Education and Skills Bill

moved Amendment No. 4: 4: Clause 1, page 1, line 10, at end insert ““, and ( ) has not written to the relevant local authority to request that their education and training entitlement under section 2 should be delayed until a specified future date.”” The noble Baroness said: I shall speak also to Amendment No. 10 in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Sharp of Guildford. Both amendments would give a young person a right to postpone their entitlement to free education and training up to level 3 until some time in the future—certainly beyond the age of 25, if that suits them. For that reason, I would expect the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, and the noble Baroness, Lady Howe of Idlicote, to support me, since that is exactly what they are asking for in Amendment No. 210. There may be many reasons why a young person might want to postpone this entitlement, including the previous reason referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Morris. I agree with her about the iniquity of a working mother having a year to bond with her child, while a young girl may have only 18 weeks. In the previous debate, we heard many reasons why a young person might want to postpone their entitlement. The noble Baroness, Lady Perry of Southwark, gave a perfect example in which not only did postponement not do any harm, it did a whole lot of good. I hope that the House will take that into consideration when considering these amendments. Young people may want to take a gap year at 16 rather than at the usual age of 18; they may have caring responsibilities, or they may be reaching a crucial stage in a sporting career or other career, such as acting. I do not think that it is quite as easy as the Minister suggested to fit in education and training alongside a career in sport or, particularly, acting. For example, it would not have been terribly easy for the young people who took part in the filming of the ““Harry Potter”” series to fit in their education alongside a heavy filming schedule. Yet they would have been held back tremendously if they had not been able to postpone their education. The fact that young people may want to postpone it does not mean that they do not want to do it at all; it just means that it suits their life circumstances to do it later. Surely, if a young person chooses when to take his entitlement, he is more likely to apply himself to it. I hope that these amendments make it clear that we on these Benches far from object to giving people the right to progress their education; we simply want them to succeed. Some control of the decisions, not just about the course or where to study, but when to study, will be a factor that is conducive to the right frame of mind for success. Surly, resentful young people do not learn very well. Young people who are worried about those they care for will not learn very well. Young people who would rather pursue a precocious sporting or acting career will not learn very well. It is better to let them do it later than allow them to fail. I have to say to the Minister that I am not convinced that every local government official in the country will make the right decisions as to whether an excuse put forward for non-participation for the time being is an adequate excuse within the meaning of the Bill. We are very keen on the entitlement to level 3 education and training, but we would prefer it to be a lifetime entitlement, like the entitlement to level 2 and basic skills. Forcing people to take education and training at 16 smacks of fiddling the numbers. We heartily applaud the entitlements to a diploma course or an apprenticeship, if qualified, by 2013. However, as your Lordships will hear from my noble friend Lady Sharp, these things and others need to be in place before compulsion is even considered. All the measures in the Government’s document, Raising Expectations, supporting all young people to participate until 18, will be to no avail if the time is not right. When I was in business, I learnt that it was not enough to make the right decisions; they had to be timely. The right decision at the wrong time is the wrong decision. So it is in education. The two amendments are about one element of compulsion: timing. Perhaps I should say a little more about the principles that underpin our objection to compulsion. It is not because we do not want young people to stay in training until they are 18, but because we should persuade them that it is in their interest to do so, rather than force them. I say that for two reasons. First, it is wrong to put the duty on the child, with civil and criminal penalties if the child does not comply. Secondly, it will not be effective. Let us take the first point in more detail. Section 7 of the Education Act 1996 sets out the duties of parents to ensure that their children go to school until they are 16. The Bill shifts the duty on to the child when they reach 16. I recognise the Government’s good intentions; gaining qualifications is good for the child's life chances and good for the economy and society as a whole. I welcome all measures that encourage providers to provide sufficient training places of a suitable quality, but I fundamentally oppose the creation of a duty on a child. Education is enshrined as a right in human rights legislation, including Article 29 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and Article 13 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. We in the UK are party to those international agreements, which require states to take positive measures to ““enable and assist”” individuals and communities to enjoy that right. The only reference to compulsion relates to access, not compulsory participation. Article 3 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child requires the child's best interests to be paramount. The Minister may suggest to me in his reply that it is in the child’s best interests to stay in education until 18, and of course I would agree, but Article 12 gives the child the right to express his views in matters that affect him and states that his views must be given due weight. Anyone who has ever met a 16-year-old knows that they are perfectly capable of expressing their views about things that affect them. Thus their decision, if it is so, not to participate should be respected. It should not be superseded by some local government enforcement officer who chooses to decide whether the child’s reasons for not participating are reasonable. According to the Bill, it is a serious matter not to participate. The young person will receive an attendance notice, failure to comply with which will be a criminal offence. It is no good the Government fobbing us off with claims that the offence will not be revealed in a CRB check and would be on the record for only two and a half years. The position regarding record keeping relating to non-recordable offences such as this is far from clear. They are kept on local police records and there is no guidance about how long they should be kept. Will the Government issue such guidance? In any case, they would be revealed by an enhanced CRB check, and they would have to be revealed in applications for employment or insurance and an application for a visa to enter the United States or other countries. To a visa application officer in a foreign country, an offence is an offence. They cannot be expected to understand the nature of this offence. The compulsion element is like taking a child to a party and saying to him, ““Now you sit down there and you will enjoy yourself””. Nothing could be better designed to ensure that he had a terrible time. This is yet another trap into which the most alienated children can fall and become entangled with the law. We all know that that is rarely a positive experience. It will disproportionately affect the most vulnerable and needy and will certainly not guarantee educational success. Before I end, I take the Minister up on something that he said in the previous debate. He seems to believe that exemption is the same thing as exclusion. It is not. Just because a young person may be exempted, if they so wish, does not prevent or exclude them from taking part in education between the ages of 16 and 18, if they so wish and have suitable support. The crucial words are ““if they so wish””. It should be for the authorities to provide courses and support, and to remove barriers, but it should be for the young citizen to decide if it is right for him at that particular moment. I beg to move.