Plans to enforce compulsory education or training up to the age of 18 have as much to do with economics as education. As Lord Leitch’s review stated last year, British businesses will need ever more skilled employees if they are to remain globally competitive.

Britain trails far behind countries such as France, Germany and the US in terms of basic skills, so the real question facing ministers as they contemplate what could prove to be the most radical educational reform in a generation is not whether Britain can afford to raise the school leaving age but whether it can afford not to.

However, you cannot pin down a 17-year-old behind a desk if he or she does not want to be there. The trick will be in finding appealing alternatives for the 200,000 or so 16 and 17-year-olds who are currently classified as Neets (not in education, employment or training).

The Education Secretary Alan Johnson has made it clear that there is no point in introducing compulsory education or training to 18 unless the Government is willing to get serious about enforcement.

This is why he is proposing to impose criminal action and £50 fines for drop-outs. This will be accompanied by a light-touch approach to employers, parents and schools, who will breath a sigh of relief that they will not be expected to enforce the new measures.

Among young people aged 16 to 24, 62 per cent “strongly agree” with the plans, compared with 76 per cent of the population at large, according to the Government’s polling.

High-quality careers advice will be essential to make teenagers fully aware of the options open to them, what is expected of them and the value of training to them personally, not just to the economy.

Times recommends

• Students abandon the drink for gyms and juice
• Ofsted: third of Baby P-style reviews inadequate
• Top boys' school picks first woman head