Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Willetts (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Monday, 14 January 2008. It occurred during Debate on bill on Education and Skills Bill.


Education and Skills Bill

I am familiar with the Geddes axe, but although there may have been public expenditure pressures, the story of why that Act was not fully implemented is more complicated and still relevant. The then Government decided, partly because of public expenditure pressures, that they could not afford to make the scheme a national, compulsory one. They instead gave local authorities, which then as now had a lot of responsibility for education, the ability to decide whether to oblige employers to provide their employees with some day release education. Some local authorities implemented the provisions of the Fisher Act. For example, London decided that pupils should be required to receive some kind of continuing education, even after they had left school, for 320 hours a year. However, the boundaries of London extended only as far north as the Edgware road. North of that was Middlesex, which made no such requirement of employers, the result of which was a significant problem—namely, that employers found that they would much rather recruit young people who lived north of the Edgware road than those who lived south of it. I do not know whether that is a warning about the perils of localism or a warning about the perils of compulsion, but we can learn lessons from the attempt to implement that legislation.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
470 c751-2 
Session
2007-08
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Education Curriculum Discipline Disadvantaged Carers Age Apprentices Finance Qualifications Private education Literacy Special educational needs Training Vocational education Truancy School leaving Numeracy
Legislation
Education and Skills Bill 2007-08
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk