Special Educational Needs (Direct Payments) (Pilot Scheme) Order 2012

Debate between Lord Hill of Oareford and Lord Low of Dalston

Monday 16th January 2012 Grand Committee

[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

Debate between Lord Hill of Oareford and Lord Low of Dalston

Tuesday 18th October 2011 Lords Chamber

[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.

Academies Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Hill of Oareford and Lord Low of Dalston

Wednesday 7th July 2010 Lords Chamber

[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.

Education: Funding

Debate between Lord Hill of Oareford and Lord Low of Dalston

Monday 5th July 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

On the noble Baroness’s first point, the Secretary of State said what he did about academies because the kind of schools that are in the academies programme from the previous Government, which we want to try to continue to support, are by definition focused in the areas of greatest need and deprivation. In looking at those, he will not give any blanket position but will review them on a case-by-case basis to consider as fairly as he can those individual circumstances.

On funding more generally, I suspect that those are decisions that will be taken by the Treasury, so I doubt that I can give any sensible undertaking at all.

[Lord Low of Dalston]

My Lords, after the Minister’s excoriation of the bureaucracy surrounding the Building Schools for the Future programme, I cannot help observing that the Government appear to have commissioned five people to undertake an independent review of school building. Be that as it may, I welcome the initiative to extend the Teach First programme. Another area where the previous Government took a valuable initiative was in the development of educational leadership. What are the coalition Government’s plans for the future of the National College for the Leadership of Schools and Children’s Services?

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

On the first point, five does not seem to be a completely outrageous number. In the composition of the review membership, we have a fairly broad spectrum of people with a range of perspectives which we hope will help us to find cheaper ways of delivering capital. On the second point, I know that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has spoken recently at the national college and I think that he is positive about the work that it does. As I have already said again today, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Low, about the work of the previous Government in encouraging national leaders. That was a successful programme on which there is much one would want to build.