Digital Economy Bill

Debate between Baroness Howe of Idlicote and Baroness Jones of Whitchurch

Report: 3rd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 29th March 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Howe of Idlicote (CB)]

My Lords, briefly, I very much support this amendment and above all salute the work of the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, for all she has done over many years in making the case for the production of more and very much better-quality television programmes for children, whether by the BBC or other programme-makers. It is very good to see the name of the Minister on this amendment and I hope I am not wrong that as a result the Government fully support it. I hope we shall hear that soon.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, on her continuous hard work on this issue. We also added a name to the amendment in Committee and here today. I very much share in her delight and happiness that progress has finally been made. As the noble Baroness said, this is effectively an enabling amendment for Ofcom. I hope that it will not just sit on the statute book; we look now for action to follow it through. As the noble Baroness said, there is already sufficient evidence, which Ofcom has, of the huge decline and reduction in children’s TV. There is no need for a pause while Ofcom finds evidence as to whether it needs to act. The evidence is already there. I hope that when Ofcom comes to consider the new powers we are providing, it will feel able to act straightaway. I hope that the Minister can reassure us that she will encourage Ofcom to do just that, and that this will not just sit there as an enabling power but is something the Government will encourage Ofcom to act upon. Again, I look forward to the Minister’s response.

Children and Families Bill

Debate between Baroness Howe of Idlicote and Baroness Jones of Whitchurch

Monday 9th December 2013 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Howe of Idlicote (CB)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

My Lords, I am going to propose Amendment 9. Perhaps I may do that first—I am not intending to close down the debate.

Amendment 9 which stands in my name is on the subject of maintaining sibling contact. The amendment would require local authorities to give specific consideration to enabling children in care to remain in contact with their siblings. Many noble Lords here today will remember that we had a very good, if disturbing, discussion on that in Grand Committee.

First, we were confronted with some stark statistics. Some 63% of children in care whose siblings are also in the care system are separated from them. Surprisingly, those living in children’s homes are much more likely to be separated than those in foster care. What is more, children care very deeply about this separation; 85% said that it was important to keep siblings together and more than three-quarters said that councils could do more to help brothers and sisters keep in touch with each other. Secondly, we heard a number of moving individual stories of the distress caused to children who were separated from and unable to contact their siblings. For many, the relationship was more important than that with their parents and was a particular bond when they had been through a traumatic family break-up or protected each other in an abusive family. Often the elder children felt a particular responsibility for their younger siblings and were desperate when they could not check that they were okay; they had almost a quasi-parental concern for them. Although there will be occasions, of course, when children need to be separated for very good reasons, it seems that in the remaining majority of cases a lack of priority or perhaps just practical issues have been allowed to develop as an excuse for contact not happening on a regular basis. Our amendment would make that sibling contact a priority in social work practice and would give the requirement the additional weight of being in the Bill.

When we debated this in Committee, and in subsequent discussions, the Minister showed sympathy for the problem but resisted the need for primary legislation. He drew our attention to the current requirement for children’s individual care plans to set out the arrangements for sibling contact. He has also drawn up updated guidance on sibling contact for children in care. Of course, we are very grateful for that additional work. However, the point is that the previous guidance had little effect on practice on the ground, as the statistics have shown, so it is hard to imagine that the updated guidance will be any more effective. That is why we believe that emphasising the importance of this issue in the Bill can send a stronger message to those who are currently routinely failing to nurture sibling contact.

The Minister also referred to the views of an expert group, which looked into this issue and concluded that more needed to be done to improve practice on the ground. Obviously, we agree that more can be done in terms of advice, training and good practice dissemination. I do not know when that group reported its findings, but, again, so far there appears to be little evidence of a major improvement in sibling contact as a result of this.

Children and Families Bill

Debate between Baroness Howe of Idlicote and Baroness Jones of Whitchurch

Wednesday 30th October 2013 Grand Committee

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

My Lords, I shall speak to our Amendment 124 in this group and support the arguments which the noble Lord, Lord Low, has put forward in support of his amendment.

We began this debate about inclusion and access to mainstream education in Committee last week, but I am very pleased to have the opportunity to return to some of those issues. During that debate, the Minister sought to reassure us that duties were already in existence, including under the Equality Act 2010, to prevent discrimination against disabled people and that that addressed some of the issues about which we were concerned. However, I support the amendments that have been tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, because she has identified some of the remaining contradictions between the Equality Act and some of the duties that this Bill is spelling out. It is important that those issues are bottomed out, and I support her amendments.

We remain concerned that, by agreeing to this wording unamended, we will be introducing a get-out clause which would allow schools to duck out of their responsibilities to provide mainstream education when requested. As the noble Lord, Lord Low, pointed out, Clause 33 places a duty on local authorities to ensure that children and young people with an EHC plan are placed in mainstream education. There are two important caveats. The first is if a place is incompatible with the wishes of the child’s parents or the young person. Obviously we support that caveat. As we have said before, parental choice and the views of young people are crucial in identifying the best educational provision for a particular child.

It seems to us that the second caveat goes against the whole spirit and intent of the Bill. Clause 33(2)(b) provides that local authorities can opt out of providing mainstream education if it is incompatible with,

“the provision of efficient education for others”.

We feel that we should have moved on from that wording at this stage.

The wording raises questions about who defines what level of disruption is incompatible with efficient education. For example, could it be argued that any child with health issues in a school environment could potentially interfere with the efficient education of others? Or could any child whose educational needs required additional attention from a teacher arguably be taking the teacher’s time away from others, thereby affecting their education? How far are we going to apply this wording?

The Minister said that the Equality Act protects against discrimination, but is there not something rather worrying about defining disabled children’s rights by the level of inconvenience that they might cause? Therefore, our amendment would remove that reference and replace it with a much more positive commitment to meet the specific needs of children and young people.

Reference has been made to the draft code of conduct. It appears to me that it adds a further reason why a request for mainstream education could be refused, and that is the incompatibility with the efficient use of resources. As I understand it, this used to be a factor that schools could fall back on, basically arguing that it was too costly to educate children with SEN in mainstream schools. However, it was removed by the previous Government in 2001, so it now appears that we are going backwards, making it more difficult to access mainstream education.

We believe that ensuring that the needs and wishes of children, young people and their families ought to be the only justifiable basis on which they should be placed in a non-mainstream setting. We acknowledge that many mainstream schools still lack the capacity to provide a good education to children with certain learning difficulties and disabilities, but surely the solution is to address those failings in a structured and positive way within a given timetable, not to give those schools an opt-out. However, we have to accept that some schools are reluctant to admit children with special educational needs or to take the steps necessary to modify their facilities, particularly with the pressure of league tables uppermost in their minds. There is no doubt that some academies and free schools are seeking to operate more stringent admissions policies. This comes back to the issues raised by the Equality and Human Rights Commission about the alignment of the reasonable adjustment duty with the duties in the Bill. We need to make sure that they are properly aligned. Our concern is that the provisions in the Bill and the draft code of conduct give schools an excuse not to make any changes.

At Second Reading, this issue was addressed with some passion by several noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson. We feel there is a need to address the failings in the Bill and the code in this respect. The Green Paper referred to creating a bias towards inclusion. If we are serious about that, we should remove Clause 33(2)(b). In his letter to Peers after Second Reading, the Minister referred to the fact that the Bill already provides for the wishes of children, young people and their parents to be taken into account and, of course, it does, but that misses the point if their wishes can be overridden by the needs of so-called efficient education for others or the efficient use of resources. I hope the Minister will take these issues seriously and look again at what we believe is increasingly backward-looking wording which goes so far against the spirit and intent of the Bill and that we can come back with a more positive form of words.

[Baroness Howe of Idlicote]

My Lords, I have three amendments in this group, two of them on equality rights. I shall start with Amendment 125, which is a probing amendment regarding a concern of the Association of Educational Psychologists. There are two more amendments later, but I want to deal with this amendment because in answering the Minister may be able to give reassurance.

Currently any child who has special educational needs but does not have a statement must be educated in a mainstream school. There are no exceptions to this duty, which helps ensure that children and young people are not inappropriately placed in special schools. The concern is that Clause 34(3) allows special academies, including free schools, to admit children or young people permanently without them having had their special educational needs statutorily assessed or an EHC plan having been put in place for them. This proposal seems to undermine the principle that a mainstream school must be able to make provision for all children without a statement or plan and for most children with a statement or plan.

Although special academies will need to make it clear through their funding agreement that a child or young person with SEN but no EHC plan should be placed there only at the request of their parents or at their own request and with the support of professional advice, such as a report from an educational psychologist, the concern is that there is no formal role for the local authority in this process. The worry is that this proposal will make the local authority’s role of planning provision for pupils with SEN, including provision for children and young persons with EHC plans, extremely difficult.

If this proposal went through, there would be a danger that mainstream special schools would be incentivised to persuade parents that their child would be better off in a special school just because they do not want them in their schools. This would take us back to the situation that existed before the Education Act 1981. There could also be a situation where special academies increasingly enrolled pupils with less complex needs, which would beg the question of where children with complex needs would go. If this clause remains, I would question the point of mainstream places within a special school.

I fear that this proposal would result in medical labels determining whether a child secures a place in a special academy. If a special academy had been set up for a particular type of SEN—for example, SpLD or ASD/Asperger’s—would it result in an increase in the number of children being diagnosed with that condition? How can the Government ensure that there is a framework process so that inappropriate placements do not occur?

There are also concerns about the practical impact on admissions and places. Would decisions be taken solely by schools and parents, and how would educational psychologists’ views be protected and advocated? How would places be allocated within school year groups? If there was parental demand, could the funding agreement be varied to allow more non-EHC plan places? The policy also begs the key question of what the aspiration would be for a child without an EHC plan in a special academy. Would there be an exit plan? Who would set the child targets and ensure that they are making adequate progress?

This amendment has been tabled because it is hoped that the Minister will look again at the proposals and help to allay serious concerns in the SEN sector that this clause could result in children and young people being inappropriately placed in special schools. Ideally, the Association of Educational Psychologists would like to see the clause amended so that special academies are not able to admit children and young people without an EHC plan. I hope that when the Minister replies he will be able to dispel those doubts.

I turn now to Clause 33, which relates to children and young people with education, health and care plans, and Clause 34, which relates to children and young people with special educational needs but no education, health and care plans. Amendment 124A seeks to insert a new subsection in Clause 33 which states:

“This section does not affect the duties of schools imposed by section 85(6) of the Equality Act 2010, which places a duty on the responsible body of a school to make reasonable adjustments for disabled persons”.

Amendment 126A seeks to insert a new subsection in Clause 34 which states:

“This section does not affect the duties of schools imposed by section 85(6) of the Equality Act 2010, which places a duty on the responsible body of a school to make reasonable adjustments for disabled persons”.

The amendments are about ensuring that schools and local authorities are fully aware of the reasonable adjustments duty owed by schools to disabled pupils where the child has special educational needs. Some disabled pupils will have special educational needs and may be receiving support via school-based special educational needs provision or have an educational, health and care plan under the new arrangements. Just because a disabled pupil has special educational needs or an education, health and care plan, it does not take away a school’s duty to make reasonable adjustments for them.

Children and Families Bill

Debate between Baroness Howe of Idlicote and Baroness Jones of Whitchurch

Monday 28th October 2013 Grand Committee

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

To recap, I was talking about the support that was given to the families of children with special educational needs. I have referred to the fact that the Minister in the Commons referred people to the Children Act 2004. In summary, our point is that if we are going to have a Bill like this that aims to be transformative, it really should put all the responsibilities in one place. Just saying, “Well, this is already covered in bits of other Bills and guidance here and there”, is not the point at issue. If we think that support for families is important, and I know from other meetings with the Minister that he believes that, they should all be covered in the Bill. That is why we tabled these amendments, because we would like to see all these provisions brought together so that it is clear in the Bill exactly what people’s rights are, including the extension of support to the families of children with special educational needs. I beg to move.

[Baroness Howe of Idlicote]

My Lords, I shall speak to my Amendment 100. Its purpose is to provide encouragement to local authorities to work together to commission services for children and young people with low-incidence needs. For very low-incidence conditions, such as sensory impairment, it may not be appropriate to expect that specialist provision is made available in every local authority area. For that reason, there should be regional support services co-funded by a number of local authorities across the geographical area. The department’s Green Paper on special educational needs and disability stated:

“We know that greater collaboration between local areas can also help local professionals to plan, commission and deliver the best services for children and young people with SEN or who are disabled and their families, as well as helping to secure best value for money … we will explore how we can encourage greater collaboration between local areas”.

The Bill creates new duties on health and education services to work together and collaborate. However, it says little about the importance of joint working across local authority boundaries, despite the obvious potential benefits to services to children with special educational needs. Children with sensory impairments have a low-incidence special educational need and disability, or LISEND. The National Sensory Impairment Partnership, NatSIP, has defined a LISEND as,

“A need which has the potential to have an adverse impact on learning and development unless additional measures are taken to support the child/young person … The prevalence rate is so low that a mainstream setting is unlikely to have sufficient knowledge and experience to meet these requirements. Settings will need to obtain specialist support and advice on how to ensure equitable access and progression (against national standards) … The prevalence rate is so low that any formula for allocating specialist resources for additional needs, which is based on proxy indicators of need, will not reflect the true distribution of children and young people identified as having low incidence SEND”.

Children with a LISEND are a diverse group in terms of their needs and the nature of the support they require. There is often a lack of expertise in those needs in local authorities and/or insufficient capacity. Indeed, although local authorities are required by Section 7 of the 2006 Department of Health deafblind guidance to identify and provide specialist assessments for deafblind children, the identification rate is only three MSI children per 100,000, but Sense figures suggest that the rate should be 31 per 100,000. These figures indicate that local authorities do not have sufficiently qualified assessors, and that deafblind children and young people are receiving generic assessments that fail to address their specific needs. Deafblind children are also not receiving adequate specialist support in many areas. The Consortium for Research into Deaf Education—CRIDE—found that 18% of services employed two or fewer teachers of the deaf, and 8% employed one or fewer teachers of the deaf. Fifteen per cent of services reported that each visiting teacher of the deaf was supporting, on average, 80 or more deaf children, and 7% had a ratio in excess of one to a hundred.

Children and Families Bill

Debate between Baroness Howe of Idlicote and Baroness Jones of Whitchurch

Wednesday 16th October 2013 Grand Committee

[Baroness Howe of Idlicote (CB)]

My Lords, I cannot think of anybody in this room who would not be in favour of the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord McColl. It was brilliantly presented in one of the most compelling speeches I have ever heard. With that in mind, unless anybody is prepared to contradict me by saying that they are not in favour of what they have heard, I hope that we can proceed and hear what the Government will do about this.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

I am sorry to delay proceedings further. I want to say a couple of sentences. First, I thank the noble Lord, Lord McColl, for his perseverance on this issue and the extremely powerful case that he has made this afternoon. This idea of independent guardians is becoming an increasingly important theme in our debates on this Bill and it is a model that is gaining more and more credibility. My noble friend made reference to the support of the Joint Committee on Human Rights for the concept and the issue was also identified recently in a Commons Education Committee report on child protection.

In addition to the Scottish examples to which my noble friend has drawn our attention, that report identified that this concept has also been in operation in the Netherlands for some time, and there may well be lessons that we could learn from that. I do not want to rehearse all the arguments but there are very powerful ones why we should consider these sorts of policies. First, it would clearly help the children themselves. We have heard how that might happen in terms of providing quality advice and guidance. Secondly, I should like to think that such a measure would go some way to deterring potential traffickers in the future if they felt that when they trafficked children here, those children would have an alternative authority figure with whom they could associate and be aligned. It would be nice to think that the measure could deter traffickers pursuing their dastardly policies in the future. Thirdly, surely this is an area where early intervention and support could prevent children being drawn into greater social and criminal problems in the longer term. Therefore, there are all sorts of savings to be made if we intervene earlier. I do not want to extend the debate. I again thank the noble Lord and hope that he perseveres with this issue.