Education and Skills Bill

What an interesting debate—it reminded me of the Second Reading debate of all those months ago. I am not going to get distracted by the new Tory party policy on who the greatest living Briton is, but I certainly join the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) in wishing His Royal Highness a happy 60th birthday. The hon. Gentleman raised questions associated with absence and what he would call truancy rates. I remind him that, by the end of spring 2007, the absence rate stood at 6.44 per cent., on track for a rate for the year as a whole of 6.5 per cent.—the lowest on record. In secondary schools, overall absence fell to 7.76 per cent. in the first two terms of 2006-07, compared with 8.16 per cent. for the comparable period in the year before and 9.07 per cent. in the whole of 1996-97. We certainly take no lessons from the Conservative party in respect of truancy. The hon. Gentleman mentioned people who are not in education, employment or training—NEETs—and I shall deal with that point in a short while. He also discussed the views of stakeholders on compulsion and enforcement. I do not argue with his version of events in respect of the witnesses who came before the Public Bill Committee, because there were certainly those who disagreed with compulsion, but I remind him that some agreed with it. The chief executive of Barnado's, Martin Narey, told us that"““ultimately, after all the safeguards within the Bill””—" that is an important point—"““our position is that we support compulsion as a means of ensuring that the most disadvantaged young people have their horizons broadened and are prepared for a world of work, rather than a world of benefits and long-term poverty.””––[Official Report, Education and Skills Public Bill Committee, 22 January 2008; c. 4. Q1.]" He went on to say all sorts of wise and helpful things. Even the National Union of Teachers said:"““The impact of saying, 'This is now our expectation', will move everything forward. The penalty is a minor issue.””––[Official Report, Education and Skills Public Bill Committee, 24 January 2008; c. 137. Q321.]" In addition, the Prince's Trust, the very organisation to which the hon. Gentleman referred stated:"““If you make it compulsory and you put in adequate resources…then it would make a big difference because, yes, you would get that shift on the ground.””––[Official Report, Education and Skills Public Bill Committee, 22 January 2008; c. 21. Q52.]" This policy seeks to create that shift on the ground. We agree with the Association of School and College Leaders that we are after persuasion rather than coercion, but we do not rule out coercion, at the end of the road, as a way of galvanising the whole system around children and, in particular, the journey that the current year 7s are going through as the first cohort to which this will apply. The fact that they know that they will not drop out and will stay on, and that everyone who works with them knows that that will be the case, will have a hugely galvanising effect on the whole system—it is certainly having a galvanising effect on my Department. Of course, enforcement is the last resort—it must always be the last resort. I set out all the stages of enforcement showing that enforcement and, in turn, any form of criminalisation, is very much the last resort. As I have said, I hope that that is never needed.