Annette Brooke (Mid Dorset & North Poole, Liberal Democrat)

I beg to move amendment 229, in clause 80, page 49, line 41, at end insert—

‘(ba) increasing opportunities for people with learning difficulties to gain skills and training to increase transition from education into employment;’.

Christopher Chope (Christchurch, Conservative)

With this it will be convenient to take the following: amendment 230, in clause 101, page 60, line 39, at end insert—

‘(2A) It shall be the duty of the Chief Executive to ensure that all services and facilities mentioned in this section are provided in such a way as to meet the needs of persons with learning difficulties.’.

New clause 10—Persons aged 16 to 18 with a learning difficulty

‘(1) The Chief Executive must, in performing the functions of the office, have regard to the needs of persons with learning difficulties to whom this section applies.

(2) This section applies to persons who are aged 16 to 18, other than persons who are aged under 25 and are subject to learning difficulty assessment.

(3) For the purposes of this section, a person has a learning difficulty if—

(a) the person has a significantly greater difficulty in learning than the majority of persons the same age, or

(b) the person has a disability which prevents or hinders the person from making use of facilities of a kind generally provided by institutions providing education falling within section 92(1)(a) or (b).’.

New clause 11—Provision of support in the apprenticeship workplace

‘(1) The Chief Executive of Skills Funding has a duty to ensure that apprentices with learning difficulties receive appropriate support in the workplace through—

(a) special educational needs provision for apprentices in the workplace over the age of 16; and

(b) The Access to Work Scheme.

(2) The Chief Executive of Skills Funding has a duty to ensure that employers and apprentices are informed of their entitlement to support in the apprenticeship workplace.

(3) In this section “support in the apprenticeship workplace” includes special educational needs provision (regardless of whether the apprentice is subject to learning difficulty assessment) and the Access to Work Scheme.’.

Annette Brooke (Mid Dorset & North Poole, Liberal Democrat)

I shall endeavour to be brief, concise and to the point, because I am looking forward to precise clarification from the Minister. The amendments and two new clauses are interconnected and attempt to get clarification on the situation with regard to people with learning difficulties. There are many opportunities in the proposed apprenticeship programme, and we need to get things right for people with disabilities.

Amendment 229 is intended to give recognition to the importance of apprenticeships in supporting disabled people to bridge the gap between education and the labour market. Apprenticeships are important in supporting disabled people to gain qualifications, workplace experience and skills. Both employers and employees gain valuable experience and skills in understanding disability and breaking down barriers.

Royal National Institute of Blind People research indicates that 92 per cent. of employers would find it difficult or impossible to employ a blind or partially sighted person, which just shows that, given the Bill’s high objectives, it will not be easy to tackle the issue, although it will be necessary to do so. The proposed extra duty in amendment 229 would enable the chief executive of Skills Funding to tackle the problem. I should be grateful for the Minister’s response to the simple proposal of adding the requirement that the chief executive takes on board the need to support fully people with learning difficulties.

Amendment 230 is fairly straightforward and should involve the straightforward matter of the Minister telling me that the proposal will be introduced. It would ensure that people with disabilities have access to the information that they need. He will be aware that I have been involved in trying to improve access to textbooks for people with sight impairment, and it is very difficult to ensure full accessibility. The amendment, therefore, focuses on learners with some form of print-related disability—blind and partially sighted people, and all who find it difficult to access material in written or electronic forms. We ask  for a properly designed website that conforms with web content accessibility guidelines, an accessible print format, such as large print, giant print or Braille, an audio format or an easy-to-read format. The amendment would mean that the chief executive has to ensure that all information on apprenticeships, whether from the NAS, the national portal, or from an employer’s advertisement, was accessible to disabled would-be apprentices.

On new clause 10, we established last week that the chief executive will have a duty to those with learning difficulties, and that learning difficulties was an all-encompassing term. A learning difficulty or a physical disability might create issues with accessing the training under discussion. As I understand the situation, the chief executive has a duty to those with learning difficulties in respect of disabled learners aged 19 to 25. The chief executive must also have due regard for those over 16 with a statement of special educational needs. However, those aged 16 to 18 years old who do not have a statement may not have one for all sorts of reasons: they may not have been assessed at school; they may have failed to get a statement; or they might have developed a learning disability, such as sight loss, aged 17. I am therefore concerned that the Bill might not cover those people, so I am looking for a clear answer, because that could represent a significant oversight, and disabled apprentices in that age group must be given the same support that we welcome the Bill giving to their statemented or post-19 peers.

There are a few further points to clarify, and they are relevant to all the amendments. The Learning and Skills Council was a statutory body and had a disability equality duty, but there is general concern about whether the Skills Funding Agency will have that specific duty. It is quite difficult to work through that issue, given the body’s formation and its location within the new structure, but we need an assurance that the new and complicated structure that is proposed will deal with that duty.

Finally, employer-led programmes and special educational needs provision obviously have to be of concern to agencies representing those with learning disabilities. We drafted new clause 11 to find out how the duties towards those with learning difficulties will be met while the apprentice is in the workplace. It can be difficult to perform such duties in the classroom, but it is even more important to do so in the workplace and support will be critical and valuable. We should also be interested to know how the Government intend to join up SEN provision access to work provision. There are several probing aspects within the string of amendments and new clauses, and I hope that we can receive clarification because they are important for many people within the age groups under discussion.

John Hayes (Shadow Minister, Innovation, Universities and Skills; South Holland & The Deepings, Conservative)

As the hon. Lady said, the amendments and new clauses are important. They highlight the value of involving those with learning difficulties between the ages of 16 and 18 in opportunities that we want for other citizens. In principle, we are extremely supportive of legislation to improve the chances of disabled learners and those with learning difficulties. All learners must be  given the chance to make the best of their aptitudes, interests and skills and, only by their doing that, can we build the just and cohesive society that we seek.

However, a couple of issues need to be dealt with. There is a debate about which apprenticeship schemes would in practical terms be available to different learners. It would certainly not be true that all apprentice schemes would be suitable for all sorts of learners. Those with particular learning difficulties or disabilities might find some apprenticeships either impossible or undesirable. I want to test the hon. Lady and the Minister on such matters.

New clause 10 would move disabled students aged 16 to 18 to the aegis of the SFA. Is that necessarily the best thing? Perhaps the new clause would not do that.

Annette Brooke (Mid Dorset & North Poole, Liberal Democrat)

I am sorry, but I did not hear the first part of the hon. Gentleman’s sentence. Will he repeat it?

John Hayes (Shadow Minister, Innovation, Universities and Skills; South Holland & The Deepings, Conservative)

What?

Nick Gibb (Shadow Minister, Children, Schools and Families; Bognor Regis & Littlehampton, Conservative)

The hon. Lady said that she did not hear what you said.

Christopher Chope (Christchurch, Conservative)

Order. To prevent the debate being a dialogue of the deaf, can everyone speak up?

John Hayes (Shadow Minister, Innovation, Universities and Skills; South Holland & The Deepings, Conservative)

I shall broadcast my sentiments rather more powerfully.

New clause 10 explicitly moves disabled students between the ages of 16 and 18 to the aegis of the SFA. Would that always be in their best interests or might it, perversely, occasionally limit opportunities for them? That could be an unintended consequence of the change.

There is some concern about what is entailed in having regard to the needs of a person with a disability

“which prevents or hinders the person from making use of facilities of a kind generally provided by institutions providing education”.

Will the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole or the Minister make it clear how that would work in practice? A balance needs to be struck between opening opportunities and creating the impression that we provide all kinds of services and openings, which could not practically be delivered. Notwithstanding all that, I understand why the amendments have been tabled and I am extremely sympathetic to them in principle.

Annette Brooke (Mid Dorset & North Poole, Liberal Democrat)

I am sure that the Minister will clarify that point further, but that is the terminology used in the Bill. It is picked up in this new clause to make sure that there is equal treatment of the younger age group.

John Hayes (Shadow Minister, Innovation, Universities and Skills; South Holland & The Deepings, Conservative)

I understand now where those words come from. I am grateful to the hon. Lady for making that clear. Perhaps the Minister will say a little more about the balance that he intends to strike between ensuring that the entitlements that we all believe in are widely available to people with the kind of challenges that the hon. Lady has identified and the practical issues around delivery.

Jim Knight (Minister of State (Schools and Learners), Department for Children, Schools and Families; South Dorset, Labour)

I understand and support the sentiment behind the amendment. We believe firmly in maximising opportunities for people with learning difficulties to take up apprenticeship training, but we consider the amendment to be unnecessary as the Bill already builds on existing legislation to ensure that the needs of people with learning difficulties are met. We have made a number of provisions in the Bill. Clause 80 confers on the chief executive of Skills Funding the power to secure the provision of suitable apprenticeship training for people aged 19 to 24 who are subject to a learning difficulty assessment. These are the same people for whom a local education authority must ensure that enough suitable education and training facilities are provided under the duty contained in proposed new section 15ZA of the Education Act 1996, inserted by clause 40. There is also a general duty in clause 111 on the chief executive of Skills Funding

“to have regard to the needs of persons with learning difficulties”

when exercising his or her functions. That would cover adults over the age of 18.

On amendment 230, I can assure the hon. Lady that the vacancy matching service will be accessible to people with disabilities and has been set up according to approved guidelines for accessibility for disabled people. That covers those who are partially sighted and have reading difficulties because of visual impairment whom she mentioned and whose cause she champions in the House. The vacancy matching service will provide the opportunity for learners with difficulties and disabilities to raise anything they will require for an interview so that they have the opportunity to be fully supported. There will be additional support where, for example, disabled people are not being successful in their applications. I can also confirm that the Disability Discrimination Act 2005 amends the 1995 Act to introduce a statutory duty on public authorities, which would include Skills Funding and the National Apprenticeship Service, to promote equality of opportunity for disabled people.

John Hayes (Shadow Minister, Innovation, Universities and Skills; South Holland & The Deepings, Conservative)

The NAS will be focused on all types of learners. What specific expertise is it likely to have in respect of disabled learners? Where will disabled learners get advice if they are not in touch with Connexions? I am thinking of younger people here. What specific facility will there be to provide them with the necessary support, advice and guidance that they might need to embark on the courses of training that are an implicit part of the Bill?

Jim Knight (Minister of State (Schools and Learners), Department for Children, Schools and Families; South Dorset, Labour)

The sort of expertise that the NAS would have would be that which migrates from the current LSC. The numbers of learners in the FE system, for example, declaring learning difficulties and/or disabilities is 618,000. Some expertise will transfer to local authorities, and there are the duties of co-operation between the chief executive of Skills Funding—and through him the delegated person, who would be the chief executive of the NAS—and local authorities. Through local authorities, young people would get advice from Connexions, and, when they reach the relevant age, they would get advice from the Adult Advancement and Careers Service.

John Hayes (Shadow Minister, Innovation, Universities and Skills; South Holland & The Deepings, Conservative)

Given that Skill, the institute for disabled students, has highlighted its concerns about the quality of information advice, it is not incredibly convincing to  say that we will simply pull across the existing skills of the Learning and Skills Council. If the organisation that represents the interests of disabled students is worried about what services are provided, surely we should think about how we can enhance and improve those services. For example, would it be possible to mission the NAS to take on additional skills to deal with that? Perhaps there could be a section within the organisation aimed at such learners. This is a specialist area that requires the right kind of people and the right quality of advice.

Jim Knight (Minister of State (Schools and Learners), Department for Children, Schools and Families; South Dorset, Labour)

It is certainly our intention to work with organisations such as Skill, which provide a powerful voice for the interests of those individuals and ensure that we have the right capacity and skills to deal with that important group of vulnerable learners within the NAS. We have also introduced the information, advice and guidance standard for local authorities, which we discussed when we debated the Education and Skills Bill last year. The implementation of that is an important aspect of improving the overall quality of the IAG available through local authorities and Connexions. The fact that we introduced that standard and have more to say on information, advice and guidance this year, is an implicit recognition that we can do more to raise the quality of information, advice and guidance. One aspect of that will be to ensure that the advice and guidance that we have for this group of people is as good as possible.

New clause 10 would replicate provisions in clause 111 that relate to 16 to 18-year-olds, by placing a duty on the chief executive to

“have regard to the needs of persons with learning difficulties”

when exercising functions. It is essentially a replication, and I urge the hon. Lady not to press the clause.

Finally, on new clause 11, I assure the Committee that access to work is being expanded. When creating further apprenticeship places, employers are made aware of their obligations to make reasonable adjustments to accommodate those with a learning difficulty, and they are advised of support on which they may draw. The Disability Discrimination Act 2005 also places duties on employers. Most aspiring apprentices with a learning difficulty will have their support needs identified and met during the recruitment process, prior to commencing an apprenticeship. We do not believe that the amendment would strengthen that provision.

Annette Brooke (Mid Dorset & North Poole, Liberal Democrat)

Let me return to new clause 10—I apologise, but the Minister was in full swing. I am aware that clause 111 covers many of the points, including that about picking up on the definition. However, the concern was that there is a gap in relation to 16 to 18-year-olds who do not have a statement at that point. I do not believe that the Minister has addressed that.

Jim Knight (Minister of State (Schools and Learners), Department for Children, Schools and Families; South Dorset, Labour)

I think we addressed that point when we discussed part 2 regarding assessments for LLDD. The debate and discussions that we had on clause 40 were relevant to that, as are sections 13 and 13A of the Education Act 1996. The combination of those things addresses the point raised by the hon. Lady on new clause 10. I urge that the amendment be withdrawn.

Annette Brooke (Mid Dorset & North Poole, Liberal Democrat)

I thank the Minister for his replies. I feel reassured about the accessibility of information on amendment 229. The amendment was perhaps the icing on the cake, but it was useful for clarification and the Minister had a lot to say about people with learning difficulties being protected and supported within the workplace. I am not convinced about new clause 10, and the gap regarding 16 to 18-year-olds. If necessary, I shall return to that matter at a later date. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.