Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Bill

In moving this amendment I shall also speak to Amendment 211A. The aim of these amendments is to expose what may be an unintentional result of some of the changes that the Government are proposing. The amendments were suggested by the Alliance for Inclusive Education, also known as Alfie. The alliance suggests that the Government’s new funding structure may punish those who bring people with learning disabilities and other disabled groups onto courses that they may not be able to complete, although they have traditionally taken part and benefited from that learning process. Those people can acquire skills on a mainstream course and get some benefit from it, but will probably not be able to finish the entire course. That is the fear, and these amendments encapsulate that. It has been suggested to me that the Learning and Skills Council withdraws up to 10 per cent for students who do not successfully gain a qualification. If you have a group that are almost guaranteed not to pass, are we not suggesting that people will be encouraged not to take part in these courses and that those college providers will be encouraged not to present them for the course? Also, what tends to happen is that funding can be acquired, as I was told by this group, for more discrete courses, which often do not lead to as meaningful a qualification or learning capacity, but where you are guaranteed 100 per cent. This fear is very real, and it seems to be based on fact. Can the Government assure us that they will make more flexible arrangements that will mean that this does not take place? I think this is simply a case of trying to get a "one-size-fits-all" package. It does not apply to the best practice of the past, so can we go back and make sure that we allow people who have been undertaking and benefiting from courses back in? A small allowance or discretionary ability somewhere would probably address this. I hope that the Minister will be able to give a positive response on this point. Really, they do not seem to be asking for very much. Also, if it has happened in the past, why get rid of good practice? I beg to move.