Education and Skills Bill

That was, in a sense, not the point I was making. It is not that other countries have been unable to achieve higher rates of participation than us without compulsion post-16; I fully accept that some have. The issue which we have to address—and will do further on Report—is whether, taking a full judgment of the case, this country is likely to get significantly improved rates of participation in education and training by setting out the requirements in the Bill. Most of those requirements, of course, apply to public authorities to make provision to meet the real needs of young people, and so on, but that package of reforms ultimately includes a sanction. The issue for us is whether, taking account of international practice and a judgment that we make about the likely effect of reforms here, it will significantly improve participation. My contention, on the basis of the evidence that we have, including evidence from those parts of Australia and Canada that have reformed recently, is that we would be likely to see a significant increase in participation if we implemented the whole package of measures in the Bill, which includes the ultimate element of compulsion. I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, wishes to be regarded as a progressive on these matters. That being the case, does she think it better to have lower rates of participation, with fewer 17 and 18 year-olds engaging in education and training and attaining the qualification levels that they can by so engaging, in order not to have to address the issue of compulsion? That is a respectable position, but it is precisely the one that has been used in the past, not by progressives but by reactionaries who have not wished to extend rights to education and training meaningfully over the past 100 years.