Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Bill

Noble Lords will know that I am chairman of the RNIB, so it is not surprising that I welcome this amendment. It provides an opportunity to make the point that the needs of disabled people need to be given proper consideration in the design of apprenticeship frameworks. It is not quite enough to say that apprenticeship frameworks should meet a disability access standard if that means complying with the DDA, because it should apply anyway. In this context, I repeat that I have extensive interests in the disability field, including research assistance, which were fully declared at Second Reading. The Government’s standard response to representations from disability organisations asking for things to be put into the Bill to address the particular needs of disabled people has been that that is not necessary because it will be taken care of by the DDA. However, there are three problems with that. First, the DDA is too general to give the designers of apprenticeship standards specifications and frameworks a clear idea of the specific things they need to put in to meet disabled people’s needs. Secondly, some of the things that disabled people need are specific kinds of provision that would not necessarily be required by the DDA, such as access to work support. Thirdly, where specific kinds of provision are not included as a matter of course, it is not right that the individual disabled person should be left to assert their rights by recourse to the law. It is therefore highly desirable that apprenticeship frameworks should be required to meet an accessibility standard in the sense of spelling out in some detail the specific kinds of help that disabled people may need to enable them to derive maximum benefit from an apprenticeship. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, that although the Government show some awareness in Clauses 102 and 112, which have been referred to, that particular services need to be made available to address the needs of disabled people, the provision made in the Bill so far is not yet enough, as the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, who moved the amendment, said. It is perhaps a pity that we should have to be making the kind of point that legislation needs to be disability-proofed Act by Act as they come before Parliament, as opposed to it being a given every time someone sets out to draw up legislation. That should be standard in the legislator’s toolkit, so to speak. As the Bill has proceeded through its various stages—initially as a draft apprenticeships Bill during the previous Session, and now as a somewhat larger and more compendious Bill—I have been concerned to make the point to Ministers and officials that with proper planning and attention given to the twin principles of accessibility and inclusion, specifications and frameworks can and should be developed to address the specific needs of disabled people. There are some very simple things that could be incorporated to help make apprenticeships more accessible. For instance, there could be flexible and inclusive frameworks that include reasonable adjustments as a matter of course, designed to support disabled apprentices and enable them to participate in an apprenticeship on a level playing field, alongside their non-disabled peers. Disability organisations would be happy to help with the necessary guidance. The Specification of Apprenticeship Standards for England—SASE—is currently out for consultation and I know that disability organisations have responded, so I very much hope that the points that they make will be taken on board as a result of this process. There are other points along similar lines that we will be coming to as we go through the Bill, but I do not want to detain the Committee with them at this hour. However, I thought that it might be helpful to sketch out the general approach in the context of this amendment.