Education and Skills Bill

I support the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, on her thoroughly worthwhile Amendment No. 128. We also heard the presentation from the Rose project, and were very moved by it. At the moment, there is a gap in the Bill: those in full-time education and training do not have to attend an accredited course—although the probability is that they will get some accreditation from it—but those in work-based training have to have some clear accreditation at the end of the course that they pursue. There is that gap, and there are some with learning difficulties for whom sitting any sort of examination is very difficult indeed. It is, therefore, necessary to cover that circumstance. I shall now speak to Amendments Nos. 129, 130, 135A and 140A, which are in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Walmsley. My noble friend was, this afternoon, to have been putting the skills that she learnt in coxing to good effect in leading the Lords eight, but I gather that it has been rough and that they did not wish to have an inexperienced cox at the helm. I think that she was replaced there and became a mere bystander, which was a shame. Amendments Nos. 129 and 130 both relate to Clause 41, which sets out the description of the education and training that is regarded as being necessary. Clause 41(5) states: "““The education or training must—""(a) be appropriate full-time education or training, or""(b) otherwise be suitable for the person, having regard—""(i) to the person’s age, ability and aptitude, and""(ii) to any learning difficulty which the person may have””." That is fine in setting it out clearly, but who will judge what is ““appropriate”” and ““suitable””? Local authorities have experts at their disposal on these issues, whom they employ either directly or under contract. Those people are called careers advisers, and go though a relatively long period of training in order to learn those things. Amendment No. 129 suggests that it would seem appropriate that what is suitable should be, "““in the opinion of a qualified careers adviser””," while Amendment No. 130 gives us a definition of a careers adviser. However, that refers to an earlier definition. I should like to take the opportunity to read out the definition of the careers adviser in Clause 44 of the Education Act 1997. It states: "““For the purposes of this section,""(a) ‘careers adviser’ means a person who is employed by a body providing services in pursuance of arrangements made or directions given under section 10 of the Employment and Training Act 1973 and who is acting, in the course of his employment by that body, for the purposes of the provision of any such services; and""(b) a careers adviser has responsibilities for any persons if his employment by that body includes the provision of any such services for them””." I do not want to delay the Committee by reading out the lengthy piece from the Employment and Training Act 1973 defining what local authorities should do to provide a careers service, but I hope that your Lordships will take it from me that it is spelt out at some length. If there are people who are trained in these things, it is appropriate that they are employed to give advice about them. I hope the Minister will look kindly on my amendment. Amendments Nos. 135A and 140A are minor amendments that relate to the regulations under Clause 42 about setting up the attendance panel and, subsequently, the regulations relating to appeals. In both cases, the clauses put considerable responsibilities on local authorities with regard to what they should do about setting up these panels and what they should do in Clause 43 about appeal arrangements. On neither occasion is any mention made of consulting local authorities, yet if they are going to be required to do all these things it is appropriate that in developing these regulations the local authorities should be consulted about setting them up. I am sure the Minister has every intention of doing so, but it would be good if he could give us reassurances that that is the case.