Clause 21

Part of Children and Young Persons Bill [Lords] – in a Public Bill Committee at 4:30 pm on 1 July 2008.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Annette Brooke Annette Brooke Shadow Spokesperson (Children, Schools and Families), Shadow Minister (Education) 4:30, 1 July 2008

I had better say at the outset that this is a probing amendment because I rather suspect that I have applied my thoughts to the wrong clause. However, I hope that the Minister will accept the argument that I put forward even if the amendment is tabled in a highly technically inefficient way.

The amendment is about parity of treatment for care leavers in their future education. I welcome the support that is offered in the clause to previously looked-after people who decide to go to university. Ministers have pointed out that only 6 per cent. of looked-after children go on to university. There is a massive discrepancy between that figure and that for the rest of the population. I therefore appreciate the bursary. However, it is also important to appreciate that 30 per cent. of care leavers aged 19 are not in education, employment or training. While the gap is not quite as large as with the university figure, it is still highly significant that a third of care leavers are not in education, employment or training. When the Children, Schools and Families Committee looked at this issue, it recommended that a broader bursary system be introduced for looked-after children in post-16 education and training.

I recognise that the Government are putting forward support in clause 22 in the way of a personal adviser in certain circumstances. The Government have responded in other arenas by saying that they have measures to support young people who are not in education, employment or training, such as by not charging fees for courses. If we want to ensure that we put as much emphasis on carrying on in training as on going to university, we must give a little more financial assistance to care leavers. I have deliberately included apprenticeships in the amendment because that could be an area where just that little bit of extra support is needed.

I hope that the Minister will respond to the general principle rather than the adequacy of the amendment and say why there should not be more assistance for the important proportion of care leavers who are not in education, employment or training and will not immediately take a university route, but who need support at this vital time.