---

Education and Skills Bill

The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford, is right about the swathe of change going on at the moment. She is also right to say that much of the success of this Bill will be predicated on the success of diplomas. We do not yet know what is going to happen there. These amendments would have the effect of delaying the coming into force of the duty until certain conditions have been met. This is necessary to avoid swathes of young people being caught out by a system that was not ready to take them, while they would be left to deal with the consequences. If the Government are going to press ahead with compulsion, we must make sure that it is not the system which is at fault for any avoidable failings. As we have already made clear, many of these young people have been failed by the educational system before they reach school-leaving age. It would therefore be unforgivable to sweep them up under compulsion into a system that might let them down again. It would be unfair to compel a young person to participate, if in fact he or she was unable to do so. These delaying amendments switch the onus to the state so as to ensure that the necessary funding, framework and organisation is in place before the duty comes into force so that 16 and 17 year olds are not left scrambling for places to avoid falling foul of the law. In our amendment, one of the Government’s justifications, indeed if not the primary one, for sanctions, is that 100 per cent participation cannot be reached, but 90 per cent can. If that is so, there should be no need to impose a duty before that 90 per cent target has been achieved. If the Government are serious that the criminal sanctions in the Bill are to be reserved for only the most hard-to-reach 10 per cent, then why allow any of the others to risk being penalised? I would argue that the Government will never realistically reach more than 90 per cent participation and they are likely to get that far with inducements and encouragement alone. Imposing a criminal sanction is, in reality, extremely excessive.