Children: Special Educational Needs

Lord Low of Dalston Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd January 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Agnew of Oulton]

My Lords, I completely agree that the first priority is to try to keep children with special educational needs in mainstream education unless they have very severe challenges. To give an example of what we are doing to improve that, we are funding the Autism Education Trust to deliver awareness training for education staff, and we have trained 195,000 people in this programme.

[Lord Low of Dalston (CB)]

My Lords, there appears to be particular difficulty in funding places for children with special needs at special schools—above all when they are residential and may be more expensive. Would the noble Lord not agree that it is vital that funding should be found so that children with special needs receive the most appropriate education?

[Lord Agnew of Oulton]

I agree with the noble Lord that residential special education is extremely expensive. One of our current problems is that local authorities tend to send a lot of children out of area to expensive residential solutions. We are trying to deal with this by increasing the number of specialist free schools around the country; we announced a £50 million capital funding pot in May of last year, bringing the total to £265 million, and in March we announced sponsors for 14 new special schools. In the announcement in December, to which the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, referred, we also agreed to remove the cap on applications for new special and alternative provision free schools.

Children and Social Work Bill [HL]

Lord Low of Dalston Excerpts

Report: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 8th November 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Low of Dalston (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly in support of the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, who has covered the ground with his usual thoroughness and eloquence. These clauses, which we do not think should stand part of the Bill, stem from the Government’s mission to shrink—or in this case substantially dismantle —the institutions of the state on a grand scale. The two areas which led the way in the state’s assumption of the role of social protection in the 20th century were pensions, followed closely by social services for children provided by local authorities.

It was the brutal murder, in 1944, of 13 year-old Dennis O’Neill by his foster parents, and the consequent outcry, which persuaded society that it needed to be more proactive in protecting the welfare of children and led to a duty being placed on local authorities in the Children Act 1948 to protect children and, in appropriate circumstances, take them into their care. The public inquiry into his death found that the foster family had been selected without adequate inquiry being made as to their suitability and that there had been a serious lack of supervision by the local authority. It found that the local authority had failed to act on warnings it had received and that there had been poor record-keeping, a failure to work with other agencies, a lack of adequate resources and so on. These same failings have characterised subsequent inquiries, such as those concerning Maria Colwell, Jasmine Beckford, Peter Connelly—baby P—Victoria Climbié and a host more. The failures to which these inquiries have drawn attention are routine things, but they are vital. It is important to note that they are just the sorts of things that councils could be exempted from having to do by Clause 29 of the Bill.

All the reports into the scandals attending the cases I have mentioned, down to the latest one by the noble Lord, Lord Laming, point to poor communication between agencies as a significant contributory factor, but that is just what the local authority duty exists to promote. In all the cases I have been referring to the default is that of the local authority, but surely that is a reason for more prescription and regulation, not less. Clause 29 does not just permit the Secretary of State to exempt councils from overprescriptive and bureaucratic regulation. For example, it would permit her to exempt a council from having a duty to safeguard and protect children in need, under Section 17 of the Children Act 1989; to undertake an investigation where the authority suspects a child in its area is suffering significant harm, under Section 47 of the 1989 Act; to accommodate a child in its area who is lost or abandoned, under Section 20 of the 1989 Act; and to provide essential welfare support for a disabled child, under Section 2 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970.

What is the need for these provisions if the object is to enable local authorities to test different ways of working with a view to achieving better outcomes under children’s social care legislation or achieving the same outcomes more efficiently? It is perfectly possible to test different ways of working, as earlier speakers have noted, within the existing legislative framework. If it is sought to test out different ways of fulfilling a duty, it makes no sense to get rid of the duty. The only circumstances in which it would make sense would be if it were intended to give the duty to someone else—in other words, privatisation, or dismantling of the state, as I said. That is what this is all about.

In the last six years, the Government have substantially emasculated local authorities by cutting at least 40% of their funding, so that they are increasingly able to do little more than what they are statutorily obliged to do. Now, it is evidently proposed to complete the process by getting rid of the statutory obligations themselves. I do not think that we should go any further down this track.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

I, too, rise to speak to this group of amendments, and in particular to Amendment 57, in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, and those who have just spoken.

We on this side totally support the principle of innovation, and I think all other speakers have agreed that that is a positive thing to do. However, there is a need to retain the hard-won safeguards for very vulnerable children that are currently enshrined in primary legislation. In Grand Committee I said that this led to a dilemma: innovation, which may well improve the lot of these vulnerable children, or retaining the safeguards. I asked the Minister for assurances on that process, and about what was off-limits. His response was that there were “no limits” to what could be required from this innovation procedure. That is the very heart of my concern. Despite the additional safeguards which the Minister has attached to the Bill, there is at its heart an opportunity to throw away hard-won safeguards for the sake of the so-called principle of innovation, which may or may not help these vulnerable children.

I am pleased to see that through Amendment 54, the Minister inserts a new paragraph to prevent profit-making from children’s services. That is welcome and I support it, but other explicit safeguards he has added go no way towards giving us the assurances we have all sought throughout the Bill’s passage. Nor has it reassured the children’s charities which have written to many noble Lords with their concerns. I will quote from part of their briefing, because it sums up the nature of the concerns we are all expressing:

“Clause 29 seeks to introduce a wide ranging power. It leaves all children’s social care legislation, regulation and guidance open to exemption or modification. This will include safeguarding legislation, support for vulnerable children, and oversight and monitoring of children at risk and in care. Children’s entitlement to support or protection should not be removed without rigorous evidence and oversight … We welcome the Government’s decision to bring forward amendments to improve safeguards to the ‘power to test new ways of working’. Despite this progress, oversight and review mechanisms are not yet sufficiently robust”.

That perfectly sums up what many of us have been saying. We are not convinced that what the Government have brought forward will provide reassurance that children, including the most vulnerable children in our society, will not be put at risk by Clause 29.

For those reasons, I, too, and other Members on this Bench, will support the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, if he seeks the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I regret that I was unable to attend Grand Committee because of certain personal problems and trying to do my day job, in which I declare an interest, of running a local social services authority. It is an innovative authority, achieving for children, which was established by the London Borough of Richmond, in common with the then Liberal Democrat Royal Borough of Kingston, as a community interest company to enable high-quality social work to be done locally and to help others. I recall that when it was proposed everyone said it was a dangerous experiment and should not be tried and that it would lead to all kinds of dangers. However, we have found that care in Kingston has been transformed and our senior social workers have been able successfully to give advice to other authorities such as Sunderland, Wandsworth and others. We should not fear innovation.

As many have recognised, the background to this proposal is, as the Munro report said, that there is a risk of too much rigidity, overregulation and stifling the good for the always important sake of protecting the vulnerable. However, having listened to the debate, I find that some remarks were astonishingly apocalyptic. It is nonsense for the noble Lord on the Front Bench opposite—or indeed, with all due respect, for the noble Lord, Lord Low of Dalston—to talk about privatisation in the context of a debate in which the Government have tabled amendments to say that profit will be ruled out. The noble Lord, Lord Watson, may know of private sector operators who are keen to operate on a loss-making basis, but I have yet to meet one. The talk of privatisation is reckless. It spreads disturbance where it need not be spread and is not germane to the point before us.

Everyone, from every Bench, including the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, has said that they like innovation. The noble Lord likes to see change and things being done differently in the Army. The tenor of the debate has been, “We would like innovation but we cannot allow it because it is too risky”. If the Army had operated on those principles it would still be advancing in close order, line abreast, in red coats.

What is before us is not wholescale radical change but a limited power for social workers to innovate, to try to do a better job for the people they want to serve. It is disappointing. I have spoken often in this House, with Members on other Benches, and I feel that professionals in local authorities are not trusted enough. It is a constant theme of the speeches I make in your Lordships’ House. Sometimes I feel like a lone voice on the Benches behind the Government, I have to say. But here is a small, limited proposal that asks us in Parliament to trust local authorities and the advice of professionals who wish to innovate.

Many of the speeches have been made as if the amendments put forward by my noble friend on the Front Bench had never been tabled. Here is a man who I have heard rightly praised, on every piece of legislation we have had concerning children, for his capacity to listen and make changes with deep sensitivity to the concerns and interests of children. He has come forward with proposals answering your Lordships’ concerns, many of which have been expressed legitimately, and it is proposed that they be rejected out of hand. I see the noble Lord, Lord Low, rising. I will of course hear what he says.

[Lord Low of Dalston]

What is there to prevent local authorities and social workers innovating under the present legislative framework?

[Lord True]

My Lords, certain things can be done differently, but this proposition will allow a range of proposals to be put forward, some of which have been mentioned already by my noble friend Lady Eaton. No doubt others will be suggested. The point is that we must allow professional social workers to make propositions.

On what is here before us the cry is, “No consultation”. This process requires local consultation and evidence on how better outcomes will come about from the experiment that might be allowed. It requires proof of local capability and quality, assessment of the potential risks to children, monitoring, evaluation and an evidence base before it even gets to the panel that is proposed to consider whether we might have an experiment. Then the panel will consider the experiment, then your Lordships will have the right to vote on whether that experiment should take place. The idea that Parliament would be taken out of the matter is nonsense. Parliament is at the heart of the matter in the legislation put forward.

This is one of those days where, carried by the deep love and affection this House has for the vulnerable and disadvantaged, which I share—it is why it is my passion to be in local government—your Lordships risk throwing a very small baby out with some bathwater that does not exist. We have a Catch-22 situation before us: the legislation potentially enables high-performing local authorities, taking ideas put forward by professional social workers, to try limited experiments in a safe, controlled environment. If your Lordships say that prior experiment is too dangerous and throw it out, the only alternative, as the noble Lord, Lord Watson, has said, is to have wholesale legislation without any prior experiment: let us test it and see when it has got through Parliament. That might be rather more dangerous.

I hope that on reflection the House, while in no way resiling from the deep concerns expressed, will listen to my noble friend on the Front Bench. I hope that they will read what is in the amendments and not reject them, as doing so would excise the capacity for limited innovation by good social workers from the practice of care in this land.

Special Educational Needs and Disability Code of Practice: 0 to 25 years

Lord Low of Dalston Excerpts

Monday 28th July 2014 Grand Committee

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, perhaps I may put a few more points. First, the size of the document was commented upon in another place. On going through the sections, they should of course be broken down to smaller units, for ease of use. I ask my noble friend, has he encouraged the various charitable bodies outside to print their own guides to the relevant bits for their user groups? I can see that they would be very good at making it understandable, because it is in their interests and those of their client base to ensure that it is done; and they have a better starting point from knowing exactly what language could be used. That is a general point.

Not for the first time, the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, got to the nub of what I was going to say, first. That is, that we have come from a very confrontational system, as the noble Lord said, in which we knew what we had to do and where the points in the sand were that we had to get to. We knew that we had to achieve these and needed certain points to do so. It was incredibly confrontational and probably wasted huge amounts of effort. It probably was needed when it was first brought in, to get people to take the problem seriously. We should be capable of moving on from the graduated approach commenced in school action and school action plus, as the noble Lord described. However, if we had taken into account that the schools and the providers of support are also going to have to move away from a confrontational situation, what is that monitoring? What is that “must”, and how are they going to do it? Those are very valid questions. If there is not the will to move forward, who ultimately will make sure that they do it? That is something we should know about. It is something that we should not have to do but almost certainly will do, if only in a certain number of cases. It is just the historical weight that we carry in this situation.

I have a couple of slightly more specific points. The biggest and bravest change in this was the fact of the duty to identify within the Act—not merely as a response to those who had been presented. However, I cannot help but ask: if we are putting a great deal of effort into the SEN codes here and the SEN codes are organised, has my noble friend given any more thought to improving at least a recognition course for the more commonly occurring disabilities or educational problems? He mentions in this document those with specific learning difficulties. Apparently dyslexics are out in front, closely followed by dyscalculics and dyspractics. I am not sure about the figures, but we reckon that it is roughly 10% in the British version for dyslexics. Just over 3% have dyscalculia; I have not seen the figure for dyspraxia. Probably up to 15% of our school population is covered in that group. We must make sure that we can identify the signs, or at least the danger of people falling into those groups, the specific learning patterns those people have, the support structures they will need and, indeed, getting them through not only for educational purposes and teaching them how to cope. It would be very helpful to know how to establish all that for individuals; how to bring in their parents and tell them how to cope.

I remember the discussions we had about the SEN codes. Let us face it, none of us is coming in on this cold. I think that the term used was “whole-school strategy”: making sure that work structures are in place throughout the school. In early recognition, having lots of eyes with a degree of knowledge will be better than having an expert who gives commands, because at least that way we will know to refer on to the expert. This is something that is not too much to expect, and it certainly has to be a better way forward in the earlier stages of the educational process. What steps are being taken towards this? If we do not put mandatory steps in now, how do we ensure that the SENCOs have enough scouts, troops and boots on the ground to ensure they do their job properly?

This is a change of approach and a bold step, but the transition is going to be difficult. Almost by guarantee there are going to be problems with transition to the new culture. Unless more people are brought in and provided it is not pushed off to one side, which tended to happen in the past in the worst cases, we are going to have extra problems. I look forward to my noble friend’s answers.

[Lord Low of Dalston (CB)]

My Lords, the SEN disability code of practice, which we are considering today, is a substantial piece of work, as has been remarked. The department is to be congratulated on it, particularly on the extent of the consultation which has taken place. It has been improved considerably in many respects since it was first issued in outline. I particularly express appreciation for the time and trouble officials have taken to meet with me and respond to the concerns I have expressed.

Within the restrictions imposed by the debates on the Children and Families Bill, the approach to inclusion has been improved. There are references to the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities; there is a statement on the presumption of mainstream education; and, as has been said, there is a greater reference to the Equality Act, although the inter- relationship between that Act and education legislation could have been better spelt out and highlighted more prominently. So far as encouraging a strategic approach to the development of mainstream provision is concerned, the statement that local authorities should be proactive in seeking to improve the accessibility of mainstream provision is most important, particularly if they do that with respect to the provision in their area taken as a whole.

That said, the Government will know that members of the Special Educational Consortium are far from giving the code their unequivocal support. They are calling for an early review of the guidance once we have seen how it is working in practice. The sector exhibits a range of views about the code. Some organisations believe it should be withdrawn and relaid at a later date. A case in point is the National Deaf Children’s Society, which has already been referred to. This is not a head-banging or unreasonable organisation; it very much has its feet on the ground. That an organisation such as this should ask for the code to be withdrawn should give grounds for concern. The society makes a number of points. I will allude to them briefly, because the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, has already referred to them.

On Report, the Minister announced the Government had asked Ofsted to review the need for an inspection framework to drive improvements in local SEN provision and the local offer. The NDCS believes it should be a higher priority to ensure the support that deaf children receive from services is inspected. As the noble Baroness said, concerns have also been expressed about the wider accountability framework around SEN provision. The Minister indicated that Ofsted would publish its findings in summer 2014 but to date we have heard very little about Ofsted’s progress. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, I would be very glad if the Minister could give us an update on how that work is going. We need a clear understanding of how the local authorities will be held to account for their local SEN provision.

Secondly, the code is equivocal about provision of specialist services for deaf children. Paragraph 9.144 states,

“local authorities should consider commissioning … peripatetic services”

for very young children with “hearing or vision impairment”. But elsewhere it states that where an EHC plan is being considered, deaf children must be assessed by a qualified teacher of the deaf. This cannot happen unless the service employing such teachers has been commissioned, so I would welcome the Minister’s reassurance that the necessary services for giving deaf children the support that they need will be commissioned.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Nash]

I will take that back and will ensure quickly that I check precisely where Ofsted is. If Ofsted is not where we think it might be, we might give it a bit of a chaser.

[Lord Low of Dalston]

May I, too, ask a question of the Minister? May I take him back to the question of disabled students in higher education and their ability to challenge the provision that is being made? I think that the Minister said that they would need to go to court. I assume that that would be by way of judicial review; and, of course, that is going to be much more difficult now that the scope of judicial review is being so much curtailed and the availability of legal aid for judicial review is so much reduced. That is going to significantly undermine the ability of disabled students to use the courts to resolve these problems. I wonder therefore if the Minister would be willing to give further consideration to a more substantial right of redress for disabled students in higher education.

[Lord Nash]

Of course, they have redress through the internal procedures of their college, but I will undertake to look at the noble Lord’s point carefully.

Children and Families Bill

Lord Low of Dalston Excerpts

Wednesday 5th February 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rix (CB)]

My Lords, I warmly welcome the government amendments to Clauses 37 and 51 on social care and redress. I thank the Minister and officials most warmly for listening to the arguments from across the House and the sector and for improving the Bill accordingly. The government amendments move us closer to the holy grail of integrated education, health and social care.

Making it clear that the provision of social care is on a statutory footing in their plans will undoubtedly aid children and young people with a learning disability and their families. The change, I hope, will mean that social care is not at risk of being an afterthought or an appendix as is currently the case in many statements.

I further thank the Minister and his officials for listening to us on the issue of a single point of appeal and for the commitment to conduct a review and pilots. As is always the case with these things, clarity is needed in a number of areas on the detail and I understand that the Special Educational Consortium and Every Disabled Child Matters will write to the department on this matter. I confirm with the Minister that the pilots will look at the possibility of hearing both appeals and complaints on education, health and care, not only complaints.

With that said, I thank the Minister again for making important and positive changes to the Bill.

[Lord Low of Dalston (CB)]

The Minister was kind enough to mention me as having taken part in the discussions on the subject to which the amendments relate, and I follow my noble friend Lord Rix in warmly welcoming the amendments to Clause 37 that the Minister has tabled. They go a long way towards dealing with the point that we raised about the language used to describe the social care required. By referring to the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, they also go a long way towards addressing the question about enforceability.

To my regret, I have to be somewhere else shortly and will not be able to take part in the debate on the other amendments, so I shall take this opportunity of expressing my appreciation not only to Ministers but to their officials for the extensive way in which they have taken part in discussions throughout the lengthy passage of the Bill, and responded fully to many of the points raised. Obviously it is not appropriate at this point to refer too far forward to other subjects of discussion but, as my noble friend Lord Rix mentioned this, I may perhaps be permitted to say that I too very much welcome the package of government amendments on the review of the appeal process. There were obviously considerable difficulties in implementing the single point of appeal, which we were arguing for, right here and now, so the Government have taken the right course in agreeing to set up a review. I look forward to welcoming the outcome of that review in due course—but that is for another day. Today, I simply warmly welcome both the government amendments and—if I may be permitted to do so—the considerable number of additional amendments that the Government have tabled, and express my warm-hearted appreciation both to Ministers and to the officials who have backed them up in the production of the amendments. I also thank them for their flexible response to the debates on the Bill in general.

Children and Families Bill

Lord Low of Dalston Excerpts

Tuesday 7th January 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Low of Dalston (CB)]

My Lords, I support the amendment of my noble friend Lady Howe.

I welcome the Government’s Amendment 33C, which would require local authorities to publish what action they intend to take following parents’ comments about the local offer. However, I am keen to know from the Minister what mechanisms will be in place to ensure that parents have a key role in shaping what this action to be taken by local authorities will be. The Government have consistently and rightly stated that the local offer should be responsive to local needs. Unless the Government accept the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, to ensure that parents and young people are joint partners in developing an action plan to improve local provision, is there not a danger that the local offer will be responsive only to the needs of local authorities and not local families? While welcoming the Government’s amendment and supporting the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, I would just ask the Minister those two questions. The second of them is really about how the Minister proposes to respond to the points that the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, has made.

I will speak mainly to my own amendment in this group, Amendment 33D, which would require the Secretary of State to make,

“regulations setting out the standards and quality of the special educational provision, health care provision and social care provision which local authorities must meet in their local offer … issue guidance to local authorities on how to meet these regulations, and … publish information on these regulations accessible to the families of children and young people with special educational needs”.

I will speak fairly briefly because we had two long debates in Grand Committee and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, has just spoken very eloquently to this amendment. I am very grateful to her for that—she made a very good argument for the case being put forward by the amendment.

As I said, we had a couple of very good debates in Grand Committee on the provisions of the Bill relating to the local offer. I moved an amendment which sparked a discussion about the kind of framework which needed to be put in place to regulate the local offers that local authorities made, to ensure that they met certain standards of consistency. The amendment took its cue from the animating principle underlying much of the legislation emanating from the Support and Aspiration Green Paper, which was that parents of children with special educational needs needed to be freed from the tangles of bureaucracy that were making it so difficult to access the services which could best meet their children’s needs. The amendment was couched in terms of the minimum standards which local authorities must meet in their local offers. The flaw in such an amendment was quickly pointed out: it could all too easily lead to local authorities simply working to the bare minimum and usher in a race to the bottom. At the same time, it provoked a bit of reaction from noble Lords who had a history in local government, who were at pains to point to all the good work local authorities do, the undesirability of constraining their room for manoeuvre too much and the need to leave them alone to get on with things. I was at pains to be conciliatory and to acknowledge that in my reply but, on reflection, I think I may have gone a bit too far.

The underlying thrust behind this legislation is the need to free families from the bureaucracy which ties them in knots and to redress the balance between local authorities and families attempting to assert their rights. I remember the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Yardley, making the point very persuasively that, although one did not want to hamstring local authorities and unduly constrain them in what they can do, it was not wise to set up a completely new system like this without exercising a measure of central oversight. That is a very familiar distribution of responsibilities between central and local government and the education service.

My amendment is not unduly prescriptive in dictating to the Secretary of State what he must do; it merely requires that he make regulations setting out, as I have said, the standards and quality of the special educational provision, health care provision and social care provision which local authorities must meet in their local offer, issue guidance to local authorities on how to comply with these regulations and publish information on the regulations accessible to the families of children and young people with special educational needs. This is a very moderate obligation to lay on the Secretary of State and, depending on what the Minister says, I reserve the right to seek the opinion of the House when my amendment comes up as we go through the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Low of Dalston]

33D: Clause 30, page 26, line 5, at end insert—
“(6A) The Secretary of State shall lay a draft of regulations setting out the standards and quality of the special educational provision, health care provision and social care provision which local authorities must meet in their local offer, and the regulations are not to be made unless they have been approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
(6B) Once regulations under subsection (6A) have been made, the Secretary of State must—
(a) issue guidance to local authorities on how to meet these regulations, and(b) publish information on these regulations accessible to the families of children and young people with special educational needs on the Department’s website, and in any other way he sees fit.”

[Lord Low of Dalston]

My Lords, Amendment 33D stands in my name and I spoke to it in our first debate this afternoon. When I spoke to it, I said that I would listen to what the Minister and other noble Lords had to say, but I reserved the right to move it and test the opinion of the House when it came up in order. With your Lordships’ agreement, I would like to do that. Never mind all the arguments in favour of the amendment to do with the desirability of a degree of central oversight of a wholly new system being introduced and operated by local authorities, which those who spoke in favour of it maintained is not unduly prescriptive. Irrespective of all that, the main reason why I want to press the amendment to a Division is that I think there has been a considerable misapprehension about the thrust of the amendment on the part of those who expressed reservations about it.

A number of noble Lords said that they were unhappy about an amendment which contained the idea of minimum standards and sought to impose them on local authorities as that would give rise to a tick-box culture, with local authorities merely operating to a bare minimum standard. When I spoke to the amendment I indicated that I had taken this very point when it was made in Grand Committee—that we should not confuse a framework of standards with minimum standards, because if we talked in terms of minimum standards that would lead to this very race to the bottom, which nobody wants to see. I made it clear when I spoke this afternoon that I have very much taken that point.

This amendment does not speak of minimum standards. It merely speaks of the Secretary of State making regulations to provide a framework of standards and quality for local authorities to observe in formulating their local offers. For that reason, I would like to test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Rix (CB)]

Noble Lords will have noticed, no doubt, that Amendment 38 would place a duty to deliver the social care element of the forthcoming education, health and care plans, which gives me an excuse to indulge for a short time in a worry that has bothered me for more than 30 years. In the 1980s, I began to have discussions with civil servants, politicians and administrators, particularly at the old DHSS—then located at the Elephant and Castle—about increasing co-operation between education, health and social care, and was told on many occasions that this was the recognised way forward. The will seems always to have been there, but meaningful co-ordination and collaboration on the ground has failed to emerge. It has been entirely dependent on local circumstance. We need to change that.

To the Government’s credit, they have recognised the problem and have taken the very welcome step forward of amending the Bill so that clinical commissioning groups are under a duty to provide the health element of the plan—but, alas, social care remains the poor cousin. This could easily be remedied by aligning the duty to provide social care services, as laid down in the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970, with the education, health and care plans that appear in the Bill. In this suggestion I am supported by not only my fellow signatories to the amendment but by the Special Educational Consortium and the Every Disabled Child Matters campaign.

Currently, many families do not receive the care they need until they reach breaking point—something to which Mencap drew attention in a recent report of that name. A duty to deliver the care elements of the plan will ensure that children, young people and their families receive services earlier, thus preventing the need for higher levels of support later. I understand that the Government are looking into this matter— something I warmly welcome, if the outcome is correct. I look forward to the Minister’s response. I beg to move.

[Lord Low of Dalston]

My Lords, my name is on the amendment and I wish to give my full support to my noble friend Lord Rix, who moved it. It would place a duty on local authorities to deliver the social care services identified in education, health and care plans. The contention of the noble Lord, myself and the other noble Lords who have their names on the amendment is that there is very little point in assessing a child or young person’s needs, identifying social care needs and putting them in the education and health plan, and then not making the plan enforceable in respect of social care as it is in respect of education provision.

As I think the noble Lord, Lord Rix, indicated, the amendment would add no new duties on local authorities to provide social care in addition to those that already exist. It merely brings together the legislation on education, health and care plans and existing social care legislation. There is currently a misconception that the social care duties in respect of disabled children are not specifically enforceable for an individual child. However, as I think the Government accept, this duty does already exist under Section 2 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970. The proposal contained in this amendment would help to correct this misconception.

The Government have argued that a proposal to create an individually owed duty in relation to social care would prioritise one group of children in need over another. However, there is already an individually owed duty to disabled children in Section 2 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, as I indicated, which is not enjoyed by other children in need. We had a good discussion about this in one of the Minister’s meetings with Peers, which I think we all found very valuable in developing our understanding of the Bill. I think we managed to elucidate in that discussion that if one were going to establish priorities between different groups of recipients of social care, it would have to be done at a prior stage to the formulation of the education, health and care plan. If the authority has got to the point of identifying social care needs and putting them in the plan, it really does not make any sense in terms of integrated education, health and social care provision not to make the provision identified in the plan enforceable.

[Baroness Hollins (CB)]

My Lords, I, too, add my support to the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Rix, which aims to ensure that children and young people receive the care to which they are entitled. I empathise with the battle to get health, education and social care agencies to work together; it is one that I waged on behalf of my son in the past. I know, of course, that I am not alone here and that parents across the country face this uphill struggle.

The absence of a duty to deliver the social care elements of the plan sends out the dangerous message that care is unimportant alongside education and health provisions. It is, as my noble friend says, the poor cousin. For children and young people with a learning disability and their families, this could not be further from the truth. Good social care plays an important part in helping the child or young person achieve their educational goals. That is accepted, whether it is in relation to independent living, supported employment, employment or moving on to further learning. Good social care prevents burnout in families. I understand and am glad that the Government have accepted that there is an issue here, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Rix]

My Lords, Amendment 40A, supported by my noble friends Lord Low and Lady Hollins, seeks to create a single point of appeal across education, health and care. If we are to create a joined-up system across education, care and health, we must apply the same principle to an appeals process. The case was well made by noble Lords in Committee, and I know that the Minister sympathises with the arguments.

My concern is for parents whose sons and daughters have profound and complex needs that cut across education, care and health. If in September this year the provision set out in the plans is not up to scratch, parents could end up appealing left, right and centre, across three very different cultures—from the SEN tribunal, to the health ombudsman and on to the social care chamber. Ultimately, this is about making the system run smoothly so that parents can get on with just being parents—often, as I say, to children with the most complex needs. I fear that unless we do something, parents will remain knee-deep in a quagmire of different agencies, desperately battling for support so that their sons and daughters can, rightly, achieve their aspirations.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hughes, has tabled an amendment that could see a review looking at the feasibility of bringing appeals for education, health and care together. It seems that it is a case of fix now or fix later. For the sake of disabled children and young people, and their families, I hope that whatever the outcome, the fix is soon. I beg to move.

[Lord Low of Dalston]

My Lords, I have my name on the amendment and give my noble friend Lord Rix my full support in moving it. The case seems self-evidently made and I do not wish to add a great deal to what my noble friend has said.

The raison d’être of this legislation, by and large, is the Government’s attempt to sweep away the barriers of bureaucracy which, it has been well attested, have come between parents, families, children and young people and the assertion of their rights in relation to special educational provision. The Government have, very laudably, brought forward this legislation to try to tackle some of those barriers by developing an integrated system of provision through the integrated education, health and care plan.

We said in relation to an earlier amendment that it does not make much sense to put things in an education, health and care plan and give people the right to enforce provision only in one or maybe two areas but not a third. Equally, it does not make any sense to create an integrated system of provision using education, health and care plans, with a view to sweeping away barriers of bureaucracy by putting in place an integrated system of provision, and then give people a wholly unintegrated system of enforcing their entitlement to what is specified in those integrated education, health and care plans.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Low of Dalston]

43A: After Clause 61, insert the following new Clause—
“Guidance on duty to maintain a register of disabled children and young people under section 17 of the Children Act 1989
The Secretary of State shall issue impairment specific guidance, whether in regulation or otherwise, to local authorities on how they can most effectively discharge their duty to maintain a register of disabled children and young people under section 17 of the Children Act 1989.”

[Lord Low of Dalston]

My Lords, Amendment 43A addresses a comparatively specific range of concerns, so I shall use my best endeavours to speak to it comparatively briefly. In a meeting that I attended earlier today, I was told that the obligation to use my best endeavours laid on me a pretty heavy obligation.

In Committee, I introduced an amendment to require local authorities in England to establish and maintain a register of sight-impaired and severely sight-impaired children and young people ordinarily resident in their area. The Care Bill currently going through Parliament lays a duty on local authorities to establish and maintain registers of sight-impaired and severely sight-impaired adults. It seemed odd, therefore, that no such obligation in relation to sight-impaired and severely sight-impaired children was included in this Bill. These registers play a critical role in enabling local authorities to assess population-level need for specialist visual impairment services and support, and to plan for their provision. The Government argued that an obligation to maintain registers of disabled children exists under the Children Act 1989, but there is a lot of evidence to suggest that this obligation is widely disregarded and, in any case, is not effective. The RNIB—and here I declare my interest as a vice-president of that organisation—has recently discovered by means of a series of freedom of information inquiries that a fifth of local authorities do not have a register of disabled children at all.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Northover]

My Lords, this debate builds on previous discussions which we have had as the Bill has progressed. We had a particularly important debate before Christmas on the need for high-quality data to inform decisions about the necessary support for families. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Low, for his engagement in this area and his promotion of it.

Local authorities have a duty under Section 17 of the Children Act 1989 to maintain a register of disabled children in their area. This will remain unchanged by the Care Bill, which applies only to adults. I recognise, however, that the noble Lord, Lord Low, remains concerned that the registers of disabled children are underused and that they lack the detail needed to support effective planning of services, in particular for blind or visually-impaired children. It may well be that some local authorities do not adequately maintain their registers at the moment. We agree that guidance is important in addressing this issue, which we believe is one of practice rather than legislation, as the noble Lord indicated. We do not think that a new power to issue guidance is necessary.

In our debate before Christmas, noble Lords welcomed amendments to the Bill requiring disabled children to be included within the scope of a number of significant clauses in Part 3. These include: local authorities identifying children and young people in their area who have or may have SEN, in Clause 22; joint commissioning arrangements, in Clause 26; reviewing the special education and care provision that is available locally, in Clause 27; and the local offer, in Clause 30. I am pleased that noble Lords welcomed these amendments, which are a significant change to the Bill. They also provide a greater incentive to use the SEN code of practice, which provides statutory guidance on these and other duties under the Bill, to include guidance on issues relating to disabled children and young people.

Within the code, we will now require that local authorities have a clear picture of the numbers of disabled children within their area, including in particular data on low-incidence needs such as visual impairment or hearing impairment. We will also make clear—as we have in the existing code—that local authorities remain under a duty to maintain a register of disabled children and that these registers are particularly important in fulfilling the duties that I have just set out.

Placing this guidance within the core SEN code of practice will mean that the duties of the local authority are clearly and explicitly set out in the main statutory document that local authorities and their partners consult practically daily and which they must have regard to. This also avoids the potential for confusing or contradictory requirements across different sets of guidance. The guidance in the code will ensure that there is no doubt over the need to maintain registers of visually-impaired children and link this need clearly to the local authority duties under the Bill. I hope that the noble Lord is reassured and I urge him to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Low of Dalston]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her reply. I am reassured by what she says—that the Government have certainly got hold of the issue and its importance. The important thing now is to make sure that local authorities get hold of it. I am not 100% reassured by the undertaking to ensure that it is included in a code of practice that gets thicker by the minute as we put new things in it. This provision seems the kind of exhortation that could easily get buried among a lot of other, more high-profile stuff.

Could the Government meet me one step further? The Minister kindly offered to include the issue in the code of practice. Not only that, but when the code of practice is circulated, as it will be, could they specifically draw the issue to local authorities’ attention as an important requirement that they have to give considerable attention to? That would be particularly helpful. When the code of practice is circulated, there will be ancillary communications surrounding it, laying emphasis on the importance of this and that aspect. If the Minister would agree to put something in those supporting communications to draw attention to the importance of maintaining the registers, for the point of view of the data that they provide and the opportunity for identification of need and planning that they—

[Baroness Northover]

Maybe I could reassure the noble Lord that we will highlight the importance of the duties when we write to local authorities about the implementation of the Bill.

[Lord Low of Dalston]

Now I am about 99.9% reassured. That is very helpful and I am grateful to the Minister for it. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 43A withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Howe of Idlicote]

My Lords, I am pleased to support the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins. The Bill is in my view somewhat weak in terms of accountability. This is surprising, given how much emphasis the Government put on strengthening accountability in other areas. Very recently, for example, in their response to the consultation on secondary school accountability, the Department for Education noted approvingly that:

“OECD evidence shows that a robust accountability framework is essential to improving pupils’ achievement”.

In the Government’s White Paper Open Public Services, it was stated that increased choice must be accompanied by a framework that ensures,

“providers meet basic quality requirements enforced by … inspectors”.

The White Paper went on to say that the Government would,

“ensure that providers of individual services who receive public money … are licensed or registered by the appropriate regulator”.

I am also rather concerned that local education authority SEN services are subject to so little scrutiny given the amount of government expenditure in this area. I understand that over £5,000 million is allocated to funding for children with high needs. Surely, there must be greater scrutiny of whether funding for local authority SEN provision is delivering value for money.

Separately, it can be argued that there is a particular case for inspections of services for children with low-incidence needs, such as sensory impairments. Local authorities and mainstream schools and teachers are far less likely to be familiar with the specific needs of children with sensory impairments. This lack of familiarity and expertise makes the role of local authority SEN provision much more important. The quality of this support is crucial, but apparently no one is checking the quality of this support. This is not really acceptable.

We should note, too, that this proposal has the support of professional bodies, including the National Sensory Impairment Partnership. Heads of services for children with sensory impairment have indicated that they would welcome greater scrutiny, because it allows them to demonstrate and emphasise the importance of their role.

I share the concerns raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins, that the commitment made in Committee that Ofsted be asked to carry out a review is insufficient, particularly if Ministers have already, apparently, ruled out inspection of local authority SEN provision. We have already had a one-off thematic review of support for deaf children, with the findings published in the Ofsted report, Communication is the Key. It looked at provision in three local authorities; it did not tell us much about the other 149 local authorities and, even in those three local authorities identified as having best practice, weaknesses were identified in their quality assurance and self-evaluation. For that reason, there is clearly real concern about what value or impact another broad, one-off thematic review will add. Instead, surely what is needed is the introduction of a robust inspection framework for all local authority SEN services.

I hope that the Minister, having listened to all this, has been persuaded by strong arguments in favour of the proposal.

[Lord Low of Dalston]

My Lords, I, too, give my full support to the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins. I shall make three points in support. The amendment is inspired by Sense, the RNIB and the National Deaf Children’s Society. As vice-president of the RNIB, I declare my interest in that connection.

Nowadays, the majority of school-age children with sensory impairments attend mainstream provision and often rely on support from specialist visiting teachers and services. Whether the support comes from outside or inside the school, the development of mainstream provision for children with sensory impairment is of sufficiently recent origin for it to be the case that many schools in which children with sensory disabilities and impairments are being educated are still unfamiliar with the methods of educating children who are blind, deaf, or deafblind, and with the special skills that they need, the communication methods that they use, and how to inculcate those skills. It is vitally important that there should be a system of inspection to assure us that services are of an adequate quality. At an early stage of this transition to mainstream, services are not yet of the quality that we want to see; it is in the nature of the case that you do not always get services of the quality that you want just at the beginning of a new development. But I want to argue that the existence of a system of inspection and accountability is absolutely vital to raising standards and avoiding bad practice just by default. The lack of scrutiny afforded to these services places these children at risk of poor provision, particularly as mainstream teachers and schools are still unlikely to be familiar with the specific needs of children with sensory impairments.

The second point that I would like to make is that, in other areas, the department has already recognised the importance of strengthened accountability. In its response to the responses received to the consultation on secondary school accountability, the department stated:

“The most effective education systems around the world are those that have high levels of autonomy along with clear and robust accountability”.

That is the kind of point that we were trying to make in relation to the local offer in the first debate this afternoon. We want there to be local autonomy, but we want also to be satisfied that that is not developing as a postcode lottery and that too many services are not falling below the mark. We need a system of clear and robust accountability alongside the notion of local autonomy.

Children and Families Bill

Lord Low of Dalston Excerpts

Tuesday 17th December 2013 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Low of Dalston]

16A: Clause 19, page 19, line 20, at end insert—
“( ) the need to continue to develop an inclusive system where parents of disabled children have increasing access to mainstream schools and staff and which have the capacity to meet the needs of disabled children.”

[Lord Low of Dalston (CB)]

My Lords, we now come to Part 3. I shall move Amendment 16A, and speak briefly in support of Amendment 34A in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Howe.

In 1978, the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, described inclusion, or integration, as it was known at that time, as,

“the central contemporary issue in special education”.

It has not lost much of its salience in the time that has elapsed since then. It refers to the opportunity, or even the right, for disabled children to be educated in mainstream schools alongside their non-disabled peers as an expression of their right to take their place in the community as fully equal members of that community. It is a right that many disabled people feel has been too long denied and which is accordingly all the more highly prized, especially by many parents so far as the education of their disabled children is concerned.

The right to inclusive education is contained in Article 24 of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which the UK ratified in 2009. In relation to the right to education, states are also under an obligation to take measures to achieve the progressive realisation of the right. When the UK ratified the convention, it entered a reservation and interpretative declaration to the right to inclusive education, but the terms of its declaration made clear that the UK accepted the obligation of the progressive realisation of the right to inclusive education.

This amendment was recommended by the Joint Committee on Human Rights to place the principle of inclusion in the Bill among the general principles set out in Clause 19, in line with the rights contained in the UN convention and in terms which closely follow the language of the UK’s interpretive declaration.

In Grand Committee, the Minister outlined steps which the Government were taking to promote the principle of inclusion, which he considered made it unnecessary to amend Clause 19. He referred to duties under the Equality Act 2010 to prevent discrimination against disabled people, to promote equality of opportunity, to plan to increase access over time and to make reasonable adjustments to policies and practices. For the most part, however, the measures he referred to were what I might call “soft measures”, such as continuous professional development of staff and development of expertise in supporting children with SEN. He also relied on the fact that guidance on inclusion would be given in the SEN code of practice.

Why should one want to go further than this? There are six reasons. First, the code of practice, the latest draft of which was issued on 4 October, is very much watered down compared with the existing guidance. In particular, it contains many fewer of the sorts of examples and scenarios which help to bring the principle of inclusion to life for people who need guidance in how to implement it. We need something like the JCHR’s principle in the Bill as a necessary peg on which to hang stronger guidance. Secondly, the principle of inclusion continues to be the subject of considerable litigation. This suggests that the current state of the law and guidance leaves considerable scope for uncertainty. Putting the JCHR’s general principle in the Bill would help to remove this uncertainty and clarify the law and relevant guidance. Thirdly, the JCHR has recommended our amendment. Fourthly, it is in line with the obligations to which the UK has signed up under the UN convention. Fifthly, as I have said, the language of the amendment closely follows that of the UK’s own interpretive declaration, so should hardly be uncongenial to the Government.

Sixthly, there is otherwise nothing about inclusion in the Bill, notwithstanding that inclusion remains one of the central contemporary issues in special education, as I have said. The Minister will point out that Clauses 33 and 34 effectively contain rights to inclusion, but—and this is the most important point—these are rights to inclusion for the individual child. We need a general principle in the Bill in the terms of this amendment which gives local authorities an obligation to,

“continue to develop an inclusive system where parents of disabled children have increasing access to mainstream schools and staff and which have the capacity to meet the needs of disabled children”.

We need an obligation of this sort in the Bill and one which lays the obligation on local authorities to take a strategic overview of the provision in their area and plan for its strategic development in line with the principles of inclusion, and in a way which enables that principle to be progressively realised. Without this, we continue to encounter the problem of children being rejected by individual schools which do not have the facilities—because the legislation is drawn in such a way that they can do that—because the authority has failed to take a strategic overview and ensure that there are schools in their area which have the requisite facilities.

There is one general point. I see that people might worry that an amendment in these terms, which speaks of the progressive development of an inclusive system, with increasing access to mainstream schools, might tend to exclude the possibility of education in special schools for those who want it. That is not my intention at all. I am in favour of what I call a mixed economy of provision. There is nothing in this amendment which would take away the right of a parent to opt for a special-school placement if they want to. This is enshrined in the legislation. Under the law as it stands, which is retained in this Bill, no one can be compelled to send their child to a mainstream school who does not want to.

I will just say a word about Amendment 34A. My Amendment 16A covers the importance of developing an inclusive system in which disabled children and young people are increasingly welcomed by mainstream schools with the right skills to support them. The general presumption in favour of mainstream education is maintained in Clause 33. That is why it is disappointing that the potential for special academies to admit children with SEN without an education, health and care assessment and plan is included in Clause 34(9). The fact that academies are brought within the SEN framework by this Bill is very welcome, but the inclusion of Clause 34(9) seems oddly at variance with this approach. As I said at Grand Committee, this clause undermines a long-standing consensus that children and young people should be placed in special schools only where this has been identified as the most appropriate placement, following a statutory assessment and decision-making process which takes full account of the wishes of the parent.

Draft regulations under Clause 34 allow a child or young person to be placed in a special school without an EHC assessment and plan on an indefinite basis, provided that the placement is reviewed termly. Some parents may welcome this power because of the potential to give swifter access to a special-school place. Without a full assessment and decision-making process, however, there is a high risk of inappropriate placement. This new power to place children in special schools outside the rigour of a statutory assessment and decision-making process risks a return to a time when parents could be pushed into accepting a special-school place for their child, not because it is the best placement for them but because the mainstream school had not, for whatever reason, provided the appropriate support. In fact, it would take us back to the situation which obtained before 1999.

I support the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, in proposing that this subsection be removed and, in so doing, I beg to move Amendment 16A.

[Baroness Howe of Idlicote (CB)]

My Lords, my amendment, which I am pleased to hear the noble Lord, Lord Low, is also supporting, is very much along the lines of the discussion we all had in Committee. Currently, as we know, 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 to ensure that children and young people are not inappropriately placed in special schools.

Under both the old and the new regulations, a child can attend a special school on an assessment place. Despite some sympathetic comments by the Minister in Grand Committee, the Government’s proposals will still potentially allow special academies, including free schools, to admit children or young people permanently into school without their having had their special needs statutorily assessed, or an education, health and care plan put in place for them.

Illustrative regulations accompanying Clause 34 —Regulation 2(2)—will also allow children without an EHC plan to be placed in any special school on an ongoing basis provided the situation is reviewed annually. Although the Minister stressed that the support of professional advice would be needed, I fear that not enough safeguards will be in place to stop children or young people being admitted without their needs being fully assessed and agreed by a range of professionals with the child or young person and his or her parents.

--- Later in debate ---

I fully understand the objectives of the amendment. I hope I have been able to persuade noble Lords of the Government’s commitment to improving education provision for all children and young people and specifically to fulfilling their obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and of the case for keeping the principles in Clause 19 as they are. I hope, too, that I have been able to reassure noble Lords that the provision in Clause 34(9) is there to encourage innovation and promote greater choice and flexibility for the benefit of children and young people with SEN, and that the safeguards we have put in place will guard against any potential problems envisaged. In view of these assurances and the commitment I have given in relation to strengthening the guidance in the code of practice, I urge the noble Lord, Lord Low, to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Low of Dalston]

My Lords, I thank all those who have spoken. They all spoke in support of my amendment except of course the Minister. I thank the Minister for his full response. However, I have to say that I am not entirely persuaded by it. It was not a real advance on what we heard from the Minister in Grand Committee. In moving the amendment I think I showed that that was inadequate and that we still needed the amendment.

As I heard him, he has not said anything very different in substance today. He said that children have a variety of different special educational needs. That is right. These include a need for special school placement. In moving the amendment, I went out of my way to make it clear that nothing in the amendment is inimical to special school placement. The amendment follows the language of the Government’s own interpretative declaration when they entered their reservation to the UN convention. Therefore, there should not really be anything in the amendment that would be difficult for the Government to swallow.

Like the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, I do not see what is causing the Government so much difficulty about this. But I want to make it clear that I do not feel embattled. I moved the amendment not in a spirit of ideological embattlement or to provide a further chapter in the history of passionate and sometimes bitter arguments between adherents of inclusive and special education. I see it as much more a matter of good legislative housekeeping, in which we get the appropriate principles on the face of the Bill to drive their amplification in secondary legislation and guidance. As I have made clear, the code of practice as so far drafted, although a considerable improvement on the outline draft which was initially circulated, is still woefully defective compared with the guidance on inclusion which we have at present. The code, as so far drafted, is a real step backwards in this area. I feel very strongly, not as a matter of special education ideology, but as a matter of legislative housekeeping, that we need something like this amendment on the face of the Bill in order to drive the major strengthening of the code of practice on inclusion which is required. In that quite moderate and not embattled spirit, I nevertheless wish to test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Low of Dalston]

I, too, have put my name to this amendment and strongly support it. There is not a lot to be said in addition to what has been said by the noble Baronesses, Lady Wilkins and Lady Howe, but perhaps I could ask the Minister one or two questions which it would be helpful if he could respond to in responding to the debate. The information currently collected clearly does not include all children with SEN. What is being done to address that by the department? It is also clear that the information needed to be collected in order that we might get effective planning and commissioning is spread out over different data sets. It would be helpful to know what is being done to bring together the information to be found all over the place in different places to ensure that we get well informed commissioning and decision-making.

Finally, does the Minister know whether the department will take in hand the co-ordination of all the data required, or will that be left to local authorities? If it is going to be left to 152 different local authorities, it is difficult to see how the department will be able to meet the ambition set out in the Bill to improve commissioning without the data sets being improved. Does the Minister agree that it would be better for the department to co-ordinate this area of work rather than leave it to 152 local authorities? If it is left to the local authorities, it is hard to believe that we will get a coherent solution. There are bound to be variations and the data is bound to remain very patchy. Therefore, it would be very valuable if the department would take a stronger hand in co-ordinating this work and in making sure that we get the data that we need to have in order that the reforms in the Bill may be implemented in the way that the Government want.

[Baroness Howarth of Breckland]

My Lords, I understand that the Government probably do not want to increase the level of bureaucracy in local authorities in terms of information gathering. I also understand that they possibly do not want to have centralisation when one of their main tenets is to decentralise to local government. That being said, however, successive Governments have failed to get this right. Those of us who were involved in trying to implement the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons (Amendment) Act 1976, which was a long time ago, remember that one of its main provisions was to try to get decent data on which to make strategic planning.

The only point I really want to make is that there is a conflict between that wish not to increase bureaucracy and not to be able to get consistent data on the same basis across the whole of the local authority areas in order to plan. It is not just local authorities which will be affected. I spend a lot of my time in charities. They need to plan their strategy for some very large amounts of provision. I have chaired a number of committees where we have needed data in order to make a decision as to how we are going to move resources from one area to another. If you do not have that information, you can get that wrong. I would like to know how the Minister thinks that that kind of strategic planning can be carried out when the data lack that clear underlying consistency but at the same time I recognise the difficulties that it may cause in other areas of the Government’s plan.

Children and Families Bill

Lord Low of Dalston Excerpts

Wednesday 6th November 2013 Grand Committee

[Baroness Hughes of Stretford (Lab)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 181, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Storey, to which I have added my name. I shall also speak to Amendments 182 and 272. To some extent, we are rehearsing today, in these amendments, some of the arguments that we had earlier this week about social care. They concern the fundamental question of how serious the Government are about instigating a new system that is integrated right through from the point of early identification, assessment, provision and appeal.

As the Bill stands, we have integrated assessment, at least in the EHC plans, but we do not have equal accountability in terms of integration of provision because of the social care situation. Here we do not have integration from the very important perspective of parents’ and children’s experience in relation to appeals. Therefore, I strongly support Amendment 181, which would add social care and healthcare provision specified in EHC plans to the First-tier Tribunal as a mechanism of appeal. I would be grateful if, in his reply, the Minister would go beyond what he has already said to us, which is that there are established routes of complaint about social care through local authority complaints procedures and the Local Government Ombudsman, and clear and specific routes of redress within the NHS, its complaints processes and the health ombudsman.

Anybody who has tried to help a family to negotiate those two avenues of appeal will know how complicated they are. In addition, it is very important that, in relation to the substance of the complaint—as opposed to maladministration—they do not end up with an independent adjudication between the views of the complainant and the views of the service provider. The parents in this case would have to, for example, fully exhaust the local authority’s own complaints procedures as a first step; that could take many months. Of course, that adjudication is not independent; it is the local authority adjudicating on the complaint. They can then go to the Local Government Ombudsman, but that person will adjudicate only on the principle of maladministration—that is, on whether the authority has not followed the proper procedure. He will obviously not adjudicate on the substance of the complaint. It is a similar situation in relation to health.

Therefore, if the parent has to negotiate those two systems, it can take a very long time. Many noble Lords will have had a number of pieces of correspondence from Jane Raca, who is a lawyer and author and has a 13 year-old, very disabled son. She outlines the detail of the Local Government Ombudsman procedure and shows that it takes months and sometimes years. I know from my previous constituency experience that that is the case and, furthermore, it does not actually judge independently on the substance of the complaint.

The other important point is the one made by the noble Lord, Lord Storey, that—by their nature, and this is very welcome—EHC plans are meant to integrate an assessment around social care, health and special educational needs. A severely disabled child is likely to have needs in all three categories, so a parent might have concerns or complaints about all three categories of need. Under the current arrangements, as the noble Lord, Lord Storey, said very clearly, they would be faced with the almost impossible task of appealing through three different systems at once, at the same time as coping with a very disabled child and probably other children in the family. That is just not reasonable. If we came at this through the vision of the parent contemplating that system, it would look impossible. It would defeat many of us, let alone parents coping with very disabled children. Therefore, I really hope that the Minister will take this on board and see this very important and welcome principle of integration right the way through from assessment to appeal.

Our Amendment 182 would oblige the Secretary of State to publish information about special educational needs cases going to the tribunal. We feel it is important to bring much needed transparency into the system and put an end to practices by some, though not all, local authorities, such as systematically taking cases to court, keeping the cost down in the knowledge that many families will not challenge a decision or spend any money on legal fees, in order to avoid having to pay for the provision in the first place—taking the step early of going to appeal, rather than trying to get a local resolution. Whatever the Government decide, it is important that we regularly review which kind of cases are going to the tribunal and their outcomes, and that we have this information published regularly.

Amendment 272 simply ensures that the detail of, and any change to, the provisions in Clause 51(4)—that is, the regulations laid to provide for appeals to the First-tier Tribunal—will be subject to an affirmative resolution procedure through statutory instrument. It is right that Parliament should be able to comment on the proposals for appeals that the Government put forward.

[Lord Low of Dalston (CB)]

My Lords, I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Storey, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes, has also just spoken. The general point must be right: there has to be a unified route of appeal. There is no way that parents can be expected to endure the hassle and aggravation of pursuing three separate appeals or complaints if they are not satisfied with the provision that they are receiving.

This would simply be to answer the bureaucratic hassle identified in the Green Paper and the Lamb inquiry as driving parents to distraction by adding yet more layers of bureaucracy. I assume that the Government have just been defeated by their own bureaucracy in delivering a unified route of appeal; maybe this will give them some insight into how parents feel. To that, I simply say that they need to go away and try a bit harder.

I mainly want to pursue a more detailed point. It is clear that the parent can appeal to the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal, or SENDIST, about the educational provision. As for health, the local authority must include in the EHC plan, health provision reasonably required by the learning difficulty or disability that causes the special educational needs, and health commissioners must secure that provision. However, it appears that the health commissioner has a veto. The draft regulations say that the health commissioner must agree the health provision. This raises the question: what recourse has the parent if the local authority does not include the health provision in the plan or the health commissioner does not agree it?

If the health provision is directly related to and supports the educational provision—for example, speech and language therapy delivered at school—the parent can appeal to SENDIST. However, if it is purely health provision—for example, if it is delivered at home—what opportunity does a parent have? I ask the Minister: what opportunities do parents have to challenge its non-provision or non-inclusion in the plan? The Government may answer by referring to the NHS complaints procedure but, quite apart from the point that this involves the parent pursuing a second and separate challenge, I am not sure that a complaints procedure is really the most effective way of enforcing the provision of something to which they feel they are entitled.

Similar arguments might presumably be made in relation to social care provision, except that in that case the complaint would be a separate one against the local authority. I would be most grateful if the Minister could respond to these points when he comes to reply.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Nash]

The noble Baroness, Lady Morris, makes her point powerfully and well. I entirely agree with her about the necessity of changing the culture and that in some cases we may be dancing on the head of a pin and what matters is the practicality at the coal face. We need to make sure that we attempt to do this practically and fairly so that we do not unreasonably advantage one group of children over another, as my noble friend Lady Perry said. We will try to ensure that, with further dialogue between now and Report, we all understand where we are on this.

[Lord Low of Dalston]

I did not quite follow the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, made when she talked about the danger of privileging children with special educational needs over other children. The fact is that we have a separate system that children with special educational needs can get into, and if they do not have them they cannot do so. However, for those who can get into the system it is surely right that it is the best possible system that we can make it and is immune from criticism on the sort of grounds that have been advanced this afternoon regarding the need for a single point of redress.

[Lord Storey]

I very much welcome each contribution on this amendment and thank the Minister for his response. I want to reflect carefully on what he has said. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, that we would have to consider carefully any suggestion of inequality or people being treated differently. As always, the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, puts her finger on the issue. Those of us who have worked in education know that the culture of social services and health services—please do not take offence—is often different from that of education services, and friction and difficulties can often occur.

When I was researching this topic, I was thinking, “Yeah, come on; it makes sense to have one single point of appeal, doesn’t it? Who could argue against that?”. But then people say to me, “Oh no, because, because, because”. I would want to test that a little more thoroughly. It would have been interesting if the Government had put it the other way around and said, “We want you to make this work. Never mind your different cultures; we want one point of appeal. Go away and do it”. When they come back with the work we would then see whether it was possible. I really want to interrogate this issue because it surely makes sense.

Finally, I thank the Minister and welcome his comments on Amendments 183 and 184. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Wilkins]

I support this group of amendments. I am mildly dyslexic, and I assure noble Lords that in terms of daily frustration, it is a million times more frustrating than being in a wheelchair. There is a great deal of support for being in a wheelchair, but there is very little support for being dyslexic. The Government are to be admired for their commitment to apprenticeships, and it seems a tragedy that it should be undermined in this way, so I beg the Minister to accept these amendments.

[Lord Low of Dalston]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Addington, has had a pretty good run for his money and has got not only unanimous but very voluble support from the other Members of the Committee. I would not detract from that one whit. I support every word he said and what others have added, but I wonder whether I may crave the Committee’s indulgence to make a slight change of subject.

I shall speak to Amendment 192 in this group, which is tabled in my name and the names of the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, and the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp. It is a probing amendment which would require schools to retain the current system of school action and school action plus. We may not have formulated the amendment perfectly, and I am sure there is room for plenty of discussion about how it might be focused or targeted more precisely. I am anxious to learn more about the Government’s thinking in seeking to abolish the current stages of school action and school action plus. As we know, the Government are replacing that graduated approach with a single SEN category. The amendment refers to schools, but my concerns also relate to how early years settings and post-16 institutions will meet the needs of children and young people with SEN.

My reason for tabling this amendment is that, like the Government, I believe that policy should be developed on the basis of robust evidence. Changing the way the SEN system operates in every English school and early years setting could be very disruptive. We need to be sure that any change will genuinely improve outcomes for children and young people before we embark on what is quite a major change. From what we have heard so far, it seems that the Government’s intention here is to improve the identification of special educational needs. The Ofsted report, A Statement is not Enough, published in 2010, suggested that some children and young people were being wrongly identified as having special educational needs.

Improving the identification of special educational needs is a goal everyone would support. However, my understanding is that the Ofsted report did not in any way indicate that the problem resided in the graduated approach of school action and school action plus. The same is true of the Lamb inquiry, which also picked up on the issue of identification, but did not indicate in any of its 51 recommendations that the problem arose from school action and school action plus. Neither of these important investigations proposed the removal of the current system, so I wonder on what evidence the Government are basing their decision to move to a single category of SEN. Everyone has been encouraged by the reference in the recently published draft code of practice to “a graduated response”. Since the Government remain committed to a graduated response, which is provided by school action and school action plus, one wonders why they are so insistent on the need for this change.

I should also like to pick up on the fact that the draft code of practice removes guidance on the use of individual education plans. IEPs were a key feature of the school action and school action plus system. They set out educational targets, the agreed SEN support and how progress would be measured. They require schools to involve children, young people and their parents in the process and are vital for parents when holding schools to account. When used properly, IEPs are a simple and effective way of recording targets, putting support in place and tracking the child’s progress. While they might not always be used as effectively as they might be, would it not be better to seek to improve the way IEPs are used than to scrap them altogether?

The Government are not opposed to schools retaining these types of records. The draft code says that schools should keep records and that these can be shared with parents. Again, therefore, one is prompted to ask why the Government are getting rid of something so valued by parents when they continue to support the principles behind it. I would be extremely grateful if, when he responds to the debate, the Minister could set out the Government’s thinking and give us the rationale for these changes and, in particular, the evidence on which they are based. It seems that the Government still support the principles of a graduated approach and keeping good records, so it is important that we understand why we need what is really quite a major change.

[Baroness Perry of Southwark]

I have no wish to continue this debate for too long. I first declare the interest that I, too, have a very dyslexic granddaughter. The fact that so many of us are able to point to younger family members with dyslexia marks how much better diagnoses have got in the past 20 or 30 years. Previously, people were very often thought to be rather stupid, so the diagnosis has greatly improved things. We have come a very long way in providing good diagnoses and excellent treatment at school level. Dyslexic boys and girls get a tremendous amount of help in school: they get more time for their examinations, technological help and so on. In the university world, there is enormous help: large numbers of dyslexic young people taking final examinations get special help, extra time and all that is necessary. It seems absurdly wrong that, at a time when we have expanded apprenticeships—and like the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, I am immensely proud of what this Government have done about apprenticeships—we have left this lacuna in the middle of the provisions. Schools do well and universities do well, yet when it comes to apprenticeships we have this absurd drafting of legislation—probably a slip of the pen—which makes it impossible for dyslexics, and people who have other handicaps to do with writing and speaking, to get through. I hope that the Minister will not just say that it is all okay and that nothing needs to be done. I really believe that something could so easily be done in this legislation now, and this is a good opportunity to do it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Howarth of Breckland (CB)]

We could talk about both these amendments all night. I just want to say two sentences. First, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Storey. It is not about the name but about what will happen in the process on the ground in relation to that amendment. Returning to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp. We need to focus on the very narrow issue of ensuring that this process can be taken forward. Quite frankly, the Labour Government should have got this into their apprenticeship legislation when they brought it forward in the previous Parliament. If the Minister cannot do what the noble Lord suggests, I hope he will take this away, look at it and come back on Report. That is the simplest way, and it is achievable.

[Lord Low of Dalston]

I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Storey, and the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, about the name. It is not the name that is important. What is important is that we have a graduated approach and that we have some way of institutionalising that so that there can be no doubt that that is the system being operated.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. Turning to the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, I am a new kid in this school, but I intend to survive the next reshuffle, whenever that may be.

The amendments in this group all seek in different ways to amend Clause 62, which puts a duty on appropriate authorities to use their best endeavours to secure special educational provision. It is clearly a very important issue.

In answer to my noble friend Lord Addington, I have not heard too much from him, and I doubt I ever will. I suffered from mild dyslexia when I was young, as did my father. I struggled with maths and English, but in engineering workshop theory and practice, I got a grade 1 assessment and O-level, whereas in maths I got 9 double-minus.

On Amendment 192, the noble Lords, Lord Low and Lord Touhig, along with my noble friend Lady Sharp are absolutely correct to emphasise that schools should match the support that they provide to the child’s needs. This is known in practice as a graduated approach, and we are going to keep it. I agree with my noble friend Lord Storey and the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, that it is not so much the name that matters but the approach.

The new SEN code of practice replaces school action and school action plus with a simplified approach to SEN support. This focuses attention on the individual needs of the child, requires schools to review how effective their support is and involves parents much more closely. This is exactly the sort of graduated approach that I believe the noble Lord, Lord Low, and other noble Lords are calling for.

The noble Lord, Lord Low, in effect asked for evidence of the need for change. We are making these changes because, as Ofsted’s 2010 review of SEN found,

“current systems focus too much on whether pupils receive additional services, and too little on the impact of their support”.

In the other place, my honourable friend the Minister for Children and Families made a commitment that, while developing the code, we would refine these proposals through work with a broad range of experts. Since then, officials within the Department for Education have met academics, school leaders, members of the Special Educational Consortium and more than 300 SENCOs. We are extremely grateful to all those who gave their time. As a result, I believe that the current code provides a much clearer framework for schools, informed by those working directly with pupils.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Addington]

My Lords, to give the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, a rugby analogy—good players catch bad balls and take the tackle. The noble Earl has been tackled, stood on and everything else—it has all happened—but I congratulate him on being man enough to stand up to it in the first place. The subtext that I take from the response is, “Oh, it can happen but it does not”. I am afraid that that is not good enough; it is more of the same with regard to what I have already spoken about. Technical assistance is provided in the Access to Work programme; it is not just a question of DSAs. The thinking appears to be that we help dyslexics by providing them with a government grant from another department to enable them to go to work but we do not let them take a qualification. We provide that metal box with those little gadgets on the side of it to allow someone to function after they have obtained a qualification, but not before. The point about English and maths just does not stand up for anybody who requires minor assistance, and never did. I will, of course, withdraw the amendment but I do not want to come back in two or three years’ time, or wait for another Bill, to correct the position. I do not think that anybody’s interest, including that of the Minister, would be served by going through this again.

[Lord Low of Dalston]

My Lords, just before the noble Lord withdraws the amendment and sits down, I would say to the Minister, on behalf of the Committee, that, as was said in relation to Amendment 192, it is not the form of words that matters, it is the outcome. As regards this amendment, I think what the Committee is saying to the Minister is that it is not the meeting that matters, it is the outcome.

[Lord Addington]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Low, and say to him that the grouping of these two very important amendments did him no favours. I would have commented further on that matter if I had felt there was time to do so. I think that we have gone as far as we can today but we must have an end game soon. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Low of Dalston]

206: Clause 67, page 48, line 4, at end insert “in a plain English style and make it available on the internet”

[Lord Low of Dalston]

My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 206 and shall speak also to Amendments 207 to 209. I will do these two things separately as Amendment 206 deals with one issue and Amendments 207 to 209 deal together with a somewhat separate but interrelated set of issues. I hope that I will be able to do both fairly briefly.

Turning first to Amendment 206, it would require that a plain English version of the code of practice should be made available. Much of the detail of the reforms contained in this Bill will be enshrined in the code of practice. Indeed, the code of practice will be the Bible, both for providers and users of the system. I recall an experience I had when I was one of the founder members of the Special Educational Needs Tribunal back in 1994. We attended a training session and somebody came along to brief us on the old code of practice. She said, “Well, I expect that you would like me to tell you what are the most important parts of this code of practice that you need to be most familiar with. What I am here to tell you is that you need to be fully familiar with it all”, so it is obviously a crucial document. The new code of practice will be the same as the old one in that respect. It was—and the new one will be—a crucial document, and I am sure that we are all most grateful to the Government for making the latest draft available in time for the Committee. That shows just what a crucial document it is.

It is also a very lengthy document—more than 170 pages—and although it will no doubt be subject to change over time, it will remain quite a complex document, so it is incumbent on us to ensure that the document is made as accessible as possible to young people and their families. A version of the code that provided clarity about a person’s rights and choices, made readily accessible in plain English, would be extremely valuable. As the Plain English Campaign has stated:

“The law is the most important example of how words affect people’s lives. If we cannot understand our rights, we have no rights”.

There are precedents for the use of plain English versions, for example, in relation to the Localism Act, so I hope that the Minister will agree to this amendment to ensure that families do not have to grapple with an impenetrable document and get the information that they need made easily accessible to them

Turning to Amendments 206 to 209, at first sight, the Government, with their Amendments 210 and 211, have gone a long way to meeting what these amendments were asking for. Indeed, I readily acknowledge that the Government’s amendments are very helpful, but they do not take us all the way. In two respects they do not take us all the way. Amendment 207 specifies a 90-day consultation period, which I think is perhaps more in accord with usual practice. The Government’s Amendments 210 and 211 seem, at first sight, to concede all that the amendments are asking for in terms of the code needing to be approved by the affirmative procedure in both Houses of Parliament. The wording of these amendments is a bit opaque but, when you unravel it, it becomes clear that the affirmative procedure is being conceded in relation to the first iteration of the new code, but not in relation to subsequent iterations which are simply subject to the negative procedure. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee pointed this out in its report last week, I think, and said that if the Government are conceding the affirmative procedure in relation to the first iteration of the code of practice, they are effectively conceding that any subsequent iteration of the code needs the affirmative procedure.

I therefore think we will want to continue to push Amendments 207 to 209. While expressing gratitude to the Government for the distance that they have moved with their Amendments 210 and 211, I express a little disappointment that they have not moved all the way and, indeed, made the further concession that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has suggested is essentially implied by their concession of the affirmative procedure for the first iteration of the code of practice. I beg to move.

[Baroness Hughes of Stretford]

My Lords, I support Amendments 207, 208 and 209, to which I have added my name. I think we are all very clear that the code of practice is a very important document, as the noble Lord, Lord Low, has just said. It will determine the detail of implementation of the Government’s legislation in a very marked respect. Therefore, the mechanism by which the code is approved, and then subsequently revised, is also very important.

We have been round the houses somewhat with the mechanism of approval. There was a great deal of pressure from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in response to the Government’s initial proposals that the code of practice, even in its first iteration, should be subject to the negative resolution procedure. As the noble Lord, Lord Low, has just said, the Government have conceded that the first iteration should be subject to the affirmative procedure. That is very welcome. However, as he also said, the most recent report from the DPRR Committee said that although that is welcome,

“there is nothing in the Government’s response to suggest that revisions to the code will necessarily be of any less significance or importance so as to warrant a lower level of scrutiny. Accordingly, we remain of the view that the case has not been made for applying the draft negative procedure, and for this reason we consider the draft affirmative procedure should also apply where the code is being revised”.

That is what Amendment 209 would achieve.

I will just briefly mention Amendments 207 and 208, because they also deal with some aspects of the Bill that are not being redrafted by government Amendments 210 and 211. Clause 68(2), in particular, says that, in putting forward the code or any revisions:

“The Secretary of State must consult such persons as the Secretary of State thinks fit”.

We think that it should not be the decision of the Secretary of State as to who he or she consults about the code but that there should be a public consultation lasting 90 days, which is what Amendment 207 in particular would also achieve.

--- Later in debate ---

I hope my responses on these points have reassured noble Lords of the intention behind our Government’s amendments and of our understanding of the importance noble Lords rightly place on the code and its approvals process. I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Low of Dalston]

I am very grateful to the Minister for his careful response and the way in which he dealt with the arguments and to all other noble Lords who have spoken in support of my amendments. As I say, I am very grateful to the noble Lord but I am not entirely persuaded. I think he said that the previous code had been introduced in 2001 and that, because of the pressure on parliamentary time, it had not been possible to find any time to update it between then and now. I cannot believe that it would not be possible to find any parliamentary time—not a lot is required—for a debate on the affirmative procedure. I find it hard to believe that one could not find any time in 12 years, so I was not entirely persuaded there, nor, it seems, was the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. However, I will not press the point any further at this stage, so I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 206 withdrawn.

Children and Families Bill

Lord Low of Dalston Excerpts

Monday 4th November 2013 Grand Committee

[Lord Low of Dalston (CB)]

My Lords, I have added my name to Amendments 137, 145, 165 and 173, but I do not propose to speak to them in any detail because we have been on this debate for a good long time. We have heard a number of full and eloquent speeches and I do not wish to go over what noble Lords have said. However, I should like to add a couple of points.

The Government are presumably worried that parents and young people will assume that they have an automatic right to an education, health and care plan up to the age of 25, but that is not something that the Government need to be too worried about. Most young people will not want to stay in education until they are 25. As the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, said, these amendments do not seek a blank cheque for continuing education for all young people to the age of 25 regardless of the type and purpose of the course they are pursuing; rather, they envisage local authorities supporting young people to achieve their agreed education, health and care plan outcomes, allowing them to progress to a job, develop their independent living skills, make an economic contribution to their community and avoid swelling the ranks of those who are not in education, employment or training.

I do not think that age needs to be mentioned at all, as the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, just said. Most young people will achieve their education, health and care plan outcomes well before the age of 25, as they do now. Young people must have the opportunity to continue their educational programmes to achieve their agreed outcomes in age-appropriate settings in order to make the transition to adulthood, including work and independent living. These amendments will ensure that the existing protections for 16 to 25 year-olds are not lost.

In that connection, Ministers have stated that no one should be worse off as a result of the Bill. Currently, the learning difficulty assessment statutory guidance requires local authorities to maintain learning difficulty assessment and support to allow the young person to achieve their potential in employment and independent living up to the age of 25. That is in part a recognition of the fact that some disabled people may take longer to reach their potential.

The Bill should therefore not derogate from what is provided for in the current learning difficulty assessment guidance. As the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, told us, independent specialist providers support many students who need a longer period to complete their studies or training. Many such providers also have significant numbers of students who become disabled for the first time as they approach adulthood, which obviously delays their educational progress. Decisions about whether to maintain a young person’s education, health and care plan beyond the age of 19 should be based solely on the young person’s progress in relation to their planned outcomes. Their age up to 25 is not the most significant factor. Focusing disproportionately on age will divert attention from supporting the young person to achieve the agreed outcomes in their education, health and care plan, which should be the prime consideration throughout.

[Baroness Wilkins (Lab)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 172 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Howe. I will not extend much further this excellent debate. It is very important that the Bill and the accompanying guidance is clear on the need to maintain specialist support when this is needed. It should not simply be cut when a child starts to do well. On this point, it seems that there is an inherent tension in the draft code of practice that needs to be resolved. I would be grateful if the Minister would look into this.

On the one hand, the definition of special educational needs includes children or young people who have a disability which prevents or hinders them from making use of the educational facilities of a kind generally provided for others of the same age. There are some groups of children, such as those who are deaf, to which this particularly applies. The implication is that these children have a special educational need by virtue of the fact that they are in need of specialist support to enable them to access those same educational facilities. However, there are times in the code of practice, from the tone of what is being said, when the reader can be forgiven for thinking that only children who are not making progress should be regarded as having a special educational need. For example, on page 75, it is suggested that SEN specialists should be involved when it becomes apparent that the child is making little or no progress. Many believe that this reflects a tension between the special educational needs framework of supporting children who fall behind and the disability equality framework of taking proactive steps to support disabled children.

Will the Minister look again at this to make sure that it is crystal clear that no local authority should cut support for a child because they are making good progress when it is only because they are receiving that support that they are able to make that good progress? I would also welcome his clarification for the record that children who need specialist support, such as deaf children, should be regarded as having a special educational need regardless of whether they are falling behind or making good progress.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Low of Dalston]

142A: After Clause 36, insert the following new Clause—
“RegisterMaintaining a register of sight impaired and severely sight impaired children and young people
A local authority in England must establish and maintain a register of sight impaired and severely sight impaired children and young people who are ordinarily resident in its area.”

[Lord Low of Dalston]

My Lords, the amendment would introduce a new clause after Clause 36, requiring local authorities in England to establish and maintain a register of sight-impaired and severely sight-impaired children and young people ordinarily resident in their area. Perhaps I should declare my interest, which is in the register, as a vice-president of the Royal National Institute of Blind People.

Local authorities have been required to maintain registers of blind and partially sighted people since the introduction of the National Assistance Act 1948. That obligation applied to both adults and children. Following a recommendation in the Law Commission’s report on adult social care in 2011, the Care Bill currently going through Parliament lays a duty on local authorities in Clause 73 to establish and maintain registers of sight-impaired and severely sight-impaired adults ordinarily resident in the area. However, under this Bill, no such obligation exists in relation to sight-impaired and severely sight-impaired children.

The registers, which have been maintained for some 65 years now, play a critical role in enabling local authorities to assess population level need for specialist visual impairment services and support. Evidence indicates that young children and parents greatly benefit from receiving integrated support from an early stage, following identification of a child’s sight condition. Early referral, aided by a robust system of registration, is fundamental to achieving that.

Registers serve three main purposes. First, they provide a local resource to support the local authority and partner agencies with the strategic planning of services. Secondly, they indicate a person’s eligibility for certain benefits. As a matter of fact, under universal credit, children who are registered blind will be entitled to receive the severe disability addition in recognition of the household’s need for greater support. Thirdly, in the case of children and young people, the process of being registered with the local authority assists with early referral to specialist services and support, including help from voluntary groups. The requirement to maintain a register for adults assists local authorities in planning services and meeting individuals’ needs. If the same duty is not placed on local authorities with regard to children, it seems inevitable that the service planning and arrangements to meet the needs of a specific group of children and young people will be less effective.

Existing legal provisions on the maintenance of a register of disabled children are inadequate. The Children Act 1989 states that local authorities “shall open and maintain” registers for “disabled children”, but those general registers are scarcely used and do not meet sensory services requirements. The certification and registration process in relation to those with a visual handicap is unique in its potential to bring health and social care together. The situation for children is even more complicated, because social care and education both need to be involved. For example, early access to mobility training arranged through social care has a profound impact on blind and partially sighted children’s development and ability to benefit from education.

The greatest fear is that, without a statutory basis, registers of visually impaired children could fall into disuse.

On 7 September last year, in response to a Parliamentary Question from Stephen Gilbert MP, the Minister in another place said that:

“A local authority is required to keep a register of disabled children within its area and this will include children who are sight impaired and severely sight impaired”,—[Official Report, Commons, 13/9/12; col. 384W.]

but there, as your Lordships will appreciate, he was referring to the general registers. These registers for all disabled children are scarcely used and many practitioners regard them as obsolete.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Low, for moving Amendment 142A.

The new clause seeks to replicate Clause 76 in the Care Bill, which would establish registers for visually impaired adults. The RNIB has, understandably, raised concerns that such measures for those under 18 are missing from this Bill. I agree with the noble Lord about the critical role of the register in planning services. However, local authorities are already under a duty to maintain a register of disabled children and young people under Section 17 of the Children Act 1989: the noble Lord, Lord Low, referred to the 1948 Act. This register includes blind children and young people; changes proposed through the Care Bill will not remove this duty. The RNIB, and the noble Lord, report that local authorities sometimes neglect their duty to maintain such registers. However, the same risk and difficulty would apply with the proposed new clause. It provides no greater statutory guarantee than that already provided by the Children Act.

We want to ensure that local authorities are effectively meeting the needs of blind or partially sighted children. There are a number of requirements in the Bill that should achieve this. Clause 22 requires local authorities to identify,

“children and young people in its area who have or may have special educational needs”.

Clause 26 requires local authorities to make joint commissioning arrangements that include consideration of the education, health and care provision reasonably required by local children and young people with SEN. Clause 27 requires them to review the special education and care provision that is available locally.

Together, these provide a clear framework that requires local authorities to plan for and meet the needs of children with SEN, including blind or visually impaired children and young people. Following discussion of this issue in another place, the Minister for Children and Families committed to give further consideration to these issues. Officials from the Department for Education met with the RNIB to agree a way forward. As a result, page 36 of the draft SEN code of practice highlights the importance of using the registers to plan services. The code states:

“Local authorities are required under schedule 2 of the Children Act 1989 to maintain a register of disabled children in their area. These registers are particularly helpful for providing data on low-incidence needs that can be difficult to predict from national data sets.”

The noble Lord, Lord Low, referred to low-incidence needs.

I hope this removes any doubt or misinformation that registers of disabled children are somehow no longer required. I hope that the duties in the Bill, along with the additional guidance added to the SEN code of practice, provide sufficient reassurance that we expect, and require, local authorities to identify and meet the needs of children and young people with a visual impairment. I therefore hope that the noble Lord, Lord Low, will feel able to withdraw his amendment in due course.

[Lord Low of Dalston]

I am grateful to the noble Earl for his response, which I shall want to read with care. At first blush, it does not really persuade me that the case I made when I moved my amendment has been answered. The noble Earl referred to the Care Bill and its provisions but those apply only to adults, not to children. He also referred to the general registers of disabled children which are maintained under the Children Act. However, as I have indicated, these do not seem to work very well and are certainly not visual-impairment specific. They do not, in any way, reproduce the visual-impairment specific registers which we have been used to using ever since the National Assistance Act. There has been long-standing provision for visual impairment registers and I cannot understand the reason for removing it from statutory provision.

The Minister referred to the code of practice and I will certainly want to look at that. Indeed, I will look carefully at the full text of what the Minister has said. However, at first blush, it does not seem to me that a reference to the Care Bill, the general registers maintained under the Children Act or the code of practice really amounts to the same sort of provision as visually impaired people and their organisations have been used to enjoying since the registers were introduced under the National Assistance Act. I do not really understand the reason for removing that provision.

All sorts of discussions have taken place between the RNIB and officials. I have not been involved in them and I would be very grateful if the Minister would agree to meet me to talk this through before Report in the hope that we can get a resolution of this matter. That would avoid the necessity to bring back further amendments which might be of a divisive nature on Report.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I, or my noble friend Lady Northover, would be delighted to have any meeting as suggested by the noble Lord.

[Lord Low of Dalston]

I am very grateful to the Minister for that. I have experience of his courtesy and willingness to spend time discussing matters of mutual concern. I should be very glad to take him up on that offer. As I say, I hope that in that way we will be able to reach a resolution that will avoid me having to bring the matter back on Report. For now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 142A withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Low of Dalston]

143: Clause 37, page 30, line 20, at end insert—
“( ) any social care provision which the local authority considers to be necessary in order to meet the needs of the disabled person under section 2 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970.”

[Lord Low of Dalston]

My Lords, Amendment 143 concerns the type of social care provision that should be included in education, health and care plans. Under Clause 36(2), the assessment process for an education, health and care plan should include,

“an assessment of the … social care needs of a child or young person”.

That assessment applies to social care provision from either children’s or adult services, depending on the age of the child or young person with an education, health and care plan. There is no disagreement with the Government in principle. Everyone agrees that an education, health and care assessment should include an assessment of a child’s or young person’s social care needs.

The disagreement concerns which social care needs should be assessed and then included in education, health and care plans. As drafted, the Bill states that following the assessment of social care needs a child’s or a young person’s education, health and care plan—EHC plan—must include the social care provision,

“reasonably required by the learning difficulties and disabilities which result in him or her having special educational needs”.

That is set out in Clause 37(2)(d).

The problem I apprehend with the language in Clause 37(2)(d) is that it is language that cannot be found in any existing children’s or adult social care legislation. I cannot understand why we would want to create a whole new terminology in this Bill when we already have clear definitions in social care law. Amendment 143 is an attempt to address that disparity between existing social care law and the Children and Families Bill. The way in which the Bill is drafted appears to add a new definition of social care on top of the existing duties in social care legislation. That can only cause confusion and uncertainty for council officers and the children, young people and their families who use their services.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Nash]

As I have said, there are very significant duties around disabled children. The plan is not intended to affect that. Amendments 162, 163 and 164 would prevent such local decision-making, to which I have just referred, creating an individually owed duty prioritising the social care needs of children with SEN over the social care needs of other children in need.

Similarly, Amendments 143 and 144A should not stand. Social care provision is defined deliberately broadly in the Bill. Clause 21(4) includes any provision required under the Children Act 1989 or the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 and therefore will be included in the design of the local offer. It is only where that provision is reasonably required by the learning difficulty or disability of a child or young person that it will have to be included in the EHC plan.

Amendments 143 and 144A would require any services provided under the 1970 Act to be included in the EHC plan. However, the vast majority of services for disabled children that are provided under the 1970 Act will be reasonably required by the learning difficulty or disability of the child and therefore must be included in the EHC plan anyway.

On Amendment 143, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Low, we are not convinced that there should be a requirement that all services provided under Section 2 of the 1970 Act must be included in EHC plans regardless of individual circumstances. EHC plans are for children and young people with learning difficulties or a disability that gives rise to special educational needs. Where this also gives rise to health and care needs, that must be included in plans so that a co-ordinated approach can be taken across services. Where there are unrelated health or social care needs, it may or may not be appropriate to also include them in an EHC plan, for example, depending on whether the child or young person would benefit from a co-ordinated service response. I believe that those decisions should be left to local professionals, in full consultation with children, their parents and young people.

At the same time, Amendment 144A would remove the important discretion the Bill gives to the local authority to decide whether provision made under Section 17 of the Children Act should be included in the plan, where it is unrelated to the child or young person’s learning difficulty or disability. This discretion is essential as there may be circumstances where the children’s interests that we are trying to meet require that we do not bind the hands of local services in this respect—for example, where there is provision related to child protection, which is highly sensitive and is not always appropriate to include in an EHC plan. Whether or not social care provision is linked to the learning difficulty or disability of the child or young person, it will continue to be provided in accordance with existing legislation.

Concerning my noble friend Lady Gardner’s point about there being a possible gap between adult and children’s social care, I reassure her that young people aged 18 and over who are eligible for adult social care will, under provisions set out in the Care Bill, have a statutory care plan. For young people with SEN, our intention is that this should form the care element of the EHC plan. Both Bills contain provisions that will significantly improve the transition between children’s and adult social care. In view of what I have said, I urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Low of Dalston]

My Lords, we have had an extremely good debate with some very cogent contributions from everyone who spoke in support of the concept enshrined in this group of amendments: that there is not a lot of point in specifying provision if there is no possibility of enforcing it. As I see it, my amendments were seeking only to give effect to the integrated approach between education, health and social care that has been the Government’s vision ever since they published the Support and Aspiration Green Paper.

Initially, the Bill simply contained provision for education but the department was badgered about putting in an integrated approach, so it badgered the Department of Health and, in due course, got it to cave in. A health provision was put in but, for some reason, we do not seem to have had the social care provision inserted at the point of provision. That seems extremely odd since, as has emerged in the debate, there are already provisions in the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act for ensuring the provision of social care services anyway. I am not quite sure what the difficulty is in delivering social care, when there are already those statutory obligations in that Act to lock this legislation on to. It seems clear that there should be no difficulty in bringing in the social care provision, using the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act as the vehicle.

The fact that needs are limitless and that it is wrong to privilege some children over others has been advanced by the Minister as a reason for not unifying the legislation. However, it seems to me that that splits off the enforceable obligations relating to social care at the wrong point. As the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, said, if social care provision is specified in the plan then it should be provided. Otherwise, what is the point of the plan? If the authority thinks that it cannot provide certain services or cannot make certain kinds of provision, it should not put them into the plan. Providing for things to be specified in the plan without providing the legislative framework for securing the provision seems to be a mistake, and that view has prevailed throughout the debate.

There has been a strong head of steam in the debate about the need to provide an integrated legislative framework for enabling the enforcement of the social care provision specified in plans. The Committee has spoken strongly and pretty much with one voice on this, so we will need to return to it on Report. For now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 143 withdrawn.

Children and Families Bill

Lord Low of Dalston Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd October 2013 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Low of Dalston]

65B: Clause 19, page 18, line 30, at end insert—
“( ) whether the child is a disabled person for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010 and, if so, the obligations falling on the local authority as a result including any obligations under section 20 of that Act (namely the duty to make reasonable adjustments).”

[Lord Low of Dalston (CB)]

My Lords, having laboured, not without difficulty, up the lower slopes of this major and compendious piece of legislation, we come at last to a major plateau where we can either take our rest or chafe at the impediment it still constitutes on the way to the summit.

I refer to Part 3, on special educational needs. I describe it as a major plateau because more than 200 amendments to Part 3 have been tabled for debate in 35 groups. I fear that I am responsible for more than 20 of them. At the current rate of progress, that should take us a good five days. Perhaps that is not so bad; four were allowed for in the Committee calendar. I certainly do not intend to hold up progress any more than necessary. I just observe, however, that the fact that there are so many amendments testifies to concern that the Bill is not yet in a fit state to go on to the statute book if it is properly to serve the needs of the children and young people whose lives and futures it deals with; to disappointment that the Government have not been more responsive to concerns raised so far; and to the hope that we will see more movement as the Bill passes through this House, so that its passage into law does not need to be delayed beyond the timescale that the Government have in mind.

Let us see whether we can get four amendments out of the way without more ado. I am moving Amendment 65B and speaking to Amendments 87, 90A and 105. Amendments 65B, 67 and 105 would ensure that the Bill covered children and young people who have a disability under the Equality Act 2010 but do not have a special educational need. The language varies slightly, and this is just a random selection of places in the Bill where children and young people with a disability but not a special educational need could be inserted. Clause 19 deals with local authorities’ role in supporting and involving children and young people, Clause 26 deals with joint commissioning arrangements and Clause 30 concerns the local offer. In that sense, they are probing amendments to gain more understanding of the Government’s reasons for introducing a Bill that deals with children with special educational needs but not with children and young people with a disability who do not have special educational needs. Amendments 65B and 90A also ensure that the principal obligation owed by local authorities by virtue of the Equality Act to children and young people with disabilities but not a special educational need—the duty to make reasonable adjustments —is covered. Amendment 90A, in particular, is designed to ensure that the reasonable adjustment duty is firmly integrated into the planning of education, health and social care services.

Part 3 applies to children and young people with special educational needs. Children and young people with special educational needs are defined in the Bill as those who have a significantly greater difficulty in learning than the majority of others of the same age or a disability which prevents them from making use of the educational facilities usually available in that area. Although many disabled children and young people are covered by that definition of SEN, some are not. For example, the following children would be disabled but have no special educational need: a child with a physical disability whose school was completely accessible to them or a child with a serious health condition that does not impact on their learning or ability to access the school premises. That group could include those with epilepsy, asthma, diabetes or a motor or musculoskeletal disorder, all of which might require medical treatment or therapies to be administered in school, possibly alongside a social care package at home, but would not require any educational interventions.

Research from the universities of Bath and Bristol, commissioned by the DfE itself, estimated that around 25% of disabled children do not also have special educational needs. The impact of this omission is that the Bill will require local authorities and clinical commissioning groups to plan jointly under Clause 26 and review under Clause 27 provision for the 75% of disabled children and young people with SEN but not for the 25% of disabled children without SEN. Under Clause 30, local authorities must set out a local offer of services available for the 75% of disabled children and young people with SEN but not for the 25% without SEN. The Bill thus creates a dividing line between children with SEN and disabled children without SEN and, as a result, certain things must be done for one group and not the other.

As well as being unfair, leaving disability out of Clauses 26, 27 and 30 does not make sense on a practical level. The label SEN is simply not used by social care or health commissioners. For example, under the Children Act 1989, social care services are delivered to disabled children, not children with SEN. Locally, the Bill as currently drafted will lead to confusing arguments about whether a service is for children with SEN or only for disabled children. There would be no additional cost to including disabled children without SEN in the duty to review services or jointly commission services. It could even end up saving money by creating a more streamlined system.

There are three things wrong with leaving disability out. First, as we have seen, in the new world of integrated education, health and social care, it will lead to confusion and unnecessary boundary disputes. Secondly, it misses a golden opportunity to rationalise the legislation on SEN and disability. SEN legislation is a river fed by two tributaries—SEN legislation itself and disability discrimination legislation. These overlap to a significant extent—some 75% as the universities of Bath and Bristol have shown—but not entirely. This Bill would be a perfect opportunity to bring the two streams together into a single, more coherent framework. Thirdly, leaving disability out goes back on what was promised in the Green Paper on SEN and disability.

This promised a new deal for children with SEN and disabled children. Local authorities would be required to set out a local offer of services available to support children who have SEN or who are disabled. There would be stronger strategic planning and commissioning duties to support children who have SEN or who are disabled. The Bill sets out stronger strategic planning and commissioning duties but, importantly, it does not include disabled children in these clauses, as was promised. I understand that the Government believe that disability is adequately covered in the Bill as a result of Clause 20 but the references to disability there are all to a disability that calls for special educational provision to be made. I fear that does not really bring in those with disabilities but without SEN.

Finally, to hammer the last nail in, it should be noted that the Education Select Committee, in its pre-legislative scrutiny, was in favour of including disabled children without SEN. It said:

“The evidence makes a strong case to include disabled children, with or without SEN, in the scope of entitlement to integrated provision … We recommend this”.

I hope very much that the Minister will review the legislation with a view to bringing in this important category of children and young people. and thereby making the legislative framework a lot more coherent and practical. I beg to move.

[Lord Storey (LD)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 67 and 68. The current test in the Bill for whether someone has special educational needs is whether they have a learning difficulty or a disability that would require special educational provision, defined in Clause 21 as,

“educational or training provision that is additional to, or different from, that made generally for others of the same age”.

Amendment 68 would mean that the test of whether someone has a special educational need would be based not on whether they need special educational provision but, instead, on whether provision has to be made for them to access education. What is the difference? Someone could have barriers to their accessing education which do not require,

“educational or training provision that is additional to, or different from, that made generally”.

For example, simply being unable to access a class, due to stairs, for a wheelchair user, is nothing to do with education or training provision but instead about their ability to access education.

Why do I think that this amendment is important? When the Government originally published their proposals for the Bill, when Sarah Teather was the Children’s Minister, the focus was very much on special education and disability needs. The Government have said that this does not prevent the provisions being applied to disabled children when there are barriers to them accessing education. Clause 20 includes disabled children as people who have special educational needs. However, clarity is needed about what might constitute a barrier to education. Are we just talking about things such as additional support—Braille, and so on—or do we include the simple ability to get to a class or get through a lesson due to a spinal problem? This amendment is a probing one to clarify that educational or training provision includes the ability to access education and does not apply only to the actual classroom or teaching session.

I move on to Amendments 220, 221 and 222. Your Lordships all get letters, briefings and, in some cases, speaking notes from a whole host of organisations. I am always amazed at the fortitude of those organisations in campaigning, rightly, for what they really believe in. But sometimes, in the barrage of the correspondence, we get personal letters or comments from individuals who are not part of a gigantic campaign—they are individual snapshots of how that person feels. One such letter came to me some time ago, about allergies. I remember in my own school children with nut allergies. Knowing nothing about it, I did a bit of exploration and realised that this was very serious. If they had an allergy, we needed to make sure that their photographs were pinned up by the canteen and that the Epipen that they needed to save their lives was readily available.

I want to read you this letter from a child, whose name I shall not mention, because it shows how important it is that no child with a medical condition should be prevented from having full-time school provision. The letter says:

“Since the age of 9 months I have had to use the EPI-PEN 13 times. Regardless of all my allergies I have always had a positive attitude to life, and that’s how my mum has always taught me to help me learn how to live in the bigger wider world and my dad has always taught me to smile. Because of this I have been able to live my life to the fullest and we have travelled and had fun whilst doing many exciting things. Nursery, primary and my first year of high school were great and memorable years and the schools have always managed with my allergies.

Now we zoom into 2013 and let’s see what’s going on now. We’ve moved in a new area and my mum applied for schools in our area as they were more nearer to home, we didn’t get the schools we applied for but in the meantime I was offered a place in another school straight away. But all the staff in my new school are worried about my allergies and they aren’t giving me a starting date, it’s been 8 weeks I’ve been out of school and still don’t know when I’m starting!”.

I read that letter as an example of how a medical condition, which the school should cater for, is preventing that poor little girl being able to get to school.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Nash]

I am happy to stimulate that discussion. The guidance will make clear our expectation that schools, local authorities and health professions work together in the interests of the child. That is essential. I am happy to discuss this further with the noble Lord.

[Lord Low of Dalston]

My Lords, this has been quite a long debate. We have been going for nearly a couple of hours. It has been a very wide-ranging debate. I have not totted up the number of amendments that have been spoken to, but it seems to be 10 or a dozen. I am sure that at this advanced stage in the Committee’s deliberations this afternoon, your Lordships would not want me to make a full response on all the amendments that have been spoken to and to which the Minister has responded. I am not quite sure whether that is my role or whether I should simply respond to my own amendment, although I will not do even that in any detail. A lot of observations have been made and the Minister has responded. I believe that we all will want to read what everyone has said and what the Minister said in his response to this wide-ranging debate. Then we will know to what extent we want to focus on issues on Report. Certainly, a great many issues have been raised and I am sure that we will wish to return to some of them after having read and reflected on this debate. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 65B withdrawn.

Moved by

[Lord Low of Dalston]

65C: Clause 19, page 18, line 30, at end insert—
“( ) the distinction between children for whom parents have some legal responsibility and young adults who must be supported to participate as fully as possible in their own right, in decisions relating to the exercise of the function concerned.”

[Lord Low of Dalston]

It is me again so soon. Amendment 65C is the only amendment in this group, which means that I should be able to speak to it somewhat more briefly. The amendment is about the rights of disabled young adults. In using the term “disabled people”, I include those with SEN. Referring to disabled people will help to anchor the notion that the Bill, as we discussed as regards the previous group, should be about disabled people without SEN as well as those with SEN.

The Bill does not clearly distinguish between the rights of children and those of young adults. As the age range covered by the Bill goes from birth to 25, the rights of young adults need to be clearly differentiated. Parental responsibility for decision-making is in place until the age of 18. While that is subject to some flexibility in certain areas, such as consent to medical treatment and Gillick competency, the position is different from that relating to those aged more than 18 who have their own rights and responsibilities, and where parents do not have a specific legal role unless the young person lacks competency.

I am concerned that the Bill does not make this distinction clearly enough. Therefore, it has the potential to blur the right of young, disabled adults aged more than 18 to be involved in decisions about their own education. Amendment 65C makes clear that disabled young people must be consulted and involved in their own right, and supported to participate as fully as possible in the process. Other young people would not expect decisions about their future to be made for them, so nor should this be the case for disabled young people. I beg to move.

[Baroness Northover]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Low, for tabling this amendment. The SEN provisions bestow important new rights on young people—that is, those over compulsory school age—for the first time and the noble Lord is right to draw our attention to the distinction that we are making here.

I assure the noble Lord that the Bill already makes the distinction between children in relation to whom decisions are made by their parents and young people who make those decisions themselves. A local authority would be in breach of its duties if it failed to make such a distinction. Clause 27 requires local authorities to consult young people when it reviews its special educational provision and social care provision. Regulation 4 of the local offer regulations is very clear that local authorities must consult with young people directly over the local offer. That may be an implementation challenge for many local authorities but it does not require a change to legislation. For young people with education, health and care plans, which may be particularly relevant to what the noble Lord has just raised, it is they, not their parents, who must be consulted about their assessment and plans.

It would be impossible for a local authority to fulfil its statutory duties under these clauses without having due regard to the distinction between children and young people. The draft code is also very clear on this point: paragraph 3.2 says:

“Where there is a conflict of interests between the young person and the parent, it is the view of the young person that prevails”.

Parents are not ruled out, of course; they can still support and help a young person in whatever way the young person wants them to. Chapter 3.2 of the draft code acknowledges that,

“some young people will need support from a skilled advocate to ensure that their views are heard and acknowledged”,

and Chapter 3.3 says it is clear that,

“staff working directly with young people should be trained to support them and work in partnership with them, enabling them to participate fully in decisions about the outcomes they wish to achieve”.

I hope that this reassures the noble Lord, and I urge him to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Low of Dalston]

My Lords, there seems to be a good deal in the Minister’s response that should potentially provide quite a bit of reassurance. I want to read it, but I certainly do not intend to argue the toss about it or prolong the debate at this stage. I am happy to beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 65C withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Low of Dalston]

65D: Clause 19, page 18, line 30, at end insert—
“( ) the need to continue to develop an inclusive system where parents of disabled children have increasing access to mainstream schools and staff and which have the capacity to meet the needs of disabled children.”

[Lord Low of Dalston]

My Lords, I shall also speak in support of Amendment 157B, which was tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, and is a slightly rejigged version of Amendment 157A, which is somewhat improved, at the suggestion of the DfE, by putting the inserted words at the end of Clause 39(4) rather than at the beginning. I also added my name to the noble Baroness’s Amendment 219, but I shall not say anything about that, except to signify my support because there will not really be time, and in any case I have to leave her something to talk about.

Amendment 65D enshrines a recommendation of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. Under the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, states undertake to,

“ensure an inclusive education system at all levels”,

and are required to ensure that:

“Persons with disabilities can access an inclusive … primary … and secondary education on an equal basis with others in the communities in which they live”.

One of the principal obligations undertaken by states under the convention is:

“To adopt all appropriate legislative, administrative and other measures for the implementation of the rights recognized in the … Convention”.

In relation to the right to education, states are also under an obligation to,

“take measures … with a view to achieving progressively the full realization of these rights”.

When the UK ratified the convention—in 2009, I think it was—it entered a reservation and interpretive declaration to the right to inclusive education, but the terms of its declaration made clear that the UK accepted the obligation of progressive realisation of the right to inclusive education. Clause 33 retains the current statutory presumption in favour of education in a mainstream setting, but this has been the subject of continued debate and considerable litigation. The frequency of such litigation about the presumption in favour of mainstream education suggests that the current state of the law and guidance leaves considerable scope for uncertainty. If scope for such uncertainty exists, the UK’s obligation under the UN convention to take steps to increase access to mainstream education for people with disabilities might require the Government to remove the uncertainty by clarifying the law and/or the relevant guidance.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Nash]

We do not accept it. We feel that we deal with it in the provisions that I have mentioned. I will be happy to discuss this further.

Inclusive and accessible provision is clearly an issue that many noble Lords feel strongly about and have genuine concerns. I hope that I have explained how the Government are approaching the issue and the steps that we are taking. As I said at the beginning of my response, I welcome the opportunity to meet noble Lords and will be happy to do so further on this point. In view of what I have said, though, I would be grateful if the noble Lord could withdraw his amendments.

[Lord Low of Dalston]

I am grateful to all those who have spoken unanimously in support of these amendments. I am particularly grateful to the Minister for his painstaking and comprehensive response. However, I am slightly reminded of a meeting that we had with DfE officials, before the Minister’s time, when after the meeting I said to someone, “How do you think that went?”, and he said, “Well, I think they agreed with everything we said provided it didn’t mean they had to change the Bill”.

I acknowledge straight away that we are in the same place, including the Minister and those on this side of the Table, in our support for the principle of inclusion, and that is a good thing. The Minister ran through a large number of measures that the Government are taking in support of the principle of inclusion, some of them legal and some of them other forms of support. I am inclined to regard them as what you might call “soft” measures—soft support for inclusion. However, the Minister wanted to steer away from anchoring the principle too firmly in hard law in the Bill. We were not seeking law that was too hard; the JCHR’s amendment is couched in terms of general principle and is not very coercive.

Amendment 157B simply seeks to achieve a common approach between the unsuitability limbs and the incompatibility limb by applying the “reasonable steps” obligation in relation to both of them. It is incontestable that both ought to be approached in the same way; it does not make sense to have a “reasonable steps” operation in relation to one but not the other. That is the position at the moment and we have an opportunity to put it right. There cannot be an objection to having a “reasonable steps” obligation at all in the legislation because it is there at the moment. What is wrong with the legislation is it is there in relation to one ground of objection but not the other; it seems only sensible to apply it to both. Then there is Amendment 219, which, as we have heard, is more wide-ranging.

I should not overlook the fact that the Minister made some reference to anchoring the principle of inclusion in legal form in the legislation, but it took the form of schools using their best endeavours. My heart sank a bit at that point, because it seemed to take us back to the Education Act 1981, which made the first tentative steps in legislation towards enshrining the principle of inclusion in legislation. There it was enshrined in terms of schools and authorities using their best endeavours. As the Minister made clear, we have moved on a bit since then, so to offer a best endeavours provision as a consolation prize for us in tabling these amendments is a bit disappointing.

However, I am grateful to the Minister for his offer to meet us to have discussions on these issues before Report. I am sure that we are all in the same place in wanting some clear recognition of inclusion in the legislation, and I hope that by a process of discussion we can come to agreement on a form in which to enshrine that in the legislation. On that basis, I am happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment this evening.

Amendment 65D withdrawn.

Children and Families Bill

Lord Low of Dalston Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd July 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Low of Dalston]

My Lords, I too shall concentrate on Part 3 of the Bill. When the DfE published its Support and Aspiration Green Paper in 2011, there were high hopes among parents that there would be a genuine transformation in the support available to disabled children and children with special educational needs. The Green Paper held the promise of a single, accessible system of joined-up support, delivered through an education, health and care plan. We were promised that parents’ endless battles with bureaucracy would be consigned to the history books and instead a system characterised by simplicity and transparency would be ushered in.

In 2011, the SEN and disability sector broadly welcomed the ambitions of the Green Paper, with its proposals to create a more coherent, joined-up approach to meeting the needs of children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities. Overall, however, while the Bill obviously moves in the right direction in a number of ways—notably with the introduction of education, health and care plans—the sector does not feel that the Bill delivers on the original objectives of the Green Paper or that, as drafted, it fulfils the Government’s ambition to create a better co-ordinated and less adversarial system. The sector feels that the Bill is too focused on education-related services and does not provide an adequate framework to draw health and social care services into the system of support for children with special educational needs.

Unless this is addressed, the Bill will simply replicate and reinforce the fragmentation in the current system. The charity Scope goes so far as to say that the Bill as it stands will fail the vast majority of children with SEN—notably the 87%, or 1.4 million—who will not be eligible for the new plans; nor in some areas does it protect the existing rights of children, young people and their families. During debates in the Commons, the Minister undertook to consider a number of issues, but the Every Disabled Child Matters campaign and the Special Educational Consortium believe that the Bill still requires major improvement if it is to deliver the Government’s stated aim of better outcomes for children and young people with SEN.

As currently drafted, there is a risk that the Bill will make things worse. I have to tell the Minister that there is a real sense of frustration and disappointment out there at the Government’s lack of serious engagement with the many reasonable points put to it—notably, as has been mentioned, by Robert Buckland MP—so I very much hope that we will be able to do a good deal better now that the Bill has reached your Lordships’ House.

I have about half the time that I was banking on for my speech, so I will skip over the things I wanted to welcome. Like the noble Lord, Lord Storey, I was deluged over the weekend by briefs calling for literally dozens of amendments to the Bill. I shall mention five areas by way of putting down markers for where I shall wish to see amendments in Committee. It is beginning to get repetitive by this point, so I will touch on them only briefly, but it reveals a consensus that is developing across the House about the changes that need to be made. Before I do that, as vice-president of RNIB, in which I declare my interest, I shall flag up the need to mirror in this Bill the requirement on local authorities in the Care Bill to maintain registers of visually impaired people.

Now for the changes. First, the Bill undermines current entitlements. I will give just three examples. As the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, said, Clause 21(5) raises the bar for accessing therapies that are vital for some children if they are to be able to access education. Secondly, Clause 34(9) means that special academies will be able to admit children or young people without having their SEN statutorily assessed or an EHC plan put in place. This creates a risk that children and young people will be inappropriately placed in special schools and undermines the principle that mainstream settings must be inclusive for all children and young people.

Thirdly, local authorities will no longer have to comply with all the current requirements in relation to statutory assessments, including time limits and consulting relevant professionals.

On the second change, like the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes, I am concerned that despite calls from the Education Select Committee, the Bill fails to bring disabled children and young people who would currently be covered by special education legislation within its scope. Research has estimated that in the region of 25% of disabled children may not have SEN, but it is just as vital that they have access to support for their health and social care needs. A good example of where the Bill is deficient in this respect is the way in which Clause 30 provides that the local offer has to include only information on services for children and young people with SEN, not services that disabled children and young people might need to use.

Thirdly, still following in the footsteps of the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes, although the noble Lord, Lord Rix, was prophetic in his anticipation of what I was going to say, the EHC plan is not yet a single plan across all three areas. Under the Bill, it remains essentially an education plan. It is not the radical reform that the Government promised and that parents were expecting. To achieve that, it needs to be amended in two ways. First, it needs to establish a duty on local authorities not just to deliver the educational provision set out in the EHC plan but to assess the social care needs of a child or young person and deliver the support identified as necessary. Secondly, it needs to provide a single route of appeal for parents, children and young people to challenge decisions about the content of EHC plans.

Fourthly, provisions relating to the local offer are too weak. Clause 30 requires local authorities to produce information on the education, health and care services that it expects to be available locally. That is known as the local offer. As such, it is purely descriptive of the services that the local authority currently has on offer. Local authorities need to be under more of an obligation to identify the needs that exist in their area and ensure that they have the services in place to meet those needs. The Bill needs to be strengthened to ensure that children and young people and their families can hold local agencies to account for the delivery of those services.

Fifthly, and finally, there is the collapsing of the present two tiers of school support, school action and school action plus, into a single category of additional SEN support. The Government are yet to produce any evidence that that will lead to any improvement in educational outcomes on the present system based on early intervention and a graduated approach. Indeed, there is a risk that it will lead to a degradation of the present system of support. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes, said, that concerns the majority of children with SEN—84%—who receive additional support from the school’s own budget, so we need to be sure of what we are doing here.

The pathfinder pilots were set up in September 2011 to provide the evidence on which to base the development of the new system. To date, the evidence is very thin. We do not even have basic data such as the types of needs that children have and the type of education that they are receiving. How can authorities be expected to plan with any degree of confidence in those circumstances? We must remember that the 31 local authorities involved in the pathfinder pilots were motivated to put themselves forward to test the new system and are receiving additional resources to do so. What hope will there be for the local authorities that do not have those advantages?

This is the nub of the matter. The pathfinders will not finalise their report until September 2014. That is the date when the new system is supposed to come into force. It seems essential that there is a delay in implementation if we are to get this right. As other people have said, what happens now will affect the lives of children, young people and their families for a generation, not just the term of a Government.