Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Bill

My Lords, the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Low, and the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford, show great insight and consideration for the consequences of the Bill’s provisions and reflect the desire that I detected across the Committee to promote the best quality of education. As has been explained, the first amendment would ensure that the views of learners and parents were taken into account regarding the quality of education and possible improvements that could be made. I hope that the Minister will let us know whether there is already a channel for representations from these groups and how it works. Does he acknowledge the importance of receiving the views of those at the receiving end of the new machinery to ensure that the best possible service is provided? The Committee will be aware of the various interests that I have recorded in the Register, including, like the noble Lord, Lord Low, association with a number of groups that are keen to see Amendments 155 and 161 accepted. Quality control is a necessary part of educational provision. Recent evidence from the National Audit Office’s survey Supporting People with Autism through Adulthood shows that learning difficulty assessments carried out under new Section 139A of the Education and Skills Act 2008 have been lacking in quality and that statutory obligations have not been met. Does the Minister agree that action must be taken to fix that? The NAO study showed that only 17 per cent of respondents thought that Section 140 assessments were "very useful". That is a very low percentage. Does the Minister agree that a quality framework, informed by the views of parents and learners, might enable that figure to rise? If the Minister cannot support the amendment, it would be interesting to hear his alternative strategy to ensure that learning difficulty assessments are carried out with the utmost regard for quality. At a recent Skill seminar, it was mooted that perhaps, as has already been mentioned, Section 139A should undergo some form of national auditing in order to ensure quality, or that there should be a system of incentives and penalties to encourage quality. Perhaps the Minister will respond to those recommendations. We also very much support the second amendment in the group. Amendment 161 specifies that a learning difficulty assessment must be carried out by a suitably qualified person. That sounds like common sense; nevertheless, despite that being a seemingly obvious approach, the National Audit Office report that I mentioned took evidence from a student support co-ordinator at a further education college, who said that, ""the usefulness of the Connexions Section 140 assessments very much depends on the individual Personal Advisor. Many do not have specialist training in working with learners with learning difficulties or disabilities"." Can the Minister explain that failing and expand on what he considers "suitably qualified" to mean? I agree with the request that the YPLA must ensure that it has regard to the timely delivery of learning difficulty assessments. Does the Minister think that three months is an appropriate length of time? Does he have any figures available that might inform the Committee about how long the process normally takes? Finally on these two amendments, can the Minister update the Committee on the results of the consultation regarding draft guidance on Section 139A assessments? Can he, for example, inform us whether Skill’s concerns regarding specific mention of the YPLA, so that the guidance will reflect the agencies introduced by the Bill, have been, or will be, dealt with? I warmly support the amendments.