Education and Skills Bill

I am most grateful as always to the Minister for answering our concerns with his customary care and great detail. I apologise for not speaking to Amendment No. 2 or on gap years. As the Minister rightly said, they were probing amendments. Something is always missed out when we are juggling with groupings in Bills in Committee. This has been a good debate. I am sorry that I omitted to support the Liberal Democrats’ amendment on sport. As a sporting fanatic who believes passionately in the importance of sport in the acquisition of lifelong skills, I wholeheartedly support their amendment and I look forward to receiving the letter from the Minister. It goes to the heart of volunteering as well. It is not enough to say, ““We value this, but it is not enough””. I look forward to receiving that letter. My noble friend Lady Perry’s moving account of a young mother of 17 with two children having to comply with the duty in the Bill is, as she says, beyond any kind of reason or sense. The neat category is not a static one: young people move in and out of it. As my noble friends Lady Perry, Lord Lucas and the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, said, many of those people need a space: they need to get away from something that has formality and often they will return to it, sometimes within a few months; sometimes within a few years. My noble friend Lord Lucas’s story of Singapore reminds me of a question that was once asked of a former abbot of Ampleforth. He was asked what happened to his boys who failed. He answered, ““They employ my scholars””. There is a great deal for people who eventually find their niche in life, but sometimes it takes them some time. I assure the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, that I was so engrossed in my notes that I had not noticed that he was not in his place at the beginning. When I looked up for reassurance on secure attachment, he was there as he always is. I was very interested in what he had to say and look forward to the Minister’s response on those areas of concern. If this element of the Bill has to stay, I can draw some comfort from the Minister’s response on the flexibility of needs and his explanation of Clause 39. Given that the Government have chosen to go down the path of compulsion, it is not surprising that they say that that should in principle apply to all young people and there will not be opt outs for certain groups of people. The Minister prays in aid some august bodies. We have spoken to many of them in the past few weeks. The Government are kidding themselves if they believe that those organisations do not have serious concerns. As the Minister himself said, there are some big ifs in what will be there on offer. Given the long list of possible exemptions that was read out, I shall read carefully in Hansard what was said. However, one question sprang to mind when the Minister talked about young mothers. Why are working mothers given a year off work by statute, while young girls are to be given only 18 weeks? That does not seem right; working mothers are given a year off because it is deemed to be important for them to be with their babies for that first year of life. I seriously hope that the Government will take this away and look at it again. For now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. [Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 not moved.]