---

Education and Skills Bill

I wish to make a little more progress now. I should refer at this stage to one curious consequence of what is proposed. Under this legislation, young people will be considered to be in education only if they are studying for a QCA-recognised qualification. A number of independent schools, and others, are currently dissatisfied with the curriculum and are developing, or have developed, their own qualifications and examinations, such as the iGCSE and the Cambridge pre-U. If a young person were studying for those qualifications, with their parents' permission and in a respectable school, would that mean that they were breaking the law? Would that mean, for example, that the whole top stream at Winchester were criminals? [Interruption.] I know that there are some Labour Members who think the very existence of a top stream at Winchester is inherently criminal, but in drawing attention to that potential anomaly I just wanted to emphasise the potential existence of many flaws and many potential restrictions on liberty in the Bill. What about individuals who want to join and play for sporting teams? What about those who have obtained qualifications and wish to enjoy a gap year travelling or volunteering? We will seek clarification of every area in Committee, and if we receive satisfaction from the Government we will be delighted. My third test is how effective the Government's proposals are likely to be in practice. I have expressed my scepticism that compulsion, in the way in which the Government are proceeding, is quite the best way to secure the greatest level of fruitful participation in education. It is said in the Army that a volunteer is worth 10 pressed men. It is an old saw, but we all know that you can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make it drink. More broadly, anyone involved in education will know that an effective precondition for successful teaching is a willingness on the part of the student to learn. The presence of sullen conscripts in a classroom or learning setting, who resent being there, is unlikely to lead to their sudden conversion to the joys of learning, particularly if their previous experience of learning has been unhappy. Indeed, their presence is unlikely to be conducive to creating a calm and purposeful environment for all those who do want to learn. Given the present high levels of truancy pre-16, with the numbers increasing every year from year 8, the task of enforcing attendance post-16 will certainly be a challenge. The priority should be to ensure that we can provide the right incentives and encouragements to persuade young people to participate in education for as long as possible. The Government have sometimes appeared to believe that any questions about their preferred method of proceeding spring from bad faith or some reactionary desire to limit opportunity, but the range of voices raised in connection with the proposal makes nonsense of any such thought. From the British Youth Council to the Children's Rights Alliance and from Rainer to the Edge foundation, organisations that exist to champion young people's rights and to provide a better vocational education for all have concerns. They all point out that unless disaffection is tackled before 16, the Government's strategy will not succeed, and that an approach based on coercion will be less successful than one that places incentives at its heart. Such organisations are not alone in raising concerns; a variety of influential educational voices have also issued warnings. One figure has warned that the raising of the school leaving age should be seen only as a ““symbol”” rather than a punitive measure. Another warned that"““this will work only if the levels of overall literacy and numeracy from the early years through primary and secondary schools are raised for those currently underachieving.””—[Official Report, House of Lords, 8 November 2007; Vol. 696, c. 184.]" That figure was Baroness Morgan of Huyton, formerly an adviser, of course, to Tony Blair. What about this argument:"““young people already have a right to education or training, which many ignore, and compulsion means fines or imprisonment. Far better to focus on getting the choice of qualifications…right before requiring compulsion””?" That was Conor Ryan, formerly an adviser to Tony Blair. Another quotation states the person's recognition that the measure"““will amount to nothing unless all the component parts””—" of education provision—"““are making a reality of near-universal participation by those ages by the time we come to raise the participation age…It is important that the actual raising of the participation age is…a formal change reflecting practice that is already taking place and is not…a new, punitive regime.””—[Official Report, House of Lords, 8 November 2007; Vol. 696, c. 234.]" That was said by Lord Adonis, a Minister in the Department for Children, Schools and Families and formerly an adviser to Tony Blair. Then, of course, this point was made:"““we need to look at why those young people have copped out of school, why they truant, why they find the traditional education system unacceptable…the idea…that deeply damaged young men and women could somehow be fined and it would make them go into education or training. I think it is cloud cuckoo land.””" That was, of course, the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), who was a Minister under Tony Blair. We can see a clear Blairite analysis of the legislation—one with which I must say I have some sympathy—that stresses the need to avoid a punitive approach.