Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Bill

I take the Minister’s point about my second amendment, because the clause does not have the reservation about second language, which slightly obscures the issue in the clause to which my first amendment relates. Therefore, I will not move Amendment 123 when we get to it. I should thank noble Lords who have taken part in this debate: my noble friend Lord Baker, who was in a rather teasing mood, which we shall put behind us in order to get on with work, and the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, who made an extremely important point. I am hesitant about what the Minister said about Amendment 102. I was surprised that he found it necessary to say that the professional organisations had confirmed that it was necessary for people coming to employment to have fluent English or a means of communicating effectively. The point I was trying to make in the previous debate was that one actually needs it for life: in order to be effective, not to be a criminal, to enjoy oneself and raise a happy family. So it goes outside this Bill, and we do not need professionals to tell us that. I say to the Minister that I still think there is a danger of confusion or possible mistakes arising out of the passage which says that if one has English as a second language, this should not, on its own, mean that one has specific learning difficulties. That could lead to confusion in the future, so I would like to think about what the Minister sends me between now and the autumn, and look forward to seeing him then. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment 102 withdrawn.