Education and Skills Bill

I endorse everything that my noble friend said. We also have amendments in this group: Amendment No. 29 is a probing amendment on the issue of full-time occupation. The clause defines full-time occupation as ““at least 20 hours”” a week. On what basis was that figure derived? The Government’s consultation paper states that no specific questions were designed to consult on whether 20 hours per week should constitute full-time employment, nor was there even a general question seeking views on where the threshold should lie. The consultation sheet simply asked whether those who are not in employment for a significant part of the week should participate in full-time education. It would be helpful to know why there was no consultation on the number of hours constituting full-time work for the purposes of the legislation. Why could it not, for example, be 16 or 35 hours? There was specific consultation on whether full-time education should be set at 16 hours per week. Why, then, should 16 hours constitute full-time education when 19 hours per week would not be regarded as full-time employment? Why consult specifically on defining full-time education but not full-time employment? It seems that while those in full-time education are able to undertake appropriate learning opportunities that do not necessarily lead to a qualification, those in a full-time occupation must undergo relevant training or education—in other words, leading to a relevant qualification or course of study that is of use to the employer but not necessarily of interest to the young person. We wish to make it possible for people to choose what training or education to take; after all, they may well have an eye on their prospects, not just their current employment. I am sure that all of the Committee can agree that that sentiment sits well with the aims of the Bill. The use of ““relevant”” means that the study must lead to accredited qualifications. The Government seem to have a prejudice against non-accredited learning, as demonstrated by the cuts in adult and community learning over the past few years. Different people have different needs, and the best route toward employability may not necessarily be an accredited course. My parents had a small cake shop in Farnworth, in the north-west. The young people they employed received first-class training, but it was not accredited. When my parents could, they allowed the young people to go off on day release; when they came back they spent a great deal of time trying to put right the college learning which had no practical application when they were working. Our amendments, therefore, are designed to assist the Government by improving the Bill to take account of in-house training.