Education and Skills Bill

Critics will say that we are putting the cart before the horse; I still think that the Government are jumping the gun on the issue. Yes, lots of reforms are in hand and yes, we wish them very well, but given the history of failure on the introduction of practical, more vocational courses, we want to see that the new diplomas are working well before we introduce compulsion and the potential criminalisation of those who are not motivated and do not participate. The same applies to the apprenticeship group. There will be a duty, initially on the Learning and Skills Council, but it will be transferred to local authorities, to ensure that apprenticeships are available for those who want to take them up. We know that there is a lack of apprenticeships at the moment. It is difficult to persuade employers to enter into apprenticeship schemes. We are well aware that a lot of reforms are at hand, but it is sensible to wait to see whether they are satisfactory before trying to push people to stay on in compulsory education. As the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, said, five years is quite a short time in education. We do not necessarily need to have a five-year lead-in. I recognise that one reason why we have a five-year lead-in is that it is this year’s 11 year-olds who will be affected and who, in 2013, will be expected to stay on until they are 17 and then, in 2015, two years later, those who are nine at the moment will be expected to stay in education or training until they are 18. If we look back to the raising of the school leaving age, there was not a very long lead-in then. If you have successful reforms in hand, you do not necessarily need a five-year or seven-year lead-in; a three-year lead in would be perfectly adequate. Three or five years is a very short time in education. However, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. [Amendment No. 17 not moved.]