Education and Skills Bill

I am extremely glad the Minister found his notes on the Rose project because I was much reassured by what he said. I had not been reassured by his earlier answer, from his brief, to Amendment No. 128. I thought at that point that he or his officials had rather missed the purpose of my amendment—no doubt that is my fault. It was specifically not to exclude from a requirement this category of young person. They do not want to be excluded; they want to be included. The point of my amendment was to find a way to include what they need—structured job support—in the definition of fundable education and training. The Rose project is not cost-free. At present it is supported by charitable and local authority donations and so on. If it is to be rolled out on a wider scale for this tiny minority of young people—it is not going to be hugely expensive—it will need to be funded properly. It will need to be caught up within the definition of education and training. Of course I know that severely mentally disabled or mentally ill young people will be excluded from the provision. Reassuringly the Minister has made that clear on many occasions. Yet this is a category that could be rescued. They do not need to be excluded; they want to be included. Anybody who had met them after their experience would know how tremendously valuable it is. I hope that on Report the Minister and his officials will have had another look at the Rose project and that we find some way of including this in the definition of recognisable education and training. In the mean time I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. [Amendments Nos. 129 and 130 not moved.] Clause 41 agreed to. Clause 42 [Attendance panel]: [Amendments Nos. 131 and 132 not moved.]