and would not be expected to participate until appropriate learning provision and access to suitable childcare had been arranged … Where a young person has caring responsibilities, they may not be able to participate, or participate for as many hours as we would otherwise expect, until alternative care or learning provision that fits with those caring responsibilities is in place””." In the extreme and exceptional cases that we have discussed, Clause 39 gives the flexibility to local authorities—and we would expect local authority officers to be assiduous in undertaking their responsibilities—that has been sought in the Committee this afternoon. I will say a few more words about the specific groups mentioned by the noble Baronesses, Lady Morris and Lady Sharp. The first group is young carers, who, as I completely accept, have onerous additional responsibilities. However, we see no general case for excluding young carer 16 to 18 year-olds from training or education, although there may be particular reasons in specific cases why it would be appropriate to do so. This position is supported by the Princess Royal Trust for Carers, which, when the Bill was undergoing its Commons Second Reading, said: "““We do not believe that young carers should routinely be exempted from the requirement to attend education and training. We fail young carers when we give up on their education””." That is a highly reputable body that deals with young people in this position and we agree with it. Of course, it is important that young people with caring responsibilities should receive the support that they need to participate. There will be flexible learning options available to them to help them to participate in a way that could be fitted around their responsibilities. We also provide a range of financial support to young people, including EMA and carer’s allowance, both of which go to the young carers directly. Furthermore, the Government are committed to continuing to improve the provision and support available to young carers. Earlier this month, on 10 June, the Government published the national strategy for carers, following a review of support for young carers. This sets out a range of additional provisions that we intend to make available to young carers, including support worth £6.5 million up to 2011. That includes more than £5 million to promote better prevention and a piloting of new, more effective models of support around the family and the person cared for; £850,000 to ensure that schools and other universal services have the additional support that they need to identify problems early and to encourage young carers to come forward; and £300,000 to embed best practice, ensuring that this feeds into and informs major new developments, such as targeted youth support and extended schools. In that context, we believe that the general requirements on young carers to undergo appropriate education or training are correct. However, they need to be seen—I stress again—in the context of the Clause 39 requirements that local authorities must have regard to when deciding whether there is a reasonable excuse for a young person not to participate. The second group is young parents. This issue, too, is covered by Amendment 6. We see no case for a blanket exclusion from educational training here. Teenage parents are 22 per cent more likely to be living in poverty at the age of 30 and much less likely to be employed than their peers. As a consequence, children born to teenage mothers have a 63 per cent greater risk of living in poverty compared to babies born to mothers in their 20s. Participation in education or training is a key factor in combating this risk for their children. Research also shows that young mothers who have previously been disengaged from learning are often motivated to take part in learning when they become pregnant, to help to ensure better outcomes for their babies. Thus, it is often important that they can start courses relatively soon after the baby is born. This is why we do not wish to exempt them from the duty to participate, provided that flexible provisions are in place. For example, in FE colleges, the courses should start at flexible dates during the year, to suit their requirements. The noble Baroness, Lady Morris, asked whether parenting courses would count as appropriate training under the Bill. Yes, they would count under Clause 4 if they endured for sufficient hours and were accredited. Subject to those requirements, parenting courses would be eligible under the Bill. The duty on young parents should also been seen in the context of our commitment to have a Sure Start children’s centre in every community doing the kind of excellent work that the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, referred to in her own local authority experience. These Sure Start children’s centres are intended to ensure that teenage parents can access a broad range of support in one place, including childcare, education and training, parenting support, and health-related information, advice and treatment. Information, advice and guidance will also be available to help young mothers, as other vulnerable groups, through Connexions and targeted youth-support services. In addition, a broad range of financial support is available to young parents to help with the cost of accessing education and training—and, vitally, childcare—to enable them to take advantage of these opportunities. The third group highlighted by the amendments is those doing voluntary work. We recognise and are at one with the noble Baronesses, Lady Morris and Lady Sharp, in recognising that volunteering can help young people to gain important skills and experience, contributing to their personal development in a way that is valued also by employers and higher education. We are encouraging more young people to get involved in voluntary work. Volunteering will be recognised as a valid part of fulfilling the duty to participate under the Bill in the same way as paid employment. Regulations under Clause 5 will provide for those who volunteer to be treated in the same way as those working under an employment contract. I can give the Committee that assurance. We are therefore addressing a much narrower issue: whether those who engage in volunteering should continue their formal learning as well, on the same basis as those in paid employment. Under the Bill that will be the requirement. They must engage in a sufficient element of part-time training as part of their volunteering, in precisely the same way as a young person in work would do. This might be as part of their volunteering programme or it might mean undertaking a part-time course alongside that activity. Continuing in formal accredited learning will ensure that the skills that young volunteers have developed are formally recognised and that they gain further qualifications. That is important to help them to demonstrate to future employers what they have learnt and it will be crucial in helping them to find, keep and progress in work. Fourthly, the amendments cover those suffering from illness. This will continue to be a legitimate reason for absence from learning, as it already is in relation to school attendance pre-16. I can give the Committee that assurance. We have also made it clear that the local authority will not be able to act if the young person has a reasonable excuse. As I set out, illness could well qualify as a reasonable excuse under Clause 39. I do not think that the noble Baroness spoke to Amendment No. 2, which refers to residence in England. Would she like me to reply to it now?