The next group is group 11. These amendments relate to higher education in further education institutions. Amendment 38 is the lead amendment and I call on the Cabinet Secretary to move and speak to the lead amendment and the other amendments. 

Amendment 38 (Kirsty Williams) moved.

I would urge Members, Presiding Officer, to support amendments 38 and 43. We have been clear all along that the additional learning needs system is intended to apply to young people who are still in school or receiving further education. This system is not intended to apply to young people in higher education.

These amendments will make the Bill fully consistent with that policy. They will remove a current inconsistency in the Bill, and therefore in the interests of consistency and fairness, I would urge Members to support these amendments. 

I have to say I was surprised by these amendments coming forward at Stage 3, because there was nobody calling for an exclusion—there was nobody calling, at all, in any of the evidence that we received, for learners undertaking higher education courses in further education colleges to be excluded from the new additional learning needs support system.

Now, as far as I'm concerned—and the Cabinet Secretary's just stated this aim herself: she wants equality of access to support all learners. She doesn't want to extend this to universities. I'm not asking for it to be extended to universities, the scope of this Bill. But I think within a single institution, there ought to be some equality in terms of access to additional learning needs support. If these amendments pass, you have the potential of two individuals going to a further education institution—one doing a higher education course and not getting any additional learning needs support, and the other doing a further education course and getting all the support that they need. That cannot be right. We need to make sure that there's a level playing field. It is not fair to exclude a group of students from the additional learning needs system just because they happen to be taking a higher education course at a local college, and I think that these amendments are very misguided indeed. 

Everybody who enrols at a further education institution ought to have equal access to support. You're taking away some of the access to that support with these amendments, and I certainly won't be supporting them.

I share those concerns, I have to say. You say that you were clear all along—my understanding all along was that the focus was on the institution, and not the type of provision that was in place. Certainly, there's been no evidence calling to exclude higher education within further education institutions, and certainly we haven't had the level of debate and discussion that I would have hoped we would have had, had I known that this was coming at this very late stage.

Indeed, my understanding was that the Bill wasn't extended to cover higher education in universities because of the governance structures of HE institutions, and since the systems and structures are in place for further education institutions to provide individual development plans, it's illogical, in my view, not to utilise this for the benefit of all learners at the further education institution, regardless of which course they're undertaking. So, I would urge Members to vote against these amendments, because I don't think it's right. 

I call on the Cabinet Secretary to reply to the debate.

Thank you very much indeed, Presiding Officer. I want to make it absolutely clear that this is not about dismissing support for students with ALN who are studying an HE course. I do recognise that, increasingly, FEIs are providing higher education courses, and as we move forward with our reforms, the likelihood is that there will be continuing blurring of the lines between further education institutions and higher education institutions. But we have to recognise that, in making this distinction, there is a separate but different system of support for higher education learners who have additional learning needs. For instance, the disabled students allowance is available for them, and there are separate support mechanisms in place. 

It has always been the intention that this legislation would refer only to further education and to compulsory education and not to the higher education sector. And if the Bill was to go forward in this way, you would have a different distinction between different types of higher education learners being entitled to different levels of support.

It's also important to recognise that because of the significant cross-border flows around higher education, it would make the creation of a separate system of support quite difficult to monitor and to enforce. Therefore, I would ask Members to support the amendments.

The question is that amendment 38 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We'll therefore proceed to an electronic vote. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 32, no abstentions and 19 against. Therefore, amendment 38 is agreed.

Amendment 38: For: 32, Against: 19, Abstain: 0

Amendment has been agreed