Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Bill

First, I thank all those noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. The fact that so many different aspects came up shows that there is a general perception of the very serious nature of this. I was very grateful, in particular, to the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, for bringing out the figures, and to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for mentioning tests. I am very glad that we had this discussion because, far be it for a layman like me to tilt with someone like Sir Jim Rose, but I have to say that there are, as I understand it, tests which can, at least, identify that the problem is there, without going further. This seems to be a case of the danger of the best being the enemy of the good. The tests being developed by the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists, which cover the whole raft of difficulties, not just dyslexia, seem to me to give a very valuable tool. In that connection, I was intrigued to see another report by Professor Karen Brown of work she had done in Leeds with young people on special supervision orders, which shows that there are tools available, of which better use can be made. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, for mentioning the wider aspects of this. I should mention that the aim of the Helen Hamlyn trial was to get speech and language therapists in every young offender institution and special training centre. The cost at that time was assessed at £30,000 per year per therapist. At that time, the Prison Service and the Youth Justice Board were prepared to look at that funding provision. Unfortunately, the Prime Minister’s respect agenda came along with a £90 million bill, £30 million of which came from the Home Office, which effectively took all the money out of the Prison Service and the Youth Justice Board’s ability to fund them. I remember questioning whether there was anything more respectable than being able to communicate—surely the provision should have come out of the respect agenda, not the other way round. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, for mentioning the problem of consistency between local area authorities, which, of course, is precisely where this amendment came from; concern about consistent delivery around the country. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Low, for his coverage of the problems of the disabled, which again shows that this is something that is universally covered. I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation. As many noble Lords have said, this subject will come back in connection with other clauses. Therefore, rather than merely drop the matter, it might be sensible to wait and see what comes out of the various other discussions on the Bill and conversations with the Minister and the Bill team. At that point those of us who have raised questions can consider what further action needs to be taken on Report and possibly at later stages. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment 98 withdrawn. Amendments 99 to 101 not moved.