Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Bill

This amendment brings to the Committee’s attention the issue of boarding education for those with complex learning difficulties of one sort or another. In the Learning and Skills Act 2000 there was a requirement for the LSC to secure boarding education if, ""it cannot secure the provision of facilities for education or training which are sufficient in quantity and adequate in quality"." We understand that there is no intention to dilute this clause. Clause 45 is a transfer over from the Learning and Skills Act. The current wording is: ""A local education authority in England may secure the provision of boarding accommodation in connection with the provision of education or training for a person in their area who is … over compulsory school age but under 25, and … subject to learning difficulty assessment"." We would like to see the "may" put into a "must", but with the proviso that there should also be a new paragraph (c), for those who cannot secure the provision of facilities for, ""education or training which are sufficient in quantity and adequate in quality without the provision of boarding accommodation"." Only a small number of learners—currently about 3,600—need access to residential provision to ensure that their further education and training needs are met. These learners have severe and complex learning difficulties and/or disabilities and require a specialist, fully integrated, multidisciplinary environment in which to receive a personalised and appropriately supported learning programme. The use of the word "may" risks the possibility of these learners either attending local colleges where their needs cannot be adequately met, staying on at school until the age of 25 or being denied access to any further education. We draw attention to the fact that the term "boarding accommodation" does not fully reflect the wide range of extended learning opportunities that are available to learners in a residential setting. This same amendment was discussed in the other place. The Minister stated that it is important to read Clause 45 in conjunction with Clause 40, which inserts proposed new Section 15ZA into the Education Act 1996. Subsection 15ZA(1)(b) places local authorities under a firm duty to, ""secure that enough suitable education and training is provided to meet the reasonable needs of persons … aged 19 or over but under 25 and … subject to learning difficulty assessment"." That is in effect where the "must" in the predecessor Act comes in. Clause 45 clarifies that the local authority may deliver that overriding duty through boarding education. The Association of National Specialist Colleges, which has asked us to bring this matter forward, is unhappy because it still believes that the word "may" in the clause is unsatisfactory, because local authorities will not be legally obliged to arrange boarding education. A perhaps unintended consequence is that residential education and training provision for vulnerable learners will not be secured. I believe that there has been considerable discussion between Ministers and the Association of National Specialist Colleges in the past few weeks and that the matter has moved forward somewhat. I know that the association is anxious that the elaboration that Ministers have given to the explanation given by the Minister, Jim Knight, in the other place, should be put on record in Hansard. I would be very grateful if the Minister could give a full answer to the queries about the "mays" and "musts" and how that it does not matter having "may" in Clause 45, because of the point made by the Minister that the "must" from Clause 40 carries over and that there will be no diminution of the duty on local authorities. I beg to move.