I am afraid that I cannot support the amendment. While I, too, deplore the discrepancy between the independent sector and state schools—any discrepancy of opportunity is of course to be deplored—I do not think that this amendment is the way to solve the problems that the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, has outlined. We must bear in mind the fact that sixth forms these days are about a great deal more than A-levels. Provision for the 16 to 18 age group is much more diverse than just sixth forms. If a young person wanted to study Latin, psychology or philosophy, for example, that would not be provided by the minimum entitlement laid down in the Conservative amendment. There are probably plenty of places where the young person could do that. Many young people of that age now do their spread of subjects in more than one setting. Although we have a problem with discrepancy of opportunity in some areas, this amendment is not the way to tackle the issue. That will be done by making sure that adequate resources are provided and that high-quality teaching is available to all young people, not by providing a minimum entitlement of this prescriptive nature.
Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Baroness Walmsley
(Liberal Democrat)
in the House of Lords on Thursday, 2 July 2009.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
712 c374-5 
Session
2008-09
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 12:38:23 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_573726
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_573726
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_573726