| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness David: We have been struggling with this for five years. I congratulate the noble Baroness on her great efforts to get a move on with it. She takes immense trouble with this issue. She deserves the support of the Committee, and, I hope, the Minister. It has been difficult. I know how hard we fought in the 1992 Bill, because we felt that children with learning difficulties, particularly those who were aged 19 and were then unable to stay at school or in that sort of environment, needed to be able to progress to a college. That is what has proved so difficult.
What is such an enormous help to our cause this time is the report Inclusive Learning, chaired by Professor
John Tomlinson. It is a good report and extremely helpful to our cause. It acknowledges that there are problems with the way that the FEFC currently interprets the legislation. It offers a solution that retains the important notion or progress, but broadens out what that word "progress" means.I shall quote paragraph 9.39 of the report, which states:
- "We want to ensure that the Council's--and colleges'--interpretation of schedule 2(j) is in keeping with the spirit of the legislation. We recognise that the Act is designed, in part, to ensure that national training and education priorities are met. This places importance on learning programmes that contribute to economic productivity, directly or indirectly. Programmes which contribute to independent adult living should be included because they facilitate economic productivity. It is the committee's view that the Council's present interpretation of Schedule 2(j) and that of some colleges does not take properly into account the value to society of this kind of learning. As we argued in chapter 3, our focus on inclusive learning requires new standards for judging the adequacy of provision".
This is a very important document. I hope that the Minister will be able to give it a warm welcome, and express his enthusiasm for it when he comes to reply.
Lord Rix: I thank my noble friend Lady Darcy for moving this amendment in my supposed absence. I did apologise on Second Reading for the fact that I should be out of the Chamber away on holiday. I had no idea that the length of Committee stage would exceed the "Ring" cycle and Oberammergau combined. Therefore I have found myself back from holiday and able to hear the amendment moved.
I of course support the amendment, but I realise that at this late hour of the morning it is impossible to seek a Division even if we wished to, though I gather that my noble friend Lady Darcy has had meaningful conversations with the Minister in my absence and that some progress may have been made.
In Committee, the Minister said that the recommendations of the Tomlinson Report, including the recommendation that the FEFC should take a wider view of progression in the wording of Schedule 2 to the Further and Higher Education Act 1992, have now gone out to public consultation. In those circumstances, further comment before that consultation is finalised would be pre-empted. Clearly, that probably still applies.
However, I know that all of us who are interested in the amendment would be grateful if the Minister could comment on some of the following points. I refer to acknowledgment of the issues that the amendment is seeking to raise; an encouragement of the work of the Tomlinson Committee in dealing with the issues of inclusive learning and getting education to the widest range of students with learning disabilities; acknowledging that Tomlinson has made some useful suggestions on how to deal with the Schedule 2(j) issue; encouraging the FEFC to address the issue either by implementing the recommendations or by some equally
effective means; and, finally, requiring the FEFC to report on progress in its next annual report.If the Minister could give assurances on one or all of those points they will be happily received by those of us moving the amendment.
Baroness Warnock: I strongly support the amendment and everything that has been said in its favour.
2.45 a.m.
Lord Henley: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rix, for describing my conversations with the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth) as being meaningful. I hope that they were on this amendment and others which she came to discuss with me. They are important as regards the provisions for students with severe learning difficulties.
It may assist the Committee if I first clarify some details of Schedule 2 to the Further and Higher Education Act 1992. It sets out the descriptions of courses to which the duty to secure adequate further education relates and which, therefore, the FEFC may fund. Paragraph (i) provides for courses which teach independent living and communication skills for persons with learning difficulties. But the qualifying criterion is that such a course must prepare the student for further progress. All education is, to some degree, preparatory. By definition, learning implies new skills which lead the student on to other things. The concept of progress in education cannot be removed. I am afraid that the amendment would do just that.
There would also be some major practical difficulties if the amendment were to be enacted. It would lead to enormous confusion between the local authorities and the FEFC. At present, local authority social services departments make provision for many severely disabled adults, for example, through day centres. Other provision will, of course, be made by local education authorities which are under a further duty to have regard to the needs of persons with learning difficulties. Local education authorities retain duties to provide full-time and part-time education suitable to the needs of persons over the age of 16 in so far as the FEFC is not already under the duty to provide such education. In the main, this takes the form of courses which do not lead to qualifications and which may be of a more informal kind.
The amendment would blur the responsibilities of local authorities. It would mean that the FEFC's responsibilities would extend to new groups, including all day care clients with learning difficulties currently in social services facilities and people engaged in rehabilitation programmes because of injury or mental illness.
I believe that the resource implications are considerable. The demands on capital to secure adequate facilities would be of a particular concern for the FE sector. The FEFC could be under pressure to secure
placements for individuals in specialist establishments outside the FE sector for a new group of students for whom the local authority currently only has a target duty.Obviously, those are compelling reasons why the Government cannot accept the amendment. However, I can assure the noble Baroness that further consideration is being given to the difficulties faced by students with learning difficulties in the light of the Tomlinson Report, to which reference has been made and which has recently gone out to consultation. We warmly welcome the publication of that report. We believe that it represents the most comprehensive and detailed review of further education provision for students with learning difficulties and disabilities that has ever taken place. As has been referred to, one of its key recommendations is,
- "to take a wider view of progression within the wording of Schedule 2(i) to enable students to acquire new skills at the same level as their current course or maintain skills learned where this represents an achievement for them".
That recommendation argues for a considerably more liberal interpretation of Schedule 2(i) while still maintaining the principle of progression. Therefore, it is closely related to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord but moved so ably by the noble Baroness.
We should certainly wish to hear whether the further education sector believes that change to be desirable. Obviously we shall consider that recommendation carefully in the light of the whole consultation process. I believe that the noble Baroness understands that, as I said on Second Reading, I cannot give any further commitment before the end of that consultation period, but we shall consider these matters very carefully.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): First, I thank all Members of the Committee who have taken part in the debate. The noble Baroness, Lady David, highlighted the importance of the Tomlinson report. My noble friend Lord Rix asked some important questions, many of which I believe have been answered by the Minister. I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Warnock for her support, which I value a great deal.
The Minister said that he could not shift much from what he said on Second Reading but I am pleasantly surprised by what he said and I rather feel that he has shifted. I understand absolutely his point that the concept of progress in education cannot be removed, and it is important to keep that, and that the amendment would blur the divide between the social services, the LEAs and the FEFC. However, he said that there would be further consideration in the light of Tomlinson and, indeed, that he warmly welcomed the report. I believe that he said that it was the most important review ever of education for pupils with learning difficulties.
In a sense, I am only the surrogate mother of this baby so I seek confirmation from my noble friend Lord Rix that he does not wish to return to this matter at the next stage. I am delighted because I thought that I might have to reserve my position. I thank the Minister very
warmly. I hope that really good things will come from Tomlinson and that there will be a different look at progress and at what courses are on offer to enable people to progress in different ways. I have no hesitation in begging leave to withdraw the amendment.Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 67 [Commencement of compulsory school age]:
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page