Education and Skills Bill

Noble Lords will be pleased to hear that, although I cannot promise to be quite as succinct as the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, with his two-word response a few moments ago, I have no intention of wearying the Committee by going through all the arguments again. They have already been debated very effectively. I shall summarise the three main points. Clause 2 is at the heart of the compulsion element of the Bill, with which many of us have difficulty. I shall do something I do not often do: give the Minister an opportunity to shut me up and possibly even shut up some of the Official Opposition Front Bench as well. I say that because this issue is one of the two main points on which both main opposition Benches are united, so the Minister could get through the Government’s business a lot quicker and save us trouble if he accepts that this clause should not stand part of the Bill. The first of the three main arguments is that we believe that compulsion is wrong in principle because it moves the duty from the parent to the child. It is contrary to both the spirit and the letter of a number of international conventions to which this country is a party. The other two points are that compulsion is not necessary and that it could do harm. It is unnecessary because a number of changes are in the pipeline which we have debated in the last couple of groups that may well continue to reduce the number of NEETs, at which this Bill is targeted. The Government should certainly wait and see how well their initiatives work out before introducing compulsion. I say that particularly in the light of the fact that compulsion will not necessarily lead to quality participation and actual achievement of qualifications. It could simply secure bodies on seats behind desks. The point about it possibly being harmful is that compulsion could turn young people off learning for life, a point made most effectively earlier this evening by the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Yardley. That is the last thing we want. If we really want children to benefit from their entitlement to levels 2 and 3 tuition, we should let them choose how, when and where to do it. Any of us who have taught will know only too well that young people who choose to do so learn effectively, while those attending under sufferance do not.