My Lords, I will be as brief as I can on Amendment 175A, as its intention is pretty clear. The Bill says that the chief executive of skills funding may secure that suitable training should include the provision of facilities that take into account the special needs of the apprentice, if required. This reflects a concern expressed by special educational needs groups that workplaces might not be set up in a way that accommodates a person with learning difficulties or a statement of special educational needs.

To strengthen this, we propose inserting the proviso that the chief executive must have regard to this commitment. We have stopped short of inserting it as a new duty, to take account of the fact that it may not always be possible for employers to provide these suitable facilities. We have no desire to increase the already substantial burden on employers, especially in these very difficult times. However, we feel that it is important for the chief executive to take the provision of appropriate facilities into account when finding a training scheme for these young people, and we look to the Minister for reassurance that this will be the case. Could he perhaps also give us some idea of how the process of securing suitable training with appropriate facilities will be carried out? Will he inform noble Lords what steps the Government will be taking to ensure the suitability of employment? Importantly, how far will employers be expected to fund or adapt to any changes in their workplace initiated by the need to provide appropriate training for these young people? Does the Minister acknowledge the need to ensure a balance between the provision of appropriate apprenticeships for young people with learning difficulties or special educational needs, and the potential burdens on employers to secure them? We would like to hear how this will be managed in a way that is acceptable to all.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Low, for his ceaseless efforts to make sure that those with learning difficulties or disabilities are fully represented in the Bill. A recent Youth Cohort Study found that 29 per cent of disabled 18 year-olds were not in education, employment or training, compared to 12 per cent of non-disabled 18 year-olds. I do not have the figures for those in the post-19 category. Perhaps the Minister can help us with that.

I hope the Minister will offer the noble Lord, Lord Low, some reassurance regarding his concerns. It is of the utmost importance that those with learning difficulties are included in the entitlements of the Bill. Nevertheless, as I said, I hope that he will also offer some reassurance to employers that in this time of economic difficulty, they will not be overburdened with duties that they may struggle to fulfil. Does the Minister think, for example, that it may be difficult for all small businesses, despite their best intentions, to provide additional learning support for apprentices over 16 in the workplace? How will a balance be achieved between the needs of those in the workplace with learning difficulties and the capacity of employers who may struggle to make all the necessary changes and provisions? I look forward to the Minister’s response and beg to move.

My Lords, Amendment 189 stands in my name. However, after the productive discussions that my colleagues and I had with the Minister and the department during the Recess, I will not be moving the amendment.

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, for his praise of my “ceaseless efforts” even before they have begun. I wish to support this group of amendments and will speak in particular to Amendments 213 and 214, which stand in my name. I repeat my interest as president of Skill, the National Bureau for Students with Disabilities. Considerable discussion has taken place with the Bill team over the summer, and officials have gone a considerable way towards clarifying how the needs of learners with learning difficulties and disabilities will be met under the new arrangements. I thank them for that.

It is reassuring to learn that the Skills Funding Agency will be subject to public sector duties under equality legislation—particularly the disability equality duty which, it is intended, will be incorporated ultimately into the public sector equality duty to be introduced by the Equality Bill.

Amendment 213 deals with the availability of information in accessible formats. It is reassuring to know that the National Apprenticeship Service is committed to ensuring that its services are accessible to those with learning difficulties and disabilities; that the service’s websites are highly rated for accessibility; and that printed materials produced by the National Apprenticeship Service will comply with the Central Office of Information’s informability guidelines. I stress the point because it is becoming increasingly the norm to assume that if you put your information on the internet, you have done all that you need to do to make it accessible. I do not minimise the importance of the internet in making information accessible to those with disabilities, and in equipping them with the skills to use it with facility. However, it has to be recognised that the internet poses peculiar challenges for some people with disabilities—I might mention people with visual impairments—so it remains important to ensure that information is available in other accessible formats.

I support these amendments. The figures that were read out about the number of those with disabilities compared with the rest of the population illustrate how important it is to give special regard to their needs, make certain that all the facilities that they require are available, and above all, that the word “must” enters into the consideration that is given, albeit that it is not a total duty. It is imperative to see that that side of things is carried through.

First, I thank all those who engaged in a dialogue during the Recess to help us to resolve many of the important issues that have arisen in the debate already.

Clause 81 gives the chief executive of skills funding the power to secure provision of facilities for apprenticeship training for two groups. The first covers people above compulsory school age but under 19, the second, those aged 19 or over but under 25 who are subject to a learning difficulty assessment. Amendment 175A would place a duty on the chief executive of skills funding when providing apprenticeship training to have regard to the provision of appropriate apprenticeship training facilities (that he would have to ensure were) suitable to the needs of the young person being trained. However, Clause 81(2) already sets out the criteria that the chief executive must have regard to when determining whether apprenticeship training is suitable, and that includes learning difficulties.

In our view the duty to provide suitable training would already cover facilities as it could not be delivered without them and, as such, we do not think that Amendment 175A is necessary.

We sympathise with Amendments 213 and 214 and welcome the recognition of the great importance of meeting the very different needs of apprentices, particularly those with learning difficulties and disabilities in accessing written, web-based and other materials. I am pleased to assure noble Lords that materials produced by the National Apprenticeship Service are developed to meet the guidelines set by the Government’s Central Office of Information for design and print. They are based on the COI’s principle of ensuring that printed and other materials are accessible to as wide an audience as possible, and in particular to disabled people.

I concur with the noble Lord, Lord Low, about the internet. Computers can be a boon to some but they do not solve all the problems, nor do they absolve us of the responsibility of ensuring that other materials, such as printed matter, are also available in the appropriate formats. I reassure him that the COI informability guidelines are still current. They should be available from our office but we will forward the exact location to him.

Clause 112 places a duty on the chief executive of skills funding to have regard to the needs of persons aged 19 to 24 with learning difficulties, other than those with a learning difficulty assessment. Clause 81 requires that when securing the provision of facilities for apprenticeship training for 16 to 18 year-olds and persons aged 19 to 24 with a learning difficulty assessment, the chief executive of skills funding must have regard to any learning difficulties persons may have.

To discharge that duty, and duties under the Disability Discrimination Act, the chief executive must ensure that all apprentices are aware of the support available, including the two schemes specified in the amendment: the Additional Learning Support and Access to Work schemes. We are conscious of the concern expressed by the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, about the burden on employers. I recommend that smaller employers consider group training associations, where some of the administrative burdens and facilities may be shared. That is well worth it for smaller and medium-sized employers. Also, employers and disabled employees, including apprentices, can secure support in the workplace through the Access to Work scheme under the DWP. Support through Access to Work is tailored to the needs of individual learners, so avenues of support are there.

Indeed, the Learning and Skills Council has a specific champion to represent the interests of learners with learning difficulties and disabilities in policy-making and to promote their best interests. I fully expect those arrangements to continue under the chief executive of skills funding. Concern has been expressed about how that support can be marshalled to best support apprentices with disabilities. My department has offered to broker a meeting between the Special Educational Consortium, the National Apprenticeship Service and the Department for Work and Pensions to help ensure alignment of the delivery of Additional Learning Support and Access to Work. I have asked for a report on progress by the end of February 2010.

All learning providers and employers have existing duties under the Disability Discrimination Act not to discriminate against people with disabilities and to make reasonable adjustments for them through using either the Additional Learning Support or the Access to Work scheme. The National Apprenticeship Service is working to ensure that apprenticeships are accessible to learners with learning difficulties. I recently went to a scheme in north Hertfordshire, the ALLFIE scheme, and met some of the young people with significant disabilities who are involved in training and apprenticeships.

As the noble Lord, Lord Low, acknowledged, the two main websites meet internationally recognised standards. To be honest, I would expect nothing less as they are recent websites. If we could not get them to meet the standards, we would have been failing. The chief executive of skills funding will be under duties imposed by the DDA, and Amendment 213 would not add anything to those duties. I hope that, in view of these reassurances, and the fact that we are absolutely committed to ensuring that learners with learning difficulties and disabilities can access apprenticeships and training for work, the noble Lord will feel able that to withdraw the amendment.

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Low, for his contribution. His point about putting information on the internet not in itself being enough is well taken. I am also grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, for her support. I thank the Minister for his response. I will look again at the clauses that he mentioned and read carefully his words on the impact on employers. For this evening, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment 187. We now move on to education and training for persons aged 19 and over. Clause 84(1) firmly states:

“The Chief Executive must secure the provision of reasonable facilities for … education suitable to the requirements of … persons who are aged 19 or over”.

The weasel word “reasonable” emerges. It is one that we are fairly familiar with. The definition of what constitutes “reasonable” in this section repeats the legal formula around reasonable used in the Learning and Skills Act 2000, but it differs from the more demanding duty set out in respect of provision leading to certain qualifications.

Clause 85 states:

“The Chief Executive must secure the provision of proper facilities for relevant education”,

and the relevant education is listed in Schedule 5, which we will have a look at in the next group of amendments. It relates to education provided free of charge: basic literacy and numeracy, a first full level 2 qualification and a first full level 3 qualification for people aged under 25.

The overall effect of the reasonable/proper distinction, which is not made in the education and training of young people, is that most adult learning is pushed to the end of the queue for resources. Clause 191 uses the formulation,

“so far as is reasonably practicable”,

in relation to children’s centres for certain of their duties. It does not feel it necessary to use the convoluted wording of “proper” and “reasonable” that we see in this clause. Therefore, in Amendment 186, we have adopted that wording and suggested that in Clause 84 we leave out “reasonable” and insert “proper”. Amendment 187 removes subsection (3) and inserts:

“In performing its duties under this section, the Chief Executive must make the best use of its resources and in particular avoid provision that might give rise to disproportionate expenditure”.

That seems a reasonable formulation of what we would like to see.

When needs are greater than resources, some form of rationing is inevitable. The question is whether this formulation, based on chronological age, is fit for purpose. A public debate to consider alternative or more graduated approaches based on educational needs is required. One alternative might be to consider a broader range of educational entitlements available to all at different ages in the course of their lives.

There is much talk about demand-led education. The distinction between pre-19 and post-19 education is that post-19 is now to be demand-led. The demand is to come from employers, through programmes such as Train to Gain and apprenticeships, and from individuals. The problem with providing education for individuals is that at the moment the only individuals for whom it is provided are in essence those who have either no qualifications at all or limited qualifications. We shall look at this again when we come to Clause 85, which says that it is provided only to those aged 19 or under who,

“do not have the qualification in question or one … which appears to the Chief Executive to be at a comparable or higher level”.

My Lords, to be brief I will address only our Amendment 188A, which has been tabled in response to a concern expressed by the British Chambers of Commerce that Clause 85(3)(b) restricts the ability of people to reskill at the same level, for example in a new trade, or at one that the chief executive considers to be lower than a qualification that they already have. We would like to probe this area specifically to ask the Government to explain their views about those who wish to reskill at an equivalent or lower level in order to address their very real difficulties in light of the current economic climate.

Will the Minister inform your Lordships of the reasons for this provision in the Bill? Was it just a matter of funding? If so, will he say what it would cost to extend the provision and explain how his figures are calculated? I imagine that these calculations have been done. We understand that funding considerations are an important factor, but perhaps he can reassure businesses that are concerned that an important part of a skills policy agenda should be to place an emphasis on reskilling and not just on upskilling. What action are the Government taking in this regard?

My Lords, I very much support these amendments, particularly Amendment 186, which has been well explained, and Amendment 187, which, if anything, is a little tame. I would rather go along with the approach taken by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp: we should be looking at an entitlement to appropriate education during a lifetime. There are late developers and people who have been out of education for all sorts of reasons. They would, incidentally, cost us huge sums of money if we did not take advantage of a sudden change of heart; they could end up in prison and we know the cost of that. I hope, then, that we will not see for much longer adult education pushed to the sidelines, as the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, has said. It does not make sense and to me it all brings back how much we all miss Lord Dearing, who was very much on these lines. I willingly support the amendments.

My Lords, I have a probing amendment in this group on Clause 87 that may go some way to adding to the questions, or possibly to producing part of the answer. Clause 87(1) says that regulations may make provision that,

“despite having a specified qualification, a person is to be treated … as not having that qualification”.

In paragraph (b), it is the other way round; it says that,

“despite not having a specified qualification, a person is to be treated … as having that qualification”.

I suppose that these provisions have been included to introduce the sort of flexibility that was just referred to and I am sure that we have all found that many people do not fit into any chosen bureaucratic model.

Flexibility to grant exceptions to rigid qualification rules is undoubtedly welcome. A rapidly changing and complex world demands flexibility, but is this clause not a clumsy way of going about it? Subsection (1), in effect, allows black to be ruled as white and white to be ruled as black, thus presumably allowing some study or employment for which the person was not originally qualified. The problem created by the clause, however, is large. I do not see how it can cope with individuals needing sensible dispensations from the rules. I suspect that regulations, if we need them, will not deal with individuals. Also, in all practicality it will not be possible to have regulations very often, so that when they appear they will need to cover classes of person, thus reducing flexibility and bringing in infrequent changes to what is otherwise a convoy system.

Finally, if I have read the schedule correctly, this clause seems to have something to do with level 3—and, I therefore suppose, some release to start again on a way forward to level 3. Really, this clause will not do what is intended. Arrangements to achieve flexibility need to be much more clearly stated in the Bill, as people will need that flexibility; in this clause, however, it is discretionary and in the gift of Ministers. The Government need to amend this clause so that it can do what I believe is intended.

My Lords, I thoroughly agree with my noble friend’s last speech. It seems to me that the noble Lords on the Benches opposite ought to have sympathy for those many of their colleagues in another place who might find themselves needing to reskill at some stage next year, just as I had to reskill some 12 years ago. It seems to me that, as my noble friend says, individual flexibility is needed—that is, the ability to look at individual cases and say, “Yes, it is reasonable even for someone who has got to degree level to go back and get a vocational qualification in something for which there is actually a demand”. This is particularly important for people in the last 20 years or so of their working lives where the original career in which they set out may no longer have room for them. They will have been displaced by younger, more recently trained people. However, there may be many occupations where their accumulated wisdom is appreciated, but at a substantially lower level than the qualifications that they have reached. It is important that we have a system that offers individual flexibility. I also have great sympathy for the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord De Mauley, which is very much on the same grounds.

I do not have much time for the amendments proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp. The problem is that this clause conflates the general run of adults aged over 19 with those who are in prison. If we go down the route proposed by the noble Baroness, we would end up with the DCSF paying half the rebuilding costs of the prisons in England because there is no way, with the kit that we have on the ground at the moment, that reasonable educational facilities can be provided, let alone proper ones. There have to be considerable let-outs in this clause to allow for the current condition of the prison estate. In this context I should declare that I am married to someone who runs a charity that works in prison education, so that gives me a particular interest in this clause.

I have two questions. First, what is the implication of the word “and” at the end of line 40 on page 55? It suggests that the two sub-paragraphs should be taken together so that the education that the chief executive is allowed to provide must be suitable for both groups. If that is the case, a pretty restricted range of education will be allowed. I would have thought that the proper word to use here is “or” so that the provision is for education that is suitable for either of the two groups. No doubt the noble Lord will inform me about this.

I do not require a response to my other question now if none is available, but will await some later thoughts. One of the problems with the old arrangements has been the focus of the Learning and Skills Council on education and qualifications that lead directly to employment. That is quite appropriate in its work outside prisons but within them there is a concentration of learners who have not even reached level zero. They have rejected education. They are illiterate, innumerate and do not want to be anything else. A suite of programmes designed specifically for prisoners is needed to get them on the ladder. It has been a long and difficult fight to persuade the Learning and Skills Council that such programmes are required. I think that the council had at last begun to accept it when it was told that it was about to be abolished. I would like to be sure that the new body picks up where the council got to rather than starts again at the position that the council was in when it was founded.

My Lords, this Government have made a record level of investment in education and training, but public finances are finite. I reject the idea that these are weasel words. They are candid and recognise that financial resources are not infinitely available, so we must focus resources on those who will benefit the most. I must admit when I heard that adult learning was being pushed to the back of the queue, I asked for the figures on adult education. Something like £4 billion is being spent on it, including £1 billion on the Train to Gain scheme and nearly £1 billion on apprenticeships. It does not seem to me that the Government do not understand the importance of training and skills. We are aware that we might not have met every single demand, but we have made enormous progress.

Amendments 186 and 187 would remove the ability of the chief executive to exercise judgment about what training can be provided, taking account of the available resources, while Amendment 188A would give all those adults learners who already possess a certain level of qualification the same funding priority as those who have the fewest skills. There is the rub—where do we concentrate our resources? We believe that we should in the first instance ensure that the people who need it are getting a first qualification.

We cannot fund all requests for learning from all adults. I say in response to the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, that taking current demand from adults for vocational level 2 courses as a guide, we would face increased costs of some £727 million over the next two years. It is not that we are not sympathetic; it is a question of where we focus resources.

The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, spoke about the concept of lifelong learning and the individual learning account. I absolutely agree with her: we are supportive of that concept. In today’s climate, there should be no situation where people somehow abandon learning. We know that it is good for people, whatever age they are at. We are therefore in the process of introducing a new skills account, learning lessons—as I think we need to—from the individual learning accounts, where we know we had certain problems. Trials of the skills accounts will be available in all areas from early 2010. I hope that that will be seen as good news.

We must set clear priorities for funding. The Bill gives higher funding priority to those adults who lack the basic platform of skills needed for employability and progression, and to live successful lives. This does not mean that other qualifications cannot be supported—far from it. Funding will continue to be safeguarded for informal learning and will be joined up with other public, private and voluntary sector activity.

The chief executive can also fund courses for individuals to take second qualifications at level 2 and higher, but it would not be right to create entitlements to this, as it would put unnecessary pressure on the chief executive’s budget and potentially force down the quality of provision, as funding would be spread too thinly.

At the same time, we recognise that there will be some individuals who already have qualifications but who have lost their literacy or numeracy skills over time and need help to improve their basic skills in these areas. We intend to use the regulation-making power in Clause 87(1) to allow such individuals to do a second qualification in specified circumstances, because we recognise the importance of literacy and numeracy skills in providing the platform for people getting back into employment.

Amendment 197 would remove this regulation-making power. I hope that the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, will agree about the unique importance of literacy and numeracy skills in enabling all individuals to function daily in work and to support their families. I stress that, other than for those particular exceptions, first qualifications should remain the focus of the duties of the chief executive.

The noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, felt that Clause 87 was poorly drafted. I say to him that Clauses 85 to 87 re-enact, and are lifted straight from, the Education and Skills Act 2008, so have already been approved by Parliament.

The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, asked about prisoners’ special needs. I concur with his view that, since we have at long last made progress with the LSC, we should not have to go through that process again. We will endeavour to ensure that that work is carried forward. We have had a number of debates here about young offenders and I agree with the noble Lord that the provisions do not apply just to them. I hope in the light of those assurances that the amendments can be withdrawn.

I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. I have to admit that, in laying Amendments 186 and 187, I had not fully taken in the fact that the provision was restricted to those who were in detention. I fully take on board the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. I was trying to argue—and the Minister took it in that sense—that, in terms of adult education, the term “proper facilities” should be appropriate. In those circumstances, it is probably an inappropriate amendment to have laid and I beg leave to withdraw it.

My Lords, I laid this amendment on behalf of the roofing contractors and the Alliance of Sector Skills Councils. There is considerable concern at the fact that, these days, many adults come forward wanting apprenticeships. Many businesses are anxious to provide such apprenticeships but they find it difficult to do so because so little finance is available. My three amendments seek to add adult apprenticeship training to those listed in paragraph 1 of Schedule 5, which relates to Clause 85. It defines post-19 training with the SFA. We have already discussed the distinction between the words “reasonable” and “proper”, and proper facilities should be provided for those listed in Schedule 5, which amounts to those looking for basic adult literacy and numeracy training, those who do not have a level 2 qualification and those up to the age of 25 if they have no level 3 qualification.

It is a very sad fact that the number of young people signing up for apprenticeships has fallen over the past two years. Only 3.8 per cent of 16 year-olds are signing up for a level 2 or level 3 apprenticeship and only 6.3 per cent of 17 year-olds are signing up for level 2 and level 3 apprenticeships. There is a dearth of places for apprenticeships offered by employers. Yet employers are anxious to take on adult apprentices at a time when many people are trying to reskill, which picks up the points made by the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, on the previous batch of amendments. At a time when many people are trying, and wanting, to reskill, it seems inappropriate to put barriers in their way. I beg to move.

My Lords, taken together, Amendments 190, 191 and 192 would mean that all training costs for adult apprenticeships at level 2, where this is the first level 2 qualification, and for those aged from 19 up to 25 at level 3, are met from the public purse, and would preclude employers contributing towards these costs.

Apprenticeships offer an excellent route for adults aiming to improve their skills and employability. That is why we lifted the age restriction in 2007 to allow people aged 25 and over to access and benefit from apprenticeships, which was a first. This change enabled 27,200 people aged 25 and over to start an apprenticeship in 2007-08, which was up from 300 in the previous year. We are delighted that that trend has continued. As has been said, it has enabled a number of people to reskill.

But there is a balance to be struck. We are trying to ensure that as many apprenticeships as possible are created for 16 to 18 year-olds, and I make no apology for that. It is vital that we get as many young people of that age range as we can on to a career path that we know will have a profound impact on their lives. I have described every one of those apprenticeships as a small beacon of hope for young people.

Again, with our finite resources, we have recognised that investing in skills is a shared responsibility and we should not signal to employers that they should not be making an investment in skills. From all the feedback we receive we know that investment in training is positive; we know that firms that do not invest in training during a recession are 2.5 times more likely to fail; and we know that an investment in an apprenticeship is worth while in terms of retention and the contribution that people make to the company that they are employed in.

As compared to the 16 to 18 year-olds, it is interesting that adult apprentices who have experience of the workplace typically complete their apprenticeships much faster than young people, in some cases at half the rate. Adult apprentices make a much more immediate contribution; that is why our policy requires that employers should contribute to the training costs of apprentices aged 19 and over. Currently employers make a contribution of around 40 per cent of the training costs for adult apprentices, increasing to 50 per cent in 2010-11. It is a reasonable proposition to make to an employer to take on an adult apprentice or to convert one of their existing employees to an apprenticeship, which happens in many cases, and we will meet 50 per cent of the training costs. That is a real bargain.

We intend to use the regulation-making powers in Clauses 85 and 86 to reinforce this position by excluding persons who are studying for a level 2 or 3 qualification as part of an apprenticeship from these provisions and to ensure that we can continue to require employers to contribute. It is a fair and reasonable contribution and there is still a positive encouragement and inducement for employers. The figures speak for themselves. Even under the current funding arrangements there has been a significant increase in adult apprenticeships.

Perhaps I may point out a slight correction to the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, who I know is a stickler for accuracy. There has been a slight decline in the number of 16 to 18 apprenticeships, but not for two years; it is only in the past year. But if we look at what has happened to apprenticeships overall, I regard it, as I said, as a renaissance, from a situation in 1997 where the apprenticeship scheme was practically dead on its feet, with something like only 65,000, to the current situation where we have more than a quarter of a million, with over two-thirds completing. With that explanation and assurances, I hope the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

I thank the Minister for that reply. There is an anomaly in that at the moment we have a large number of young adults over 19 who are anxious to move into apprenticeships but find that the financial barrier stops them from doing so. We need to remove that barrier for some of those young people and perhaps Amendment 196, which is to be moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, will find a half-way house on this. Both employers and young adults want to go forward in this way but we do not seem able to find a way for them. I shall withdraw the amendment, but I will think again about this issue and we may possibly return to it on Report.

My Lords, Clause 86 refers back to the provisions in Schedule 5. I want to move the debate on from the issue of adult apprenticeships to the specific area of paragraph 1(2) of the schedule, which provides for the very basic qualifications: basic literacy, basic numeracy, level 2 qualifications and A-levels. These are the fundamentals. As the Minister has just said, these are the gateway to employment and a decent adult life. We know from the statistics that, sadly, a lot of our adult population is not literate, and an even larger proportion is not numerate.

I know well the arguments against any kind of commitment to increased expenditure, but it is not necessarily increased expenditure to provide free basic education in literacy and numeracy. I would have liked to have put down an amendment saying the limit should be 99 rather than 30, because I would like to think that any adult who was not literate or numerate could be provided with free education in that area. There is a long and proud tradition in adult education of providing free literacy and numeracy training for all adults of any age. Many local authorities have provided it for free for many years through their adult education services, and it is a great sadness to me that in recent years that has ceased and people have had to pay for it.

This is a modest amendment, saying simply that it would be a very slight increase in public expenditure because the courses are already being offered to the under-25s, so to add in another couple of adults who are over 25 would not cost a penny more. It would be an important contribution to the employability of a lot of the population. I beg to move.

My Lords, from these Benches we support this amendment. The whole purpose of the education is to provide people with second chances, and funding only up to the age of 25 seems to be a curious limitation on this. Thirty would be a slightly more generous age to have in the Bill, while still affordable.

My Lords, I also support the amendment. It is a step in the right direction. I would rather that there was a lifetime opportunity, but I will certainly support this slight move towards lifetime.

My Lords, I am a bit more ambitious. The illiterate are debarred from almost every form of progress. Literacy is a key that opens so many doors, and if it can be opened later in life, it should be. I do not see why, for what must amount to pence compared with the national budget, we should limit this to 30. I would put it to 45.

My Lords, while I agreed with the Minister when he said on the previous group that resources are finite and that a balance has to be struck, his words would have somewhat more force if, when speaking on an earlier group today, he had not boasted of how much money the Government had spent on a particular issue, as if the amount were the only measure of success. The Government still have not got the message that it is not just about how much they have spent but about how effective that spending is.

On the matter of the age range in my noble friend’s amendment, how was it decided that the age restriction would be between 19 and 25? What were the reasons behind that?

While I sympathise with Amendment 196—that is always the prelude to disappointment, is it not?—I believe that it is right to focus resources where they can have the greatest economic impact. Waiving fees for those aged 19 up to 25 gives a second chance to those individuals who, for whatever reason, did not succeed at school. This second chance will enable them to gain their level 3 qualification and progress on into higher education or careers. Learners in this group are more likely to study full-time and less likely to have an independent source of income. Information on average wages suggests that adults under 25 without a level 3 qualification are in greater need of help with the cost of learning than those over 25. That was one of the criteria.

When deciding which fees to waive, we must prioritise; level 3 courses in particular are expensive to provide. I cannot help pausing in this debate to think that the ghost of Lord Dearing should be haunting us. We all acknowledged his commitment and passion, and this was one of his objectives. To extend the duty to include adults aged between 25 and 30 would require an additional £70 million over the next two years.

In response to the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, on this age range, I think that we would be damned if we did and damned if we did not. Of course, spending money is no guarantee of success but, if we wanted to improve the skill base, we knew that we had to make a huge investment. There have been some 2.8 million adult achievements in basic skills since 2001, and more than 5.7 million have engaged in skills for life since then. I am advised by my officials that, unless I have misunderstood what the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, was saying, with literacy and numeracy qualifications there is no age barrier. Free literacy and numeracy courses will continue; that is the purpose of Clauses 85 to 87. That is backed by £1 billion of funding in the next year.

What the Minister has just said is very worrying, if it is the case that this Bill for the first time restricts free literacy and numeracy courses to those over 25. The duty on the chief executive to provide free education in literacy and numeracy level 2 and A-levels is restricted to people between the ages of 19 and 25. If that is actually a first restriction, it is very serious and concerning.

Unless my officials have misadvised me, I am being told that there is no restriction or age barrier on literacy and numeracy skills. I am looking towards the Box to confirm that, but nobody is paying any attention. I am told that it is up to level 3 on literacy and numeracy; that is the confirmation that I have had. So there is no age restriction on basic literacy and numeracy skills up to level 3.

Perhaps the Minister could be kind enough to explain the disparity. The schedule refers to,

“a specified qualification in literacy … a specified qualification in numeracy … a specified vocational qualification at level 2 … a specified qualification at level 3”.

Clause 86(4) says that the chief executive has a duty to provide this for free only to people,

“aged at least 19 but less than 25”.

I am advised that there is no age restriction on literacy and numeracy skills. The 19 to 25 age restriction applies to level 3 only. I will confirm that in writing because I do not want there to be any dubiety or ambiguity on this matter. I share the noble Baroness's view that this is an important issue. With those assurances, I hope that the noble Baroness can agree to withdraw her amendment.

I am extremely grateful to the Minister and to noble Lords, including my own Front Bench, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, for their support. I hope very much that I am wrong and that the Minister’s officials are right and that this is not a necessary amendment. In that case, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

My Lords, my noble friend rightly asked about the difficulty of providing to national standards. The noble Baroness will answer, so I am looking at the wrong person. My noble friend made the point that you cannot provide to people in prison the same level as to people in other places. I assume that that is the reason for Clause 87(5), which excludes Sections 85 and 86 from applying to people in prison. To abandon all aspirations like that is a pity. I hope that, at the next stage, there may be something in this clause to show that there must be a standard provided, even if it is not the same standard as for people in other accommodation.

My Lords, I have in my hand a piece of paper which appears to be an explanation about Clause 87, but I may be about to disappoint the noble Lord because the briefing I have here does not answer his question. The advice I have is that Clause 87 is about making regulations that will allow for circumstances where somebody has gained certain levels of qualifications but lost the skills. Therefore, I am not able to answer his question properly. If the noble Lord will indulge me, I will have to write to him.

It was not a question: it was a request that at the next stage the Government would consider adding something to modify the effect of subsection (5) of this clause, which is totally to exclude aspirational targets for prisoners.

I appreciate the noble Lord’s point. When I read the clause it seemed to mean several different things at once and I have had to read it several times. I would be grateful if I could have the opportunity to clarify it for the noble Lord in the terms that he requested.