One of the standout quotes in that report was from someone trying to guide young people through that confusing new reality. They said:

'a lot of young people that we’ve got have major anxiety issues, mental health issues…School is a good kind of structured approach for them and there’s support for them…When that support stops, when that structure and that routine stops, what we find is that young people retreat into their bedrooms…and don’t leave'.

And it is this confusion and this letting go at too early an age that makes me think we need to move to a system of compulsory education or training up to 18. This is a change that has been introduced in England, with cross-party support, and where levels of NEETs in young people is now below that of Wales. Central to the debate that brought about that change was a recognition that people from the most deprived backgrounds, who had the most to gain from continuing education, would be less likely to participate voluntarily.

So, the value of this policy, I believe, is that it puts the onus and responsibility on Government and not on young people themselves. We could develop the perfect pathway for every teenager in Wales, but, by placing the responsibility on them to find their own way, we're self-evidently going to lose a whole tranche of children most vulnerable to becoming NEET in the first place. And, while raising the age of participation would not capture them all, it would mean that they all should be offered opportunities and that there is some oversight of 16 and 17-year-olds, who are, essentially, still children.

I do not contend, though, that we merely copy the example of England. I think we would do well to look to Ontario, where this change was introduced in a comprehensive way, giving learners genuine and clear choices about how to complete their education journey. It involves the whole community, not just schools and colleges. The 2006 Act passed in Ontario is clear in its ambition. It says that the province as a whole will

'Affirm that no initiative is more essential to the province's future than a plan that ensures young people keep learning until they graduate or turn 18, whether it is in classroom or through equivalent learning opportunities, such as an apprenticeship or workplace training program'.

I think England took the idea of raising the participation age forward without fully learning from Ontario's accompanying initiatives, like the student success programme, for example. Student success teams in Ontario provide extra attention and support for individual students who need it. They have the opportunity to benefit from individualised attention and support, choose from more options for learning, such as expanded co-operative education, specialist high skills majors, dual credits and e-learning. And, crucially, they are given help to solve problems they previously may have faced alone.

By following more closely the example of Ontario, we would avoid some of the mistakes we've seen in England. Indeed, I think we already have two obvious advantages to delivering this kind of change in Wales, distinct to our own policy agenda. Firstly, we have a genuinely comprehensive form of secondary education and less marketisation of the schools and college system. This will reduce complexity in delivering different options for learning in different settings. Secondly, the history of raising the participation age is one of policymakers putting the cart before the horse. First, the age limit has been increased, but only after that change does there come proper evaluation and reform of the curriculum. So, in Wales at the moment, we have the chance to do this the right way around. As my committee's 'Mind over matter' report noted, the current reform of the curriculum presents a once-in-a-generation opportunity to mainstream emotional well-being and mental health in education. And, as the Minister has said, the point of these reforms is to construct a system powered by purpose and the type of citizens we'd like to see.

This is about shaping our society for the better, not just developing more effective economic agents and consumers. Central to that bigger, more important mission is the necessity to hold on to our learners for as long as we can. We do have an opportunity to do the right thing the right way in the right order here in Wales. I believe we owe it to our young people to take it.

As Michelle Obama wrote about her own schooling:

'Through my education, I didn’t just develop skills, I didn’t just develop the ability to learn, but I developed confidence.' 

I can't think of a time when our children need that confidence more than they do today, faced with economic uncertainty, social fracture and a deepening mental health crisis. Sometimes, as policy makers, we cannot see the wood for the trees. I believe that is what's happening here. None of us want to see our children and young people lonely and isolated, none of us disputes the damaging long-term effects of being NEET, none of us disputes the positive impact the right education setting has on the well-being of children and young people. All of us want an education system that responds to the emotional needs of our pupils, as well as the economy, and yet we seem shy of making the one change that would speak to all these things. Raising the participation age in Wales is surely an idea whose time has come. Thank you.