The Children’s Rights Alliance, to which I was referring before the Division, argues that 16 and 17-year-olds are capable of making decisions about what is in their best interests. It goes on to say in its briefing to us:

“The imposition of a duty runs counter to significant professional opinion about the capacity of young people for independent decision-making and the Government’s own policy of youth participation. At a time when the Government is  considering proposals to give young people the vote, why does it seek to remove responsibility from young people for decisions over their own education?

Young people who leave education at 16 may do so because they have a history of unsatisfactory experiences in the education system, or because they have issues in their lives which make it difficult for them to continue, such as homelessness or emotional problems. It is just such young people—the most vulnerable—who may be unable or unwilling to comply with such a duty. What is more, the creation of a duty to participate in education will not guarantee educational success for these young people.”

The amendment would impose a duty on local authorities to “enable and assist” such young people, rather than imposing what the alliance believes will be an unsuccessful and unenforceable duty.