Special Educational Needs (Direct Payments) (Pilot Scheme) Order 2012
Lord Low of Dalston Excerpts(12 years, 4 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Walmsley
My Lords, I very much welcome the order, which will provide considerably greater flexibility for families. Certainly, feedback on individual budgets in other areas has indicated a much greater level of satisfaction on the part of users and their families, so the order is very much to be welcomed. I am particularly proud of the work that my right honourable Liberal Democrat friend Sarah Teather has done on this area. I think that she has taken a great step forward in realising the Prime Minister’s objective of making the UK a very family-friendly country. We have a long way to go, but this is a good step in the right direction.
I would like to ask the Minister about assistive technologies and communication aids, but before doing so I had better declare an interest as a voluntary patron of the British Assistive Technology Association. The association is not just a trade organisation. As well as manufacturers of pieces of kit that help people with both sensory and physical disabilities, the association contains members who are part of the third sector, including organisations that buy pieces of kit to help people and advise on their use and professionals who work in that field. I do not ask these questions on their behalf, but this is how I know about the issues—I just want to explain that.
I notice that both the Explanatory Notes and the Minister’s speech referred to services rather than to pieces of kit. Sometimes, bits of machinery and bits of kit—or stuff—can contribute just as much as services, or the delivery of expertise by experts, to the quality of life of people with physical and sensory disabilities. The good thing and the bad thing about these pieces of kit is that the manufacturers are constantly improving them, so they are getting better and better all the time. Therefore, more and more ways are being found of helping people with disabilities to lead a very full life and to communicate. Of course, communication aids are so important because they provide people with a voice who did not have one before. Can you imagine what it is like not to be able to speak? People in this House would not like that at all. As these things are constantly being improved, it is often better not to buy them but to lease them so that, when improvements become available, the equipment can be given back in return for something better. Of course, sometimes the equipment becomes out of date and you cannot get spare parts any more, so you want to upgrade.
Therefore, I want to know from the Minister whether that sort of thing can be covered within these personal budgets. Can parents—or the young people themselves when they reach 16—choose to purchase equipment? Can they choose which equipment they want to purchase? Can they lease the equipment? Can they take on a service agreement to ensure that they always have the equipment available so that, when it breaks down, they can get someone round to sort it out so enabling them to keep their voice or their ability to get around or their ability to communicate with other people or their ability to work or to learn? All these things are very important to the lives of the people that we are talking about, and these pieces of kit help them tremendously.
I hope that the Minister will be able to help me on that.
Lord Low of Dalston
My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the Minister for writing to me personally to give me maximum notice of this debate, which has been brought on fairly quickly after the new year. I am not complaining about that. We asked the Minister to make debating the order a priority in the parliamentary timetable when the order-making power was inserted into the Bill on Report so that the proposals could be given the fullest opportunity to show their worth. It is therefore good that we have this early opportunity of scrutinising the order. Like the department, we want to get on with the pilots and evaluating them in order to understand how much substance, if any, there is in the concerns that have been expressed. It was nevertheless considerate of the Minister to give me maximum notice.
The Government have been very accommodating in the approach that they have adopted in the development of the order. In response to representations, they agreed that it should require the affirmative rather than the negative procedure. The sunset horizon has been reduced from five years to two years and the pilots will be undertaken only in pathfinder authorities or those that are piloting direct payments in health.
Some further safeguards asked for have also been introduced. In response to representations from the Special Educational Consortium, the order has been reworded with a view to ensuring that the receipt of a direct payment in no way threatens the statutory right of the child to receive the educational provisions set out in their statement and that the viability of specialist SEN services is not threatened by direct payments taking resources out of the system. Nevertheless, I confess to retaining a degree of scepticism about the Government's ability to ensure all of that and as to what will be the effect of direct payments in practice.
I hope that the Minister will not feel that, having been absent on the occasion when the order-making power was added to the Bill, I have turned up as a bit of a wet blanket as regards the general consensus established on a previous occasion and that he does not wish that I had stayed away again this time. I do not wish to be a wet blanket but just like the noble Lord, Lord Rix, I wish to draw attention to a number of concerns that need to be bottomed, which I believe the Minister is as keen to bottom as anybody.
Education is a universal service for all children. What will be the effect of resources being taken out of the system by way of direct payments? What will be the effect on other children with SEN who do not have direct payments? Will they see services reduced? What will be the effect on the ability of schools, colleges and local authorities whose responsibility it is to educate disabled children and children with SEN to plan for the coherent delivery of the relevant services?
I understand that all relevant statutory duties, such as the duty to provide or arrange special educational provision contained in Section 324 of the Education Act 1996, remain in place throughout the pilots. I also understand that the order includes a requirement in paragraphs 11(c) and 17(f)(i) that local authorities consider the potential adverse impact on other services that they provide or arrange for other children and young people in their areas and that they stop making direct payments if it becomes apparent that the payments are having such an impact. But direct payments take money out of the system. How can the Government be sure that this will not threaten the viability of specialist services? How can they be sure that giving responsibility to the parent instead of the local authority or school will not undermine the legal right of children to receive the provision that they are entitled to? The Government may say that they do not want these things to happen, but how can they ensure it?
There may be unintended consequences too. Some schools and local authorities may wash their hands of difficult children by encouraging parents to take a direct payment. Parents and young people may be encouraged to take a direct payment when assessments are unclear as to what they are entitled to, thus putting their ability to purchase the necessary support at risk. What if parents do not use the direct payment for the purpose for which it was intended? Parents do not always behave as responsibly as we would like. Of course, the local authority might be able to take them to court, but that is surely not where we want to end up.
The Special Educational Consortium is concerned that the Government have not fully considered the impact of resources for this universal service being taken away from schools and local authorities and being held by individuals. Careful thought will need to be given to the impact of parents or young people holding the budget. Direct payments held by parents and young people will inevitably interact with school and college finances and employment policies. This may have implications for the way schools and local authorities plan for the education of children with special educational needs. For example, if a parent employs a teaching assistant to work with their child in school, who will be responsible for managing that teaching assistant? Who ensures that the child’s teacher works collaboratively with the teaching assistant? Who is accountable for the education outcomes for the child, and ultimately how will schools’ ability to plan provision for all children with SEN be affected? Safeguards to ensure the sustainability of specialist support services, particularly for children not eligible for direct payments, need to be copper-bottomed.
There are other concerns, such as how the Government will ensure that the provisions set out in the statement are properly quantified and specified before a direct payment is made. I will not go on listing them in more tedious detail now. The department is aware of these concerns from the Special Educational Consortium. They clearly place a premium on the evaluation of the pilots for bottoming the extensive range of issues to which this order gives rise.
I was greatly encouraged by the way in which the Minister was seized of the importance of evaluation when the order-making power was inserted into the Bill on Report and, most important of all, that he clearly saw the importance of approaching the evaluation with an open mind and not with a preconceived idea about what should come out of the pilots. The fact that the department is also working so co-operatively with the Special Educational Consortium on the development of the order and, I hope, with the development of the pilots is very much to be welcomed and is very encouraging. Undertaken in that spirit, I greatly look forward to the results of the evaluation.
Lord Touhig
My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking the Minister for sharing with us the correspondence that his fellow Ministers have had with others because that was very helpful in updating us on progress. As a result of the Education Act 2011, the Secretary of State now has the power to create pilot schemes to test the use of direct payments for meeting special educational needs in education settings. During the passage of the Bill, the Government accepted that this important proposal should receive the appropriate level of parliamentary scrutiny and that it should be done by the affirmative resolution procedure. The Government introduced that at that stage. In his opening remarks today, the Minister very kindly gave me some credit for that idea, but it was not really due to me: it was a holy trinity as the noble Lords, Lord Low and Lord Rix, had the same idea. Unfortunately, they could not be present on Report, so I actually spoke the words and got the credit that the Minister has given me. A holy trinity and not one part of the deity alone was responsible for this proposal, and I am delighted that the Government welcomed it.
On Report, I and others welcomed the greater personalisation of education provision for children and young people with special educational needs because it is right. However, there are some particular risks in the use of direct payments in education, particularly in schools. This is a major change in the way that education is delivered, and it is right that it is being carefully considered. I know the Special Educational Consortium has been working closely with the Minister’s officials. I am very grateful for and appreciative of the hard work that his officials have put in and the understanding that they have had in trying to mitigate some of the worries that the Special Educational Consortium and others have had about aspects of the Bill.
Lord Hill of Oareford
Some of the criteria are set out in the order—for instance, paragraphs 6 to 8 on when the local authority is not satisfied that the recipient is suitable and paragraph 11 on the effect on other services. The question that underlines this comes back to this central tension, which the noble Baroness quite rightly raised, between the duties and responsibilities on the local authority to continue to discharge its statutory duties, the budgets and everything that goes with that, and trying to arrive at a situation where there is more flexibility for individuals and their families. Given that the local authority ultimately has the statutory responsibility and the budget, we have to have a system in place whereby the local authority does not find itself exposed either financially or in other ways in a way that it cannot afford or deliver. From that point of view, that is the whole basis of the system that we currently have. We might get to another point—with our SEN Green Paper and further legislative steps—but until then it is within that framework that we have to operate.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hughes, also asked a question about how these pilots integrate more generally into the work that is carrying on with the pathfinders and the work that is going on with health and social budgets. This pilot on direct payments is being undertaken as part of the broader pathfinder programme in 20 areas made up of 31 local authorities and their PCT partners. They are working together—or we hope that they will work together—to test the use of personal budgets including direct payments for health care and special educational provision alongside the development of the new education health and social care plans. The pathfinder programme is managed by a joint working group across the two departments; the whole recruitment phase to select the pathfinders and their support and evaluation teams is also a joint venture. It is probably also fair to say—this is a broad point that links to the noble Baroness’s questions—that the local authorities and others with whom we are working on these pilots are approaching it with an open mind, trying to see whether it is possible to introduce personal budgets and direct payments and to see what it would look like. It is clearly the case, as the noble Baroness very rightly said, that there may be some local authorities and others who do not particularly relish the thought of change, but the ones in the pathfinder, with whom we will be working to test these issues, will, we think, engage with that constructively.
Lord Low of Dalston
At the risk of detaining him, may I ask the Minister a further question not unrelated to those which have just been raised where there is a dispute between the parent and the local authority? My question is not about whether to make a direct payment but more about the quantum. Has the department considered the implications for the special educational needs tribunal and whether some provision needs to be made for people to appeal to the tribunal about the quantum of provision? It is not to be imagined that there will be total unanimity all the time between parents and local authorities on what the level of direct payment should be. At the moment, there is provision for parents to appeal to the special educational needs and disability tribunal about the level of provision being made. Since the direct payment is the analogue of that provision, is there going to be an opportunity for parents to appeal to the tribunal where they wish to dispute the level of direct payment the authority is willing to make?
Lord Hill of Oareford
I do not believe that there will be a direct right of appeal to the tribunal in connection with direct payments—I guess that there would in terms of the overall provision, as is currently the case.
I am conscious that I may not have picked up all the detailed questions, for which I apologise. Because I want to address all these concerns, I will go through this with officials tomorrow and, if I have failed to pick them up, I will come back. It is generally the case—which I hope noble Lords will find reassuring—that we will go forward in the way that we have since September through November; we are committed to working closely with the Special Educational Consortium and others with expertise in this area to get these pilots right. I think I am right in saying that, some of these proper detailed questions not withstanding, there is support for these pilots. I hope that we can go forward with them. I will share the evaluation with noble Lords as it comes forward over the next months. With that, I hope that we can agree this order.
Education Bill
Lord Low of Dalston Excerpts(12 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Low of Dalston
“( ) Regulations must make provision that if a pupil has been excluded from school for a fixed period on two or more occasions in a 12 month period or is at risk of permanent exclusion, a head teacher shall ensure that—
(a) there is an assessment of whether that child has unidentified learning needs;(b) there is a review of the effectiveness of the special educational provision being made if that pupil has identified special educational needs;(c) there is a review of the effectiveness of the reasonable adjustments being made if that pupil has disability.”
Lord Low of Dalston
My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments 24 to 28. I shall speak as briefly as I can because these amendments had a good airing in Committee. However, I was unfortunately unable to be present when they were discussed and so I will take this opportunity to say a few words on them—not just for the sake of it, of course, for the Government have come some way to meet us, but because some concerns remain, which have been raised with me by the Special Education Consortium, on which it would be helpful to have reassurances from the Minister.
The amendments relate to Clause 4, which toughens up the arrangements for pupil exclusions. Clause 4 makes significant changes to the appeals process and removes the power from the proposed independent review panel to order the reinstatement of an excluded child except in cases of direct disability discrimination. There are many children with special educational needs who are not the subject of disability discrimination, and the purpose of the amendments is to introduce safeguards into the exclusion process to deal with their case.
Amendment 15 makes provision for regulations to require that where a pupil has been excluded from school for a fixed period on two or more occasions in a 12-month period, or is at risk of permanent exclusion, a head teacher must ensure that there is an assessment of whether the child has unidentified learning needs, that there is a review of the effectiveness of the special educational provision being made if the pupil has identified special educational needs, and that there is a review of the effectiveness of the reasonable adjustments being made if the pupil has a disability.
Amendments 24 to 28 would require regulations to make provision for a number of things: for parents to request a SEN expert to advise the panel on SEN issues; about the information parents are given on their right to request a SEN expert; the skills and qualifications that a SEN expert must have; the ability of the SEN expert to review the needs of the child and whether the school has put the correct support in place; the duty of the school to co-operate with the work of the SEN expert; and the ability of parents to select a SEN expert of their choice.
The Government have moved some way on these issues from where they started in the other place and it is clear that they do not wish to disadvantage children with special educational needs. Indeed, they have published draft guidance on exclusions which recognises the need to protect children with SEN, which I very much welcome. However, there are some outstanding concerns. The guidance is clear that head teachers should, as far as possible, avoid permanently excluding children with SEN. However, the guidance needs to be more specific and detailed at this point. Have all the steps been taken which need to be taken? This could include additional adjustments, critical extra support or other interventions which may play a crucial role in preventing exclusion. The guidance moves too quickly to discussing alternative placements without encouraging schools to consider whether they have answered all these questions. I should be grateful if the Minister could address this point in his response.
The guidance focuses heavily on preventing exclusions of statemented pupils. This is, of course, very important. However, it is important also to bear in mind that some 18 per cent of children, or roughly 1.4 million children, with a special educational need do not have a statement. I ask the Minister to consider extending the guidance to address the needs of children on school action or school action plus. Children on school action plus may have substantial needs but do not have the protection afforded by a statement of SEN. Such children are more than 20 times more likely to be excluded than the rest of the school population and so additional safeguards are clearly needed in their case.
I turn now to the remaining concerns about the SEN experts and the role they could play in advising an independent review panel. I welcome the clarity that the draft guidance brings in relation to the impartiality and expertise of the SEN expert, but retaining parental confidence is key to the success of these reforms and it is with that in mind that I have tabled these amendments again. The school’s role is key here and yet the guidance does not make clear that schools should be required to inform parents of their right to request a SEN expert when their child is excluded. The SEN expert clearly has a vital role to play in protecting the interests of the child and yet the guidance states in terms that the expert’s role does not include making an assessment of the pupil’s special educational needs or making a judgment about whether the school has taken the appropriate steps to meet the child’s needs.
As I have said, I welcome the guidance’s clarity on the need for an expert on special educational needs. However, it remains unclear whether this expert will have the requisite understanding and experience of the disability or SEN in question. I ask the Minister to consider revising the guidance to make it clearer that “expert” should also mean “relevant”.
My final point on the expert relates again to parental confidence. As it stands, the expert will be paid for by the local authority if the child is in a maintained school and by the school if in an academy or free school. While I welcome the guidance stating that local authorities should take reasonable steps to offer a choice of expert and that the expert cannot be connected with the case, it remains a concern that the paymaster should be the institution that the parent is appealing against. If it could be made unambiguously clear that parents could have the expert of their choice, that would surely help to bolster confidence in the independence of the system. I hope that the Minister can give me some reassurance on this point and on my other points as well. I beg to move.
Lord Touhig
My Lords, I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Low, who has made a powerful case articulating the concerns that still exist despite the good debate that we had in Committee on exclusions. I do not intend to rehearse the arguments deployed in Committee, save to remind the House that the Government’s equality impact assessment states that 72 per cent of all pupil exclusions from schools in England are youngsters with special educational needs. That 72 per cent is a very high figure, and one we need to keep in mind as we seek to resolve these issues.
Yesterday, I attended the launch of Finished at School, arranged by an organisation called Ambitious about Autism. This document poses the question:
“Where next for young people with autism?”.
It contains a number of case studies and poses questions about post-16 education for youngsters with learning difficulties, particularly with autism. Among its questions, it asks for a clear, legal right to educational support up to the age of 25 for young disabled people. It says that a funding system that gives young people and families more information, choice and support is needed, as is a cross-government focus on outcomes and destinations for young disabled people, and a further education workforce with the skills to support young people with autism to achieve their ambitions. Sarah Teather, the Minister of State responsible for these matters, was present and warmly welcomed the report yesterday. She said that the Government had every intention of living up to the ambitions set out in their Green Paper. All this is to be welcomed.
Before any noble Lord questions how my argument is relevant to the question before us now of exclusions, I will explain. In England, we have 66,000 young people with autism in the 16 to 25 age group. Yet only one young person in four with autism in that age cohort continues their education beyond school. That is why we have to do everything possible to reduce the huge level of SEN exclusions from our schools. For three-quarters of young people with autism, attending school until the age of 16 is the only education experience they will ever have. That is why we have to be so careful about exclusions.
On Amendment 15, as the noble Lord, Lord Low, pointed out, the draft guidance makes some welcome noises on this but the trigger for assessment is not as clear as this amendment would make it. On Amendments 24 and 25, it would appear that parents will be told that they can request a SEN expert of their own but we do not know how this will happen or what information parents will be entitled to receive in order to achieve that.
On Amendment 26, the guidance makes it clear that the SEN adviser should have appropriate training. However, like the noble Lord, Lord Low, I am still concerned that that training should be specific to the disability of the person with SEN being examined. On Amendment 27, the guidance is clear that it will not be the role of the SEN expert to undertake an assessment of needs, which is somewhat disappointing. Finally, on Amendment 28, it will be for the local authority to select the SEN experts for the parents to choose from.
There are still many questions to be asked and answered on the whole issue of the exclusion of youngsters with SEN. I look forward to the response from the Minister, who has demonstrated to me, and no doubt to others across the House, that he is listening. He certainly did that in Committee. I hope he listens to us now.
Lord Hill of Oareford
The idea behind the trials—I think it is based on what has already been happening in Cambridgeshire—is that the budget which currently sits with the local authority to pay for alternative provision would effectively be devolved to schools. Schools in that case would have a very clear incentive not to end up dumping a child in expensive provision but to do their best early on to make the best possible provision they can and seek to avoid exclusion. In Cambridgeshire the number of permanent exclusions fell when it tried this approach from more than 500 a year to fewer than 100. However, the experiences of these authorities also show us that this is not something to be rushed and that it requires careful implementation. Our view would be that we should test the approach rigorously, evaluate it and then legislate.
The point about an automatic trigger was raised by the noble Lords, Lord Low and Lord Touhig. We are seeking to promote early intervention through the use of multi-agency assessments. Following comments made at an earlier stage, we have already made clear in our guidance that schools should consider arranging such an assessment for pupils who display continuous disruptive behaviour. The noble Baroness, Lady Hughes, said that the issue of early intervention was not properly addressed in the draft guidance. I thought we had addressed it but it is draft guidance so I welcome her views on it as I would views from other noble Lords. We have reinforced the importance of multi-agency assessments in the draft I have circulated. I would argue that we should leave the detail of the trigger for such assessments to the discretion of schools. I accept that in a lot of cases two fixed-period exclusions might be an appropriate trigger but in some cases a single serious incident of out-of-character poor behaviour might be sufficient cause for concern.
With regard to allowing independent review panels to be able to reinstate, there are cases—the Government would argue and I think it is a point that has just been echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland of Houndwood—where sometimes unfortunately exclusion is necessary as a last resort. We want a system which works for the education and welfare of all pupils at a school. It is right that, in some cases, schools should be directed to reconsider their decision to exclude a child. It is also right that a school should retain a level of responsibility towards a pupil, even if that pupil is excluded. However, a directed reinstatement is not necessarily in the best interests of an excluded pupil and, as we heard in Committee and from evidence given to this House and in another place from head teachers, it can have a devastating impact on the morale of the other pupils and staff.
We hope that our system of independent review panels will provide access to a quick, fair and independent process for reviewing an exclusion. However, we have put in safeguards in particular regarding the role of the special educational needs expert. Our revised guidance gives particular emphasis to ensuring the fair treatment of pupils who are most vulnerable to exclusion. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rix, who sadly is not here today, and to the noble Lord, Lord Low, who I am meeting again tomorrow on this subject. I am grateful to them for the meetings we have had on this issue and to the Special Educational Consortium. I am grateful for the very helpful contributions they have made while we have been developing the guidance.
The guidance makes clear that schools’ duties under the Equality Act not to discriminate against, harass or victimise pupils because of disability need be taken into account when deciding whether to exclude a pupil. It also says that schools must ensure that their policies, such as their behaviour policy, do not discriminate against pupils by unfairly increasing their risk of exclusion. We have retained the existing statutory guidance that, as far as possible, schools should avoid excluding a pupil with a statement of SEN. We have strengthened this position to make it clear that, where a school is considering the permanent exclusion of a pupil with a statement, it should begin a discussion with the responsible local authority, highlighting its concerns about the placement of the pupil in the school and the possible need for an alternative placement. I hope that these discussions would decrease the likelihood of pupils with a statement being excluded. Where a pupil does need to be excluded, we hope it will help support the local authority to ensure that appropriate provision is put in place quickly.
Amendment 17 relates to the governing body review of exclusion. We think that where a pupil is permanently excluded there needs to be a quick and fair process for reviewing this decision and that the process should give proper consideration to a pupil’s SEN. The governing body review provides an appropriate and proportionate first stage for reviewing a head teacher’s decision to exclude.
The revised guidance makes clear that governing body reviews should have access to relevant information about a pupil’s SEN, such as a statement of special educational needs and the outcome of any multiagency assessment arranged by the school. I agree that in many cases an important part of this information would be a report from the special educational needs co-ordinator, but there may be occasions where another member of staff is better placed to provide detailed information on a child’s special needs. I think that requiring information about the pupil’s SEN to be provided to the governing body is absolutely right but I do not want to prescribe precisely who needs to provide it.
Where a pupil is excluded, there must be a quick process for reviewing the decision. As we have said, we think that the governing body provides an appropriate and proportionate first stage for reviewing a head teacher’s decision to exclude. Where a governing body takes the difficult decision to uphold a permanent exclusion, there must be a right for a parent to ask for it to be reviewed by an independent body. Our independent review panels will allow that to happen quickly and will improve on the current system in providing extra help for excluded pupils with SEN. The introduction of an SEN expert offers a significant additional safeguard. The SEN expert would be free to submit written evidence to an independent review panel but they must be present at the review. We propose to place a requirement on independent review panels that, where appointed, they should seek and have regard to the expert’s views.
As regards the detailed points on regulations made by the noble Lords, Lord Touhig and Lord Low, I can reassure them that many of the things they are seeking to place in regulations will be there. Regulations will set out the right for all parents to request an SEN expert and put a duty on schools to notify parents of this right when a governing body upholds a permanent exclusion. We are clear that the expert must be someone with sufficient relevant professional expertise—that point was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Low—to be able to offer expert advice; for example, an educational psychologist. Because we do not want inadvertently to rule out someone who would be suitable for this role in a particular case, we intend that the details of who is eligible to be an SEN expert will be clarified in statutory guidance rather than in regulation, so that review panels have discretion to choose the most appropriate expert in each case. We have had very helpful discussions with the Special Educational Consortium about the sort of person who would be eligible for this role which we are keen to continue.
I agree with the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Low, that all parties to an independent review panel must have trust in the advice of the SEN expert. This is why we are proposing to make it clear that local authorities and academies should offer parents a choice of SEN expert in order to reinforce their confidence in the appointment. These expectations will be set out in statutory guidance. The guidance also makes clear that where a pupil has identified special educational needs, we expect schools to provide to the panel, and the expert, any relevant information about those needs and the steps that the school is taking to manage them. This includes a pupil’s statement of SEN, the annual review or the outcome of a multiagency assessment. Parents will also be able to submit written evidence explaining if they feel that their child’s special educational needs are relevant when making their case to the review panel.
Parents will have the right to request an SEN expert and the expert will be able to advise the panel on the parent’s case. That could include advising a panel on whether the actions taken by a school to identify or address a pupil’s SEN might be considered reasonable and whether a school might reasonably have been expected to intervene earlier in order to prevent the exclusion. We also propose to include an evaluation of the role of SEN expert as part of a study of the relative benefits between independent review panels and the First-tier Tribunal. This will provide us with the views of all parties on the effectiveness of the role of the SEN expert, including parents and pupils. We will consider the findings of this review in deciding whether there is a need to strengthen the regulations or guidance to ensure that the role is being used effectively.
I am sorry to have spoken at some length but these are important issues and I was keen to set out the Government’s response in as much detail as I could because I know that there have been concerns. I hope I have reassured noble Lords that we are taking steps to support schools to identify and address pupils’ special educational needs and we are committed to the effective use of the SEN expert. We believe that the new process, supported by the revised guidance, provides significant additional safeguards for pupils with SEN. I will continue to seek the input of noble Lords and the Special Educational Consortium in finalising the guidance. As I said, I am meeting the noble Lord, Lord Low, tomorrow and I am sure that we shall discuss the matter further then. With that, and looking forward to that conversation, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Low of Dalston
My Lords, I am very grateful to all those who have spoken, particularly to the Minister for his very full response. It should not have wearied the House as a lot of issues required to be addressed. The Minister has done justice to them in addressing them so comprehensively. In his response he has shown that he has been listening to the debate, as the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, requested. That being the case, it would be churlish not to withdraw the amendment.
The Minister has indicated that quite a lot of what these amendments are asking for will be included in regulations or statutory guidance and that there will be ongoing consultation with noble Lords and the sector about the form of those regulations and the guidance—at least, I take it that that is what there will be ongoing discussion about. The Minister has also shown that he was responsive to the points that were very well made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes, about the importance of intervening early. The more we can get that into the guidance, the better. The more we can indicate that the guidance is meant to apply not just to pupils with statements but to other pupils with special educational needs who are at risk of exclusion, the better it will be. However, we can address that issue, along with others, in the ongoing discussions that we will have with the Minister. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Education Bill
Lord Low of Dalston Excerpts(12 years, 8 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Addington
My Lords, perhaps I might be allowed to draw the Committee’s attention to Amendment 144C, which stands in my name. I hope that what I am about to say is not taken as cutting across the speeches of the noble Lords, Lord Layard and Lord Wakeham. This is inspired by a practice that has become apparent to me. It comes from a group of dyslexics who have discovered that as they cannot pass the English test, they are being removed from the apprenticeships process. I have raised this on the floor of the House, and I have raised it with the relevant Ministers. On every occasion I have received, shall we say, the general approval of your Lordships’ House, and the approval of the Ministers. What is effectively happening is that you are saying to a dyslexic, “You can’t pass a written English test—you can’t get an apprenticeship”.
Nick Gibb recently said in private to me before a meeting that a successful apprenticeship is as economically beneficial to you as a degree. Dyslexics cannot do this, but they can go to university. We have an established path. Indeed, I think I was one of the first people involved in it, actually going as a right. When you start to talk about yourself as part of a historical precedent—well, perhaps I am now a true Member of the House of Lords. It is an established path now. I have interests, both non-paid and pecuniary, in people who now provide these services.
Apprenticeships are probably more appropriate in helping many people who are dyslexic to actually get a job and maintain it, than, shall we say, an arts degree would be. They are more directly applicable. Fewer steps have to be gone through. However, because the English skills test here is one that you cannot pass, dyslexics are told, “No”. The thing is, we thought we had cracked it. The noble Lord, Lord Young, is here; we had discussions about this when the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act was a Bill, and we thought we had an answer.
What has happened is that the Ministers had a private meeting. I agreed with the Minister, John Hayes, that I could use this in a previous speech, and as I referred to it then I think I am safe to do so now. We had a meeting, and the National Apprenticeship Service was told by the Minister, “Sort it out—this is ridiculous”. The representatives were told to come to me, because they did not know what was going on about dyslexia and I would put them in touch with the relevant people. It did not happen, and in subsequent conversations I found myself talking to a person who said, “Our lawyers have told us that we don’t have to do it, so we won’t”. Maybe we—the noble Lord, Lord Young, and I—are at fault because we did not pin this down hard enough. But something has gone fundamentally wrong. It may be corrected over time, but I hereby give the noble Lord, Lord Henley, the chance here to tell us exactly what is going to happen about this in the immediate future, and what is planned.
I apologise for not having spoken at Second Reading and coming here today, but I hope that the Committee will understand why I have done this now, and why I suggest it is important that the Government give a definitive example of what they think should happen, given that I think we have unanimous support for the argument that dyslexics—10 per cent of the population—should not be excluded from getting a qualification that gives them a way of earning a living.
Lord Low of Dalston
My Lords, I would like to follow on from the noble Lord, Lord Addington, to make one very brief point. On my way to my brief point I will say that I very much support apprenticeships and the apprenticeships programme, and what this Government are doing to ramp that up, so I very much support the amendment that has been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Layard.
I do not know quite how the Government intend to respond to that, but the brief point I will make is to express the hope that if the Government are on the way to resisting or qualifying the amendment in any way, I hope that they will not do anything that will detract from the priority category status of the apprenticeship offer, which is in legislation, for students with learning difficulties and disabilities in the age group 19 to 24. I think that the Government have recognised that members of this group sometimes take a little longer to reach the point when they can appropriately embark on an apprenticeship. With that in view, they have accepted that it is appropriate to make a priority offer to this group in a somewhat later age category. I hope that they will be able to give assurances that the offer to that age group of students is still in place.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford
My Lords, I, too, have a great deal of sympathy with this set of amendments. The noble Lord, Lord Young, spoke to us about the unemployment statistics and the difficulties that young people in particular have in gaining apprenticeships at the moment. We have seen an extremely satisfactory increase in the number of apprenticeships over the past few years, but they have predominantly been in the older, 19-plus category. There is considerable difficulty for younger people. Employers are less anxious to take on young people. Indeed, those who go into apprenticeships are, on the whole, those who have already been employed by the same people—they move into an apprenticeship with the firm that they are already with.
We have had some discussion of the Select Committee report that was chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham. I think I remember that report saying that apprenticeship is the most satisfactory route into a career for a young person who does not go through university. It is an extremely satisfying and satisfactory way of teaching young people, and for them to learn not only a skill but about jobs and living, and the world of work. It is therefore very important indeed that we should support the apprenticeships. In the current situation with the recession, can my noble friend Lord Henley tell us what the Government’s response is to the Wolf report’s suggestions that there should be some incentive to employers, particularly small and medium-sized businesses, in taking on young apprentices? We talk about it being demand-led but in some circumstances demand needs a little nudging. Are the Government inclined to nudge demand in this way?
Education Bill
Lord Low of Dalston Excerpts(12 years, 8 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Low of Dalston
“School inspections: designation of teaching school status and special educational needs
The relevant eligibility criteria employed by the National College to determine teaching school status must include an “outstanding” Ofsted rating for any special educational needs work undertaken by that school.”
Lord Low of Dalston
My Lords, this is a straightforward amendment which I hope the Minister may be willing to accept. The proposed new Clause 42, which I am moving, ensures that schools cannot be designated as teaching schools by the National College for School Leadership unless they have received an outstanding grade for teaching special educational needs.
The schools White Paper, The Importance of Teaching, made it possible for schools to apply for teaching-school status, allowing them to become centres of best teaching practice in their local area. Schools’ ability to apply for teaching-school status was extended to special schools teaching children with predominantly complex special educational needs in the SEN Green Paper, Support and Aspiration: A New Approach to Special Educational Needs and Disability. The eligibility criteria for schools applying for teaching-school status include an Ofsted rating as outstanding for overall effectiveness, teaching and learning and leadership and management. In these days, when so many more children with SEN are educated in mainstream schools, it is hard to see how a school could get a rating of outstanding for overall effectiveness without being able to demonstrate excellence in the teaching of children with SEN. However, given the specialised nature of this work, it would seem sensible to require schools to be able to demonstrate expertise in this area as well as those already listed in the criteria if schools are to be expected to improve teaching in the area of SEN and improve standards and spread best practice.
The Special Educational Consortium is concerned that under the existing eligibility criteria a mainstream school applying for teaching-school status could achieve this without having the necessary expertise in the teaching of children with SEN. This is a concern because many children and young people with special educational needs are now being taught in mainstream educational settings, where it is essential that schools should be able to recognise the particular challenges they face in accessing the mainstream curriculum. Given the importance of the teaching workforce having the skills to work with children with SEN, it is vital that schools be able to demonstrate their excellence in this area as part of the criteria for achieving teaching-school status.
Having an outstanding rating for the SEN element of a school’s work is also important for giving parents and children confidence that the practice being spread through local schools partnerships will help ensure that children with SEN can participate fully in learning. Introducing the additional criterion that schools have an outstanding rating from Ofsted for their SEN teaching will encourage schools considering applying for teaching-school status to address the way they open up the curriculum to children with SEN and, where children are taught in an SEN unit outside the mainstream school, how learning outcomes can be improved. This would help to address a significant barrier across all education settings, and the lack of expertise and understanding around low-incidence impairments such as deaf/blindness where access to communication and other teaching specialisms is necessary if the challenges are to be overcome.
Any sharing of best practice needs to have a well-developed knowledge base to draw on. However, the Special Educational Consortium’s experience is that knowledge of SEN and the added difficulties that learners with special educational needs face is lacking in many local areas. Requiring schools desirous of acquiring teaching-school status to be able to demonstrate expertise in teaching children with SEN could help to address this issue. I beg to move.
The Earl of Listowel
My Lords, I support my noble friend’s amendment. We have seen a great change in the training of teachers in recent years. In the past, teachers typically were trained for three years to their bachelor educational degree, which was a good long grounding. We have seen that period reduced to one year, and more and more teachers are being trained on the job. I welcome the move to more classroom-based learning for teachers but we have to be sure that it is right. There is a risk to that strategy and I look for reassurance from the Minister that teachers will be getting an understanding of SEN in that training. Perhaps I may make a further comment—we should not forget that more and more classroom assistants are those who work one-to-one with children with SEN. They too need the high-quality training.
The Earl of Listowel
I hope that the Minister will forgive me if I make one further comment. Within the SEN group, I can see those children with emotional and behavioural difficulties particularly profiting from the Government's strategy to increase classroom-based learning. With those children, it is often the case that they can act out, act aggressively towards a teacher or other pupils. That can give rise to an understandable anger or irritation in the teacher which they may feel very moved to act on, but which will not be a helpful or appropriate reply to the behaviour. On the other hand, some children become very depressed, and it is easy to ignore them. Having an outsider observing the class and seeing how the teacher reacts can be a very helpful method to enable teachers to engage with EBD children and help to include them in the mainstream.
Models such as consultation for school staff, such as has been done for many years by the child and adolescent psychotherapist Emil Jackson in north London, is another way to help staff to think more deeply about their relationships with their pupils, particularly those who are challenging. I hope that the Minister will forgive me for making that additional comment.
Lord Low of Dalston
I am grateful to all those who have spoken in the debate, which has been supportive of the issue I raised. I am therefore glad to have flagged it up, but I am reassured by what the Minister said about the work going on—in particular what he said to the effect that an Ofsted designation of overall effectiveness will increasingly be difficult to achieve without a demonstration of quality or excellence in the field of SEN. I hope that the Minister and the department will continue to make clear to Ofsted that overall effectiveness requires all-round effectiveness but necessarily includes excellence in special educational needs. With the Minister’s reassurance about the work that is going on and the indication that he has given of the work being done to clarify that an Ofsted designation of teaching-school status will increasingly require excellence in special educational needs, I am happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Low of Dalston
My Lords, Clause 44 removes the power of the Local Government Ombudsman to hear complaints against schools, a power recently conferred on him by the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009. Parents will instead have to complain directly to the Secretary of State, a remedy that is widely perceived to be slow and ineffective. Indeed, when we were discussing the question of complaints to the Secretary of State when dealing with the Academies Bill last year, it was clear that the system was creaking, with the standard time taken to deal with complaints averaging as much as 18 months.
The Local Government Ombudsman has always considered complaints about a wide range of education matters as they relate to local authorities, including concerns about special educational needs. However, until recently the ombudsman was unable to consider complaints about internal school matters. This meant that the complaints process was fragmented, with parents taking their complaint about the local authority to the Local Government Ombudsman but having to take their complaint about the school to the Secretary of State. Parents understandably felt surprised and frustrated when the Local Government Ombudsman was unable to pursue a complaint further once it became a school matter, and would be disappointed when they discovered that their only recourse was to complain to the Secretary of State.
In order to deal with this unsatisfactory state of affairs the last Government, in the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009, extended the Local Government Ombudsman’s powers to cover complaints from parents and children about a range of non-teaching matters concerning the internal management of schools by governors and head teachers. In April 2010, the Local Government Ombudsman launched a pilot phase of the new school complaints service. These pilots are taking place in 14 local authority areas, and are being used to shape the design and delivery of the new service. The Local Government Ombudsman has also been providing training and information sessions on the new processes, which were due to be in place nationally by this month, September 2011. I understand that the feedback from these pilots has been extremely positive, and indicates a strong level of satisfaction from schools and parents with the conduct and outcomes of the investigations. There have been no challenges by schools to the remedies proposed by the Local Government Ombudsman.
In these circumstances, I am at a loss to understand why the Government want to put the clock back, revert to the previous, fragmentary and unsatisfactory system, and remove the Local Government Ombudsman’s power to investigate complaints about schools as well as local authorities. I am grateful to the Minister for his letter of 8 September, in which he set out the department’s thinking very fully, but I am bound to say that I did not think it altered the case very greatly. Indeed, to my mind, it only underlined the need for a more concerted route for complaints.
I focus my remarks on the impact on children with SEN and disabilities. I recognise that complaints about a school’s failure to deliver the content of a statement of SEN will still be covered by the Local Government Ombudsman. However, I also understand that the most common single school-level issue investigated by the Local Government Ombudsman in the pilots has been bullying, something which will be removed from his purview if this clause goes through. A literature review carried out by the University of Cambridge recently stated that:
“There is a great weight of evidence that confirms that children with SEN and/or disabilities are significantly more likely to be bullied or victimised than their non-disabled peers”.
The Local Government Ombudsman is able to consider policies and practices of schools, and ensure that they are correctly following their own procedures on things like bullying. The Secretary of State has a much weaker set of investigatory powers, which focus only on breaches of the law, which means that he will be unable to go into matters which involve school policy rather than law, such as bullying. I had understood that the Government wanted to ensure that parents of children with SEN and disabilities are not hampered by bureaucracy, and complex processes, when all they want to do is make sure that their child gets the help they need. This is one of the guiding principles underpinning the SEN and disability Green Paper, with a view to making a system which is more user-friendly and works better for parents. I therefore believe the Government should think again about whether the handling of complaints against schools should be taken back into the Department for Education, and particularly whether this is the quickest and most accessible way of ensuring parents get the right support for their child. As the Lamb inquiry stated:
“The Local Government Ombudsman represents the potential for a unified route for individual complaints about SEN at both a school and local authority level, with more appropriate forms of redress available to parents”.
Lord Lucas
My Lords, I was waiting to see if my noble friend wanted to take advantage of a chance to reply. He has not yet convinced me with his arguments. We have had an experiment running, and if we are to terminate it we ought at least to be allowed to see the results so far. It really ought to be up to the Government to provide them to us, and I very much hope that between now and Report we will have the chance to see a narrative, if not an evaluation, of what has been achieved so far.
These are long-standing problems, particularly when it comes to bullying, SEN and children getting into home education when they do not really want to be there. I am conscious that this has happened over a long period and in quite a high volume without any indication that the current methods, which we are to go back to, have provided an adequate answer. What was proposed by the previous Government and is now being trialled is a transfer from one set of officials who are not specialised and have limited powers to another set of officials who are specialised and have better powers. That seems to be worth trying. That is not to say that this is something that should not be done by Government; rather, it is to say that if we do it in a slightly different way, it could be done better.
I am conscious of the suffering that is caused by the current system and its inadequacies, and I do not want to go back to it. I do not mind going back to it if the system being trialled turns out to be no better and more expensive, but we ought to know what the evaluation is.
Lord Low of Dalston
My Lords, the Minister has asked me to withdraw my amendment and my opposition to Clause 44 stand part. I will do that for the moment but a number of points have been made around the Committee to which we may want to return on Report, if it has not been possible for the Minister to give us greater satisfaction on them. I thank all noble Lords who have spoken on all sides of the Committee.
I shall clarify a couple of points. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes, for making the point that we are talking here about unresolved complaints—complaints that have not been able to be resolved at local level. We all agree that complaints should be resolved at the lowest level possible, and it is only the unresolved ones that we are talking about referring to either the ombudsman or the Secretary of State.
The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, asked me to say a bit more about the Local Government Ombudsman. I cannot say an awful lot, but I imagine that his office is staffed by people who are versed in the law, administration and local government. That is what I would expect.
Like others, I am bound to say that I have not been completely persuaded by the Minister’s arguments. As the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, pointed out, the desire to bring everything back to the Secretary of State comes rather oddly from a Government who preach so much localism but practise so much centralism. That we are merely returning to the situation as it was before 2010 may very well be true, but it was the pre-2010 situation which was found to be unsatisfactory. That is why the move to the Local Government Ombudsman was made.
It may be that, because the pilots have operated only in 14 areas, the great majority of people have not seen the benefits of the ombudsman’s style of hearing complaints, but those who have not known anything better and are still mired in the pre-2010 situation might be pleased to experience the service that is offered under the 14 pilots.
Ministers have told us that bringing the investigation of complaints back to the Secretary of State would enable a quick resolution, but, as I said when opposing the clause, it has not been everybody’s experience that the procedure of the Secretary of State’s office has been all that expeditious in the past. It is clear that a lot of work still needs to be done before that route is fit for purpose.
It would be best if the Government were to put this on hold. If they can satisfy us by giving us the results of the evaluation before Report, that would be very helpful. If that is not possible, I would ask that the matter be taken back until there can be a proper evaluation. We might then be able to consider it again in future when another education Bill comes before the House.
The Minister kindly invited me to discuss the matter further with him, which I am happy to do. I would be very happy to join the discussions that he is having with the Special Educational Consortium and the National Deaf Children’s Society if that would help to see whether we can clarify the procedures at least in relation to children with special educational needs in the context of the implementation of the Green Paper.
Although, as I have indicated, there are a number of unresolved issues here to which we may wish to return on Report, I no longer wish for now to oppose that the clause stand part of the Bill. I do so in the hope that the matter can be progressed on the basis of further discussions between now and Report or, if not then, when the Bill comes back before us on Report.
Education Bill
Lord Low of Dalston Excerpts(12 years, 10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Garden of Frognal
If my noble friend will forgive me, I invite the noble Lord, Lord Low to speak to his amendment in the group.
Lord Low of Dalston
I am very happy to oblige the Committee. As my amendment has already been referred to several times and spoken to very eloquently by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, there is not really a lot for to me to say, but it is obviously correct that I should speak to it.
Before I do that, I want to make a few comments on some of the other amendments in this large group. Some work is required on the section of the Bill dealing with careers guidance to ensure that it is effectively disability-proofed. I know that the Minister is very sympathetic on that matter, so I hope that he will be able to give me reassurances on one or two points.
First, in supporting the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, I seek clarification. When the amendment refers to “professionally qualified” careers practitioners, is it clear that the new professional quality standards include comprehensive training for all careers guidance practitioners on working with disabled young people and adults? It is very important that those working in the field should know about the barriers which disabled people experience, the perceptual barriers that often restrict their career choices.
I also want to be sure that the triennial report for which the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, calls in his amendment would include the effect of the provisions in this section of the Bill on disadvantaged groups of young people, specifically including young people with a learning difficulty and/or disability.
I should like to say a little more about Amendments 86E and 86F in the name of the noble Baronesses, Lady Hughes and Lady Jones, because they deal with a very important issue: the age range during which careers guidance should be provided. Those two amendments would extend the age range through which schools must provide careers guidance from 14 to 16 to 12 to 18. That is particularly necessary for disabled young people, as many will stay in school up to the age of 19, and their most critical decisions usually take place between the ages of 16 and 19.
The Equality and Human Rights Commission is concerned that the age range for careers guidance provided for in the Bill is too narrow. It is particularly concerned that starting careers guidance at 14 is too late adequately to address equality issues associated with subjects or career choices. It is also concerned that the new duty requiring careers guidance to be delivered at key stage 4 only, from 14 to 16, will mean a regression from the current statutory provision that requires a programme of careers education to be delivered for key stages 3 and 4, from 11 to 16.
Young people begin to develop ideas about careers at an early age, and the commission’s evidence suggests that starting careers guidance at 14 will present a major barrier to raising aspirations and equipping young people to make future decisions free from stereotyped ideas. Evidence-based reviews and research have consistently called for career-related learning to begin in primary school—as it currently does in Scotland, which is usually ahead of England in educational matters—so that high aspirations and achievement can be encouraged early. A new report from the commission indicates that primary school pupils’ aspirations are formed and are higher at a relatively young age. The noble Baroness, Lady Howe of Idlicote, has already referred to the evidence from that report which shows that three-quarters of children at primary school want to go into higher education—among girls, this figure is more than 80 per cent. Gender influences begin very early, with boys in primary school interested in sport and girls in performance, hairdressing and nursing. Evidence from the EHRC’s triennial review reveals the extent to which particular groups continue to experience a higher level of occupational segregation, particularly related to gender, ethnicity and disability. The commission believes that school careers services have a key role in providing clear, impartial guidance to help inform young people’s choices for long-term career-related experiences and progression, free from career-limiting stereotyped ideas.
Before I sit down, I clearly need to refer to my amendment, which would place a duty on the governing bodies and head teachers of schools to provide unlimited face-to-face careers guidance for all young people with a learning difficulty and/or disability, whether or not they have a statement of special educational needs and in both mainstream and specialist settings. The amendment more or less speaks for itself. It is a good idea that the Secretary of State should prescribe standards for careers guidance, in the manner provided for in the new clause tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Hughes and Lady Jones. It is obviously right that we should place on governing bodies and head teachers of schools a duty to comply with the standards set out by the Secretary of State.
I want to underline two particular points in my new clause. First, on “face-to-face”, we know that the careers service will offer web-based and telephone helpline advice for all students, but disabled learners, in particular, require face-to-face support. Secondly, I have put “unlimited” in the new clause simply to ensure that the duty is to provide as much guidance as is required and that it is not arbitrarily limited to a set amount or quota. I hope very much that this new clause will commend itself to the Minister, as it seeks to impose duties at the local level, where they can most effectively be implemented.
Education Bill
Lord Low of Dalston Excerpts(12 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Low of Dalston
My Lords, I am afraid that I missed the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Edmiston, which was obviously a big loss for me. On the other hand, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths of Burry Port, albeit with a form of fire and brimstone which is likely to be rather more anaemic.
While the previous Government tended to measure the success of their education policy by reference to inputs, the present Government prefer to focus attention on outcomes. Thus they make great play of the fact that the UK is declining by reference to international comparisons of performance, but the Government's use of the OECD's so-called PISA rankings has been criticised. The number of countries included in that survey doubled between 2000 and 2009, with an obvious impact on rankings. You can get the UK up as high as 8th or as low as 36th if you try, depending on how you manipulate the statistics. While the emphasis on outcomes and international comparisons in relation to schools’ participation in surveys and Ofqual’s objectives is welcome, we will need to watch the Government's presentation of them like a hawk if we are to have a true accounting of the success of their education policies.
This Bill does not contain any big idea but rather seeks to put the coalition's stamp on our education system. That can perhaps be seen most prominently in the extension of the academies and free schools programme and the provisions on discipline and professional autonomy, with their emphasis on decentralisation and cutting bureaucracy. However, the latter possibly sit rather uncomfortably alongside the abolition of five arm’s-length bodies, with over 50 new powers being acquired by the Secretary of State, so we are told, including that to determine the curriculum by order—French Minister of Education-style.
Great concern has been expressed, by a wide range of organisations representing children's interests, on the proposed extension of powers to search children in schools without their consent that are contained in Clauses 2 and 3—at their breadth, at the relaxation of safeguards and at their possible conflict with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Human Rights Act. That is despite the lack of evidence to show that the measures are necessary and proportionate and in the absence of any review of the use of existing powers, which were extended only as recently as 2009. I hope that we will hear more from the Minister on this point when he responds to the debate and as we go through the Bill in Committee. On the other hand, the decision to maintain the previous Government’s policy of seeking to combat the inequality of opportunity, which we know takes root almost from birth, by extending free early-years provision to children from disadvantaged backgrounds aged two is welcome.
In the remainder of my time, I want to flag up a few concerns which have been expressed about the potentially adverse impact of some of the Bill’s provisions on provision for children with special educational needs. We will want to explore these more fully in Committee, but I know that the Minister will be concerned to take these issues on board from the positive way in which he responded to the concerns of those representing the interests of children with special educational needs when we discussed the Academies Bill in this House last year.
Perhaps most surprising are the provisions in Clauses 30 and 31, which remove the duty on schools to co-operate with children’s trust arrangements, the requirement on local authorities to promote schools’ involvement in local co-ordination of services, and the requirement for schools forums and the governing bodies of maintained schools to have regard to the children and young people’s plan prepared by their local children’s trust board.
The duty to co-operate has its origin in the inquiry into the death of Victoria Climbié carried out by my noble friend Lord Laming when he was chief inspector of social services. It found that there had been a complete breakdown in multi-agency child protection arrangements and that vulnerable children needed local services to work together to meet their needs and to communicate and co-operate in doing so. He had wanted to be here tonight to express his misgivings about the proposal to remove these duties, but unfortunately he is not able to be present. However, he asked me to place his reservations on the record and he will no doubt wish to expand on them when we get to Committee.
A key priority for the Government’s SEN and disability Green Paper is the improvement of partnership working. It proposes the development of a single assessment process and an integrated education, health and care plan. This is clearly right, but the removal of the co-operation and allied duties by Clauses 30 and 31 would seem to run completely counter to this whole policy thrust. The organisation Sense, which speaks on behalf of deafblind people, argues that the duty provides an important framework for agencies to work together in the interests of vulnerable children, particularly children with conditions that require the involvement of health, social care and specialist education services. It is particularly concerned that the removal of the duty on schools will undermine efforts proposed elsewhere, in the Health and Social Care Bill—I think that we still have a Health and Social Care Bill—to bring agencies together in an integrated planning process.
The Secretary of State, when he addressed Cross-Bench Peers last week, deployed a subtle and sinuous argument to justify removal of the duty; namely, that agencies could co-operate if they wished but that being prescriptive would not make them if they did not want to. However, I am inclined to think—and this is the lesson of the inquiry of the noble Lord, Lord Laming—that partnership in the interests of the single assessment and integrated planning will require the duty to co-operate if it is to be optimally effective.
There are also concerns that changes in the procedure for excluding pupils will impact disproportionately on children with special educational needs and disability. The Government have expressed their intention of addressing this in guidance, but I am inclined to think that some modification of the Bill would inspire greater confidence in parents, as would provisions to guarantee the independence of SEN experts appointed to advise review panels.
Finally, there are concerns about the ability of parents and carers to hold schools to account if local authorities no longer have to establish admissions forums; about removal of the power of the Local Government Ombudsman to hear complaints, only just introduced, leaving parents to the much less robust remedy of complaining to the Secretary of State; and about changes to the provision of careers guidance. So there will be plenty for us to get our teeth into in Committee.
Education: Special Educational Needs
Lord Low of Dalston Excerpts(13 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Low of Dalston
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, whom I first met during a slightly fractious discussion—as such discussions are apt to be—of a report on special education by the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock. Like all other noble Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, on bringing forward this subject for debate this afternoon. She speaks with unique authority on these issues, and we all listen to what she has to say with the greatest respect, although I think that Ofsted points to solutions to the problems that it has identified which are slightly more humdrum and workaday than she suggests.
I take as my starting point the sentence in the coalition's programme for government which reads:
“We will improve diagnostic assessment for school children, prevent the unnecessary closure of special schools and remove the bias towards inclusion”.
Throughout most of its history, the field of special education has been bedevilled by dogma. For a long time, this asserted that disabled children could thrive only in special schools. For the past 20 or 30 years, however, the field has been blessedly free from such dogma. A settlement has been arrived at based on a mixed economy of provision, which acknowledges a decisive shift towards inclusion, with progressive re-engineering of the system to support inclusion as the goal, but with a place reserved for specialist provision for those whose needs cannot be met in the mainstream, either now or in future. This seems to me to get it about right, and is the position for which I have argued all of my adult life.
In other words, I think that there should be a bias towards inclusion, provided that the needs of the child can be met within a mainstream placement. Special schools can have a segregating effect and help to foster the perception that disabled children are different. Conversely, mainstream schools can help to normalise disability. Separate socialisation restricts the full development of disabled and non-disabled people alike. The education system can do much to remove the barriers of ignorance, prejudice, intolerance and misunderstanding that ultimately lead to discrimination and a refusal to accept disabled people as full members of the community.
There is a threat to that enlightened consensus posed by those who believe in what one might call total inclusion, with all disabled children being educated in mainstream schools and all special schools being closed. It is a substantial threat. Its thinking largely informs the education provisions in Article 24 of the recently adopted UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which was negotiated by the disabled elite, who are best able to cope with inclusion. Organisations representing blind, deaf and deaf-blind children—I declare my interest as being associated with several such organisations—had their work cut out to retain the option of specialist provision to meet their particular needs.
So where once opposition to an enlightened approach to the inclusion of disabled children came from the right, today it comes from the left. People sometimes ask me whether my views about inclusion have changed over the years, to which I reply, “No, but the emphasis may have needed to change”. Where once the advocates of moderate inclusion policies had to argue for the creation of inclusive options, today they may need to defend the retention of some specialist provision. Notwithstanding the challenge from those who believe in total inclusion, I believe that the enlightened consensus around moderate inclusion policies and a mixed economy of provision remains largely intact and that there is not a bias towards inclusion which goes beyond what is warranted and which needs to be removed.
I was once inclined to think that a bias towards inclusion which went too far might have been developing in education legislation when Section 316 of the Education Act 1996 was amended to remove consideration of the needs of the child as a safeguard against inappropriate inclusion, but I am now clear that the duty to educate children with special educational needs in mainstream schools does not apply if that is against the wishes of the parent. I therefore do not think that the legal framework needs to be altered, although it would probably be wise to retain the interpretive declaration entered by the previous Government, on ratifying the UN convention, to make clear that the UK general education system includes both mainstream and special schools, as well as the reservation to allow for circumstances where disabled children's needs may best be met through specialist provision some way from their home, meaning that they would need to be educated outside their local community, which is against the model of provision enjoined by the UN convention. The effect of these is to maintain the present policy and legislative framework regarding inclusion—what I have termed the enlightened consensus around moderate inclusion.
What of the Ofsted review? One of its conclusions—that schools should not identify pupils as having special educational needs when they simply need better teaching—chimes in rather well with the thinking of those who espouse a strongly inclusive approach. They focus attention on improving the learning experience for all children in such a way that those traditionally conceived of as having SEN are benefited, albeit indirectly rather than directly, by whole-school approaches.
For the rest, despite florid misinterpretations of Ofsted—to the effect that as many as half of children with SEN might be wrongly diagnosed as such—the review’s main conclusions seem eminently sensible. They reflect a growing consensus emerging from recent reports that the emphasis should be on working more smartly and in a better-targeted way to improve school practice, focusing on outcomes, quality of assessment and the effectiveness of additional support rather than on a major redesign of the system. There may be some overidentification at the school action stage—there almost certainly is, as the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, demonstrated—but that is not to say that there should not be a school action stage at all at which children are identified as needing additional support, ideally mobilised as early as possible. There may also be a need, as the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, suggested, to simplify the legislation, which has rather growed like Topsy, with some rationalisation of its SEN and disability discrimination components.
Academies Bill [HL]
Lord Low of Dalston Excerpts(13 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Willis of Knaresborough
I was not in the House when the Bill was presented, but I wish to raise an issue on this important amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins. Since 1979 and the Warnock report, Governments of all persuasions have committed themselves to the principle of inclusive education, of allowing children with mild and complex special needs to be taught with their able peers within mainstream schools. Will the Minister say whether the Bill recognises that the small number of SEN children who appear in mainstream schools, and who will appear in some of the academies, may be refused entry simply because the school does not have access to adequate facilities to make provision for those children? They have specific needs that require funding. I hope that my noble friend will respond appropriately when he replies to the amendment.
Lord Low of Dalston
The case has been well made by the noble Baronesses, Lady Wilkins and Lady Howe, and others. I spoke on the issue on Report so I shall not labour the point further. Indeed, it is hardly necessary as I think that the Minister acknowledged, in responding on Report, as the noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins, said, that there is a problem. There is a case to answer but the Minister has not answered it. I very much hope that he can do a little better when he responds. Otherwise, as other noble Lords have said, the discussion will have to continue in another place. I very much hope that that will not be necessary and that the Minister can respond in a way that will sufficiently reassure the House this afternoon.
It is not only that there is a problem; it is an increasing problem. The dissipation of local authority budgets will increase with the number of academies. There are few private providers who can take over the provision of the specialist services that we are talking about. The only way realistically to provide them is for local authorities, which have a sufficient critical mass to sustain services for these low incidence groups, to do so. If the budget is removed from local authorities so that they cannot provide specialist services, there is the problem of knowing where academies will buy them in for their pupils from low incidence groups. The problem is serious and is likely to grow. I hope that the Minister can give us further reassurance when he replies.
The Earl of Listowel
My Lords, I am concerned that there is continuing anxiety about the protection for children’s special educational needs in the Bill. I am grateful to the Minister for the meetings he has had with Peers interested in this area and I will listen to his response with great care.
Concern about the continuance of educational psychologists has been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, and the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, in previous stages of the Bill. In the past there has been a lot of concern that there were insufficient educational psychologists and that more was not done to ensure that their development was of the highest quality. I hope that the Minister can, either now or in writing later, provide some further reassurance that the changes in the Bill will not impact on the future supply of educational psychologists.
Academies Bill [HL]
Lord Low of Dalston Excerpts(13 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Low of Dalston
My Lords, I will speak briefly given the hour. Despite the reassurances received by the noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins, there remain a number of concerns that need to be addressed. The specialist services of which the noble Baronesses, Lady Wilkins and Lady Howe, have spoken are at the heart of special education provision. As we have heard, they include support for mainstream teachers, Braille teaching and mobility instruction for visually impaired pupils, communication support, advice on equipment and speech and language support for pupils who are deaf or hard of hearing. I declare an interest as a vice-president of the RNIB, an organisation that is very concerned about the maintenance of services for blind and partially sighted pupils.
The services that I have mentioned are examples of those that meet low-incidence needs. The LEA is a large enough unit for these needs to attain a critical mass and generate demand for a level of support services that is capable of being sustained. The academy system is much more atomised and fragmented, and much less able to sustain a critical mass of support services. Of course, academies can form consortium arrangements, and the Minister spoke of partnerships; but it will inevitably take time to get these up and running, and in the mean time local authority arrangements are likely to become increasingly vulnerable as academies, with their attendant funding, opt out of the local authority system. Therefore it is absolutely essential that the Government make clear in detail exactly how specialist support services will be sustained in the new environment.
Baroness Grey-Thompson
My Lords, I support the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins. The noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, wanted to speak in support of the amendment, but could not make the late hour for health reasons. I am therefore pleased to take her place, after taking her considerable briefing.
I share her concern about losing essential support for disabled children if we do not ensure that the Bill delivers an appropriate system to do the job. I am a member of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Disability, chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell. The group has frequently been told that too many disabled children are not getting the specialist support that they need at school fully to engage with the curriculum. I am concerned that the Bill may have the unintended consequence of worsening this problem. I will give an example. The National Deaf Children's Society identified a case in the West Midlands in which a small all-through school became an academy. It admitted a disabled child who required significant levels of support. However, the academy had difficulty in funding this support as it took up a disproportionate amount of its special educational needs budget. As a small school working with one deaf child, the academy was unable to access the economies of scale that would have made the support for this child affordable.
On a more positive note, I am pleased to hear about Waltham Forest local authority, which decided to adopt a different funding model when a delegated structure similar to that proposed in the Bill failed to support the needs of disabled children. Now, a local special school receives its funding to operate an outreach service for all other local schools free of charge.
The lesson from Waltham Forest demonstrates how important it is to think through the impact of any changes to funding, especially for support services, before proceeding. I believe that this amendment helps us to do that and to avoid unnecessary damage to the education of disabled children. I urge the Minister to respond positively to it.
Baroness Whitaker
My Lords, I rise to speak briefly to Amendment 44A, which rather oddly is in this group. The arguments I made to ensure that the design of academies in new or refurbished buildings must be conducive to good education and not a waste of public money in Committee are still the same. I will not repeat them now.
I have tabled this amendment again because the answer from the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, although helpful, did not deal with what general minimum design standards would operate, and no letter was forthcoming from the department to amplify his, perhaps I may say rather vague, response that he had no reason to doubt that they did. I would not press for a statutory requirement if it were definite that the free schools network would include such design advice in the general advice that the Government are funding them to give to aspirant academy-makers.
The noble Lord cited the law covering access for students with disabilities, which was welcome, but I am sure that groups of parents, teachers or others need to get themselves guidance on how the broad provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act and successor obligations under the Equality Act should be translated into design.
The Government’s approach to housing, in their letter to me of 15 June, says that they will issue guidance by,
“setting out minimum environmental, architectural, design, economic and social standards”.
Are academies where children will spend a large proportion of their time at a formative period of their life really so much less important?
Lord Low of Dalston
My Lords, I shall say a brief word about Amendment 52, which is tabled in my name, and I hope that I can perhaps win the prize for the briefest speech of the evening. The object of Amendment 52 is to impose the SEN obligations on existing academies, which we already discussed to a fair extent when we considered government Amendment 11. The Minister made it clear that the SEN obligations would be inserted into the funding agreements of existing academies. The only point of unclarity that remained was whether we would have to wait for the existing agreements to run their course or whether the obligations could be inserted before that. If the Minister accepts the spirit of this amendment, it would enable the obligations to be inserted into the funding agreement within 12 months of the Act coming into force. I urge that that approach be adopted, rather than that we should be made to wait a number of years for existing agreements to run their course.
Lord Howarth of Newport
My Lords, I should like to speak to Amendment 44A, and I thank my noble friend Lady Whitaker for once again tabling the issue of the design of school buildings on Report. To take care to design school buildings well is a mark of respect for school communities. It is also plain common sense, not only because of its effects on the morale of the school community but because of its benefits for practical functioning and, very importantly, for the benefit of disabled children in schools. Inclusive design that enables disabled children to be fully integrated into the whole life of the school community is design that is good for everybody. This is not simply a matter of aesthetics but of fitness for purpose.
By no means all the schools that have been built under the Building Schools for the Future programme have been exemplars of good architecture and good design, but a number of them have been very good indeed. One of the virtues of this programme has been that it has encouraged some of our leading architects in this country, who are of course leading architects in the world, to return to school-building in their practices.
If they are retained, minimum design standards will do much to ensure that the schools that are built in the future are built to good design standards. We did not get a clear answer in Committee—I make no criticism whatever of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, who was unable to clarify the point—as to whether the Government intend to retain minimum design standards. I hope that they will be able to give us that assurance this evening.
I have to say that I draw no encouragement from the Secretary of State’s Statement on education funding on Monday after we finished Committee. In the course of that long statement on school buildings, the only references he made to design were disparaging. He picked out care to ensure good design as an instance of what he regarded as undue bureaucracy, cost and delay. He cited as instances of wasteful process that,
“local authorities involved in this process have employed … an enabler from CABE, the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment—another non-departmental public body”.—[Official Report, 5/7/10; col. 40.]
It is a great pity to dismiss CABE. The enablers that CABE has ensured have been available to assist people who face the difficult and complex responsibility of commissioning and securing good new school buildings. CABE enablers are design professionals who generously and public-spiritedly are willing to give their services for modest fees, well below market rates, to enable people facing these challenging, difficult and important tasks to know better how to handle them.
A moment later the Secretary of State said that,
“local authorities were expected to engage a design champion”,—[Official Report, 5/7/10; col. 41.]
Design champions exist in some local authorities, although they are not compelled to have them. These are people who are already there, whether as elected members or as senior officers, whose role in the local authority is to advocate good design. Given the enormous power that local authorities have over the built environment for good or for ill, through planning and through the procurement of buildings, it must be a good thing that they appoint someone from within their midst to prompt and remind them all the time of their responsibility to ensure that the buildings that are built under their auspices are well designed. I suspect that the Secretary of State had not understood what these functions were when he ridiculed them.
Later in the Statement, the Secretary of State went on to announce that he was going to appoint a “capital review team”. Among the people he named as members of that team is Sir John Egan. Sir John is, of course, deeply versed in the issues of building design and quality, and will be a most excellent member of that team. I am more concerned to see that the group operations director of Dixons Store Group and the director of property services at Tesco are included in the group. I know nothing of these individuals. They may be the most enlightened people, but I do not think that the most ardent admirers of Dixons and Tesco—and they have many good qualities—would claim that they have been patrons of fine architecture: rather the reverse. The banality and triteness of the design of modern supermarkets is a sad and indeed disgraceful falling away from the best of our historic traditions in the design of department stores and shop fronts.
The Secretary of State says that he wants buildings to be built more quickly and to look at the scope for savings. The reality is that a little time taken to achieve good design is an investment that richly pays for itself in reduced lifetime costs of the building, in the better performance of all those who work in it, and in the quality of life for years ahead of the people in the community immediately around it. The Secretary of State is a civilised man with a sense of history, and so of course is the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Hill. I hope that they will think more deeply about their responsibilities in this area.
Academies Bill [HL]
Lord Low of Dalston Excerpts(13 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hill of Oareford
My Lords, I shall seek to be brief with this amendment as I have already written to noble Lords about it and we discussed these issues at length in Committee.
The purpose of this government amendment is simple; it is to ensure that the obligations placed on academies in respect of SEN mirror those placed on maintained schools. I said early on in Committee that I could not see in principle why one set of state-funded schools should treat children with SEN any differently from another set of state-funded schools. Having listened to the points that were raised in debate and having had a number of subsequent meetings on SEN with noble Lords who are far more experienced than I, my initial instinct has been confirmed and I am very glad to have this opportunity to move this amendment, which should put the principle of parity beyond doubt.
As noble Lords are aware, academies are already required, through their funding agreements, to provide for pupils with SEN in a similar way to maintained schools. Noble Lords will also know that the funding agreement has been the main regulatory mechanism for academies since their inception, as we discussed this afternoon. We agree with the previous Government that this should continue. We could therefore have ensured parity through the funding agreement alone. However, we decided to go further. This amendment acknowledges the particular concerns that have been raised in relation to SEN and will therefore put into the Bill a requirement that academy arrangements—either funding agreements or grants—must contain provisions that impose obligations that are equivalent to those that are imposed on maintained schools in Part 4, and in regulations made under Part 4, of the Education Act 1996. This means that no funding agreement could omit these provisions unless further primary legislation were made to remove these requirements.
In practical terms, the amendment imposes additional obligations on academies to: inform parents that their child has SEN and of the special educational provision being made; accept the naming of the academy on a child’s statement; and appoint as a SENCO a person who is a qualified teacher. Moreover, new SENCOs will have to undertake prescribed training. It will apply to any new academy and to any existing academy that enters into new funding arrangements.
At this point I would also like to put on record the reassurance I gave the noble Lord, Lord Rix, at our meeting on 1 July that it is the Government’s policy that academy special schools should offer a broad and balanced curriculum that meets the needs of an individual child as specified in their statement of special educational need. I am very pleased to have the chance to move this amendment. I hope that it will provide assurance that the SEN obligations on academies will mirror those that are placed on maintained schools. I beg to move.
Lord Low of Dalston
My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendments 12 to 14 and to Amendment 39, all of which are in my name. I very much welcome government Amendment 11, to which the Minister has just spoken. In Committee, there was a widespread concern throughout the Chamber to ensure that academies were put on the same footing as maintained schools as regards admitting and meeting the needs of pupils with special educational needs. The Minister said then that he would reflect and come back with proposals on how parity could be achieved. As we have heard, he has been as good as his word. I am very grateful to him for this and for the time and trouble that he has taken to meet Peers to discuss their concerns. I am also most grateful to officials for the time that they have taken to make sure that we get this absolutely right.
For my part, I think that we have very nearly got it right, but not quite. That is why I have put down the amendments to which I am speaking this evening. I spoke on this at some length in Committee, so I shall not weary the House by going over the same ground all over again. The Minister has met very many of the concerns that I raised in Committee, but one or two issues still remain. The first is whether the new provisions will relate to existing as well as new academies. In moving his amendment, the Minister has clarified that because he has said that they will do so. However, I think he said that they would apply to existing academies when they entered into a new agreement. That could be some years away. I hope that the Minister can reassure us that steps will be taken to apply the new provisions to existing academies at the earliest possible date and not necessarily waiting several years before doing so.
Secondly, there is the question of whether obligations that are equivalent to the SEN obligations in the Minister’s amendment are the same in their effect as the SEN obligations. If not, it will be argued in court that Parliament’s decision not to make these obligations direct statutory obligations must indicate an intention to permit variation from the statutory framework. I should therefore be grateful if the Minister could confirm that the intention is for academies to be subject to exactly the same obligations as maintained schools as regards admitting and meeting the needs of pupils with special educational needs, which the notion of parity would imply.
My main concern is with the enforceability of the rights implied by these obligations. The Minister has chosen to confer the obligations by importing the statutory SEN framework into the contractual framework of academy arrangements. These are contractual agreements between the Secretary of State and an academy to which parents and pupils are not a party. There is a complex legal argument as to whether the duties imported into academy arrangements by this means are enforceable by parents or pupils. I shall spare the House all the legal technicalities, but there are essentially three ways that one might seek to ensure that the duties are enforceable.
The first is by laying on academies the same statutory obligations as those laid on maintained schools directly by statute, not by statutorily importing them into a contract. That is what my Amendment 14 would do and I still think that it is the simplest and surest way to achieve my aim, which is why I have tabled that amendment again and why it would save a lot of bother by putting everything beyond doubt, if the Minister agreed to it.
Assuming that the Minister’s preference is to proceed by the contractual route and to maintain the contractual relationship with academies, there are two further ways that one might seek to enforce the contractual obligations. One is through a complaints procedure and the other is by making it clear that pupils and parents can enforce their rights by judicial review.
As for complaints procedures, complaints would presumably be made to the Secretary of State, but there is nothing that establishes such a procedure and nothing is proposed. Even if there were, it would need to be clear that if the Secretary of State found that an academy had not complied with the relevant provisions of the academy arrangements, he would require the academy to comply, and the arrangements would need to make clear that he could compel compliance. This would place a considerable additional burden on the Secretary of State, whose process for dealing with complaints is already widely perceived to be slow and ineffective—as is illustrated by the fact that it is never suggested by defendants in proceedings for judicial review that the court should decline jurisdiction because a complaint to the Secretary of State would provide an effective alternative remedy.
As for judicial review, the availability of this remedy could be put beyond doubt simply by making clear that the rights accorded to pupils and parents under academy arrangements could be enforced through judicial review. This could be done on a narrow basis relating to SEN only, as is provided for in Amendment 12, or on a wider basis covering all rights given to parents and pupils, as provided for in Amendment 13. Amendment 12 would sort out the problem relating to special educational needs, but would, if anything, weaken the position in relation to other rights—say, those relating to admissions—because it would imply that those rights could not be enforced through judicial review.
The Minister has shown himself to be very accommodating of our concerns in the quest to achieve full parity between academies and maintained schools. I hope that further discussion may be possible before Third Reading, with a view to finding a formula which would ensure that enforceability is not only a reality, but is seen to be a reality, either through a robust complaints procedure or by putting it beyond doubt that judicial review is available as a remedy.
Something along the lines of Amendments 12 or 13 would do the job for judicial review, and I have suggestions for a robust complaints procedure that I would be happy to put to the Minister. Amendment 39 begins the job, but even that requires fleshing out in some respects to reflect the ingredients of a robust complaints procedure. If the Minister would be happy to proceed along these lines, I am sure that we could reach an arrangement that would put enforceability beyond doubt and would be satisfactory to everyone. If full parity is the Minister’s aim, I cannot see a reason not to do this.
Baroness Wilkins
My Lords, I echo the thanks of the noble Lord, Lord Low, to the Minister for all his time and the concern that he has given to this issue. I support the noble Lord, Lord Low, in his amendments and hope that the Minister will meet his concerns and satisfy him fully.