Children and Families Bill

Debate between Robert Buckland and Neil Carmichael

Tuesday 11th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson), who rightly said that the Public Bill Committee not only saw a cross-party coming together of minds, but delivered meaningful scrutiny of probably the most important Bill relating to special educational needs that we will see in a generation. It is 30 years since the Education Act 1981 broke the ground after the noble Baroness Warnock made her recommendations. We are in the unique position as legislators of being able to make a step change for the generations to come. That is why it is incumbent on us all to get the detail right.

I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for his constructive engagement with the debate, and not only in the Public Bill Committee. He has engaged not only with Members of this House, but with the disability sector. He has brought understanding and experience to the deliberations of the Bill, which we have enjoyed. I note with enthusiasm his willingness to improve the Bill. As has rightly been said, the Government have introduced important legal duties on clinical commissioning groups to bolt down the health elements of education, health and care plans. That good work goes on today in the form of further amendments.

To get to the meat of the matter, I will deal in turn with each of the amendments that I have tabled; my comments have been foreshadowed by those of the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West. I am grateful to her for outlining what I want to say and make no criticism of that at all. Amendment 37, which appears in my name and hers, relates to the social care element of education, health and care plans. It is, as she described it, the last piece in the jigsaw.

I enjoyed the exchange that I had with the Minister about this matter in Committee. It is correct that the groundbreaking Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 contains an important duty that can be applied to social care services for disabled children. However, there is a danger that in failing to link that existing duty with the duties that we are creating, we will not escape the silo effect of assessments. What do I mean by that? There is a danger that a wholly separate social care assessment will continue to be made, without the global approach that I and the Minister believe is the ethos behind the Bill. It would therefore be a missed opportunity if, for want of a few short amendments, we missed this trick.

We should look at this matter from the point of view of the parent of a child who comes fresh to a system of which they have no experience. Surely the thrust of our approach must be oriented around not just the child, but their family. We have heard many stories—I speak from experience—of parents having to reinvent the wheel every time they engage with a separate part of local provision. We must all seek to avoid that. That is why I commend the wording of amendment 37, which would do much to tie together the assessment process in the way that I have described.

On a related theme, and with regard to the point of view of parents and families, amendment 38 deals with the right of appeal against decisions that are made about the creation and ambit of education, health and care plans. The Bill allows the first-tier special educational needs and disability tribunal to hear appeals only about the education aspects of the plan. That means that it covers only part of the plan. I worry that we could end up with a complex and bureaucratic system in which challenges to the health and social care aspects of provision have to be conducted simultaneously through different tribunals, procedures and processes.

I noted with encouragement the Minister’s comments in Committee. I know that the draft code of practice, which is helpfully published alongside the Bill and will be consulted on later this year, states that having a single point of redress for all the provisions in an education, health and care plan would be helpful. He said in Committee that the existing complaints procedures in health and social care meant that it would be unnecessary to extend the powers of the tribunal. However, he made the important concession that a single point of reference would be desirable. That is helpful.

[Neil Carmichael]

When the Education Committee considered that aspect of the measures during pre-legislative scrutiny, two issues arose. The first was the difference in culture between education and health. I wonder whether my hon. Friend wants to comment on that, given that we expect education and health bodies to work together and that any accountability process could be complicated. The second issue was that health would have to take the lead in some cases because it would have the overwhelming portion of the responsibility, but the Bill focuses on education.

[Mr Buckland]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, because he makes an important umbrella point about the difficulties that could be encountered and that—dare I say it—could be exploited by clever lawyers. I often say that and I have to remind the House that, although I am not sure that I am clever, I must admit that I am of the legal profession. It is proper to concede that point against my profession, because lawyers will be instructed by local authorities that need to conserve their resources and will increasingly look to discharge their statutory duties, but to go no further. We have to avoid the scenario of families having to wait for provision while lawyers dance on the head of a pin over costly and unnecessary arguments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Buckland]

I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend, who, in effect, gives us a case study. He reminds me that I want to draw back to what we were discussing. I have a hypothetical case study before me. A young 15-year-old with Asperger’s and co-occurring mental health difficulties receives cognitive behavioural therapy. Before starting that therapy, his attendance at school was low, attending as few as two days a week, but with the help of the therapy he attends more like four days a week. His conditions have a huge effect on his home life and the quality of relations with his parents and wider family.

Under the new system, it is not clear whether that young man’s cognitive behavioural therapy would be deemed

“wholly or mainly for the purposes of…education”.

Without it, he could not access education, because he would not attend regularly. We need to answer that question. We do not want to put such people in that position, or to have artificial debates on what the law means.

[Neil Carmichael]

My hon. Friend is making an outstanding speech on a critical issue. I want to reinforce the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman) on the importance of access to national facilities, because we must not localise provision at the expense of national organisations. Ruskin Mill in my constituency, and the National Star College in my county, provide expertise that we do not necessarily find elsewhere that is critical to young people’s futures. I want to put down a strong marker that we should ensure that national facilities are not put at risk through the funding—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. We are drifting now. Interventions are supposed to be short points that are relevant to the speech at the time they are made. If Members want to contribute, they can. The hon. Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) has had the floor for some time, and other hon. Members wish to speak in this important debate. Despite his generosity in giving way, I am sure he is probably coming towards the end of what he wishes to say in this part of the debate.

Defamation Bill

Debate between Robert Buckland and Neil Carmichael

Tuesday 12th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Buckland]

My hon. Friend is right to outline, in a better way than I could, the intended progress of any reform to the law of privilege. However, I reiterate that we tamper with article 9 at our peril and should listen carefully to those who urge caution.

I raise this issue to illustrate the piecemeal way in which defamation law has been dealt with. We have let the courts, in their wisdom, develop common law, and that has happened in what many of us would regard as an acceptable way that reflects evolving views about reputational damage but is fundamentally not as directly accountable to the people we serve as it should be. That is why introducing primary legislation of this nature is the right and just thing to do. It shows the people of this country that Parliament is prepared to take a lead on an important issue such as defamation.

[Neil Carmichael]

My hon. Friend is making a good point in connection with the whole basis of the Bill. One of the dangers that we can enter into is to talk too much about technologies and systems, which will move on, change and develop as we go along. I hope he agrees that we need not necessarily just common law but primary legislation that will give us a sound legal footing to deal with defamation.

[Mr Buckland]

My hon. Friend is right. However, we must always bear in mind the ineluctable fact that primary legislation, however useful it is, can often be seen as setting in stone, or setting in a particular moment in time, the law as it then stood. Because of the inevitable pressures in this place of the other priorities that we have to deal with, there is a danger that legislation does not keep pace with change and is not as flexible as judge-led law.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Buckland]

I am grateful for that question. I think that we can reassure ourselves and the people whom we serve by saying the following: when the liberty of the individual and the criminal law are involved, the right to trial by jury should be preserved and enhanced. That is why I was pleased by the provision in the recently enacted Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 that rolled back restrictions on the right to trial by jury in criminal fraud trials. However, we are dealing here with the civil context. If damage to reputation is so important as to merit trial by jury, why is not physical personal injury equally worthy of it? There is a utilitarian argument that demands a system using scant resources and taking scant time, which means that we should be very cautious about extending jury trials to a whole range of civil cases.

I believe that the removal of libel cases from the right to trial by jury leaves us with only malicious prosecution, false imprisonment and a limited number of other civil cases in which one can argue that there is a legitimate public interest in still involving juries in making decisions about the acts or omissions of public authorities. Malicious prosecution cases could involve an act of a prosecuting authority, and we should bear in mind the power that such an authority has vis-à-vis the individual. False imprisonment cases may involve the acts of police officers or a police force in unjustly imprisoning an individual.

[Neil Carmichael]

The question of trials with juries is interesting, because it is about whether a judge is the right person to define and decide what constitutes defamation. He is likely to reach a swifter decision than in a jury process. Surely the quicker that cases about people’s reputation are resolved, the better.

[Mr Buckland]

My hon. Friend is right, and one has to draw a distinction between matters of law, which are always the province of a judge irrespective of whether a jury is involved, and matters of fact. The Lord Chancellor made the point that there may well be cases in which there are classic conflicts of account between individual witnesses. Such cases may require the shrewd judgment of a randomly selected jury of members of the public, who use their experience of the world and their good sense to judge whether, on the balance of probabilities, the claimant’s case is made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Buckland]

Such changes to the civil procedure rules could, and I think should, take place. They would not affect the passage of this primary legislation, so they would not require amendments to the Bill, but I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s point about the need for minds to be concentrated so that the Joint Committee’s noble aspirations can be translated into reality. That point is well made and entirely relevant in the context of the Leveson process. If Leveson achieves nothing else, I want it to provide a mechanism by which the ordinary person in the street can obtain redress of grievance with the minimum cost and at the maximum speed.

Before I was slightly diverted by interventions, I was making a point about the changing context of libel. In the 19th century, the only window into the private lives of the rich and famous was often through the device of the libel trial. How the world has changed. We live in a world in which we have an open door into celebrities’ private lives for the instant gratification of millions of readers, in many cases by the choice of the celebrity concerned. For many celebrities, that is a means by which they make a living. I do not seek to make any pejorative comment about that, but it is a simple fact of modern life.

Not only does the risk to reputation continue to be important, but joined with it is intrusion into people’s private lives. The two issues are different, and I accept that privacy cases are not about correcting falsehoods, as defamation proceedings are. However, they become inextricably linked in many ways when we examine the issues that characterise the debate in both scenarios.

I was part of the Joint Committee on Privacy and Injunctions, along with the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Paul Farrelly) and others. We were grateful to have among our number the noble Lord Mawhinney, who chaired the Joint Committee on the draft Bill, and his input was invaluable in informing us speedily of the progress and deliberations of the latter. The outcome of the investigation by the Joint Committee on Privacy and Injunctions was somewhat less co-ordinated than that of the Joint Committee on the draft Bill. There were a number of views and a multiplicity of divisions, but at the end of the process I believe that our contribution to the debate about privacy was important. We characterised some of the issues that have been raised today.

The hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley), who is not in his place now, made remarks about changing and codifying the law. I would not go so far as to support his assertion that we need statutory regulation of the press, but I thoroughly agree with his observation that now is the time for Parliament to take a lead on codifying the law of privacy. Indeed, I put that proposal to the Joint Committee on Privacy and Injunctions at the end of its deliberations. I was not successful in persuading the majority of members of its merits, but I make no apology for returning to the subject today. I believe not only that the law of defamation should be codified, as it is in this welcome Bill, but that Parliament should take a lead and do likewise to the law of privacy. We should bring together data protection legislation and all the other areas of legislation that deal with intrusion into individuals’ private lives.

[Neil Carmichael]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way for the third or fourth time. I want to talk about an important aspect of the Bill—

[Neil Carmichael]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I apologise. The point I was going to make—it is relevant—is that the Bill is not just about defamation and privacy, but about protecting freedom of speech. Does my hon. Friend agree that that must be considered in the debate?

[Mr Buckland]

I shall not disagree, because my hon. Friend supports my point that, in many ways, privacy and defamation are inextricably linked.

I made the point about support for codification of the law on privacy because I believe in Parliament. I come from a legal background and have spent many years dealing with cases in the courts of this land, but I believe it is incumbent on legislators to take a lead and to represent the people of this country by saying, “The law needs updating. It needs to be brought into the 21st century and it needs to reflect the reality of life.” On a daily basis, individuals—famous, infamous or obscure—find that their fundamental rights to privacy are being interfered with, intruded upon and trampled over, not just by an over-mighty press, but by individuals who use social networking tools and the internet, as we have heard.

Treaty on Stability, Co-ordination and Governance

Debate between Robert Buckland and Neil Carmichael

Wednesday 29th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Neil Carmichael]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. That does not alter the fact that it is not an EU treaty, and that is the point. The Commission might well take a view on these matters, and that brings me to another key point. It is in our nation’s interests to ensure that the treaty works in protecting the euro in the long run. We do not want the euro to fail, because that would badly affect our economy. It is important that we continue a dialogue with the process but are not actually involved in it. It seems to me that what we have secured through the veto and our continued resistance to being a part of the treaty is essentially an overview on proceedings to ensure that the EU positions are safeguarded, because in so doing we will protect our interests and those of the overall single market.

It is important to note the comments of the US Secretary of State, Hilary Clinton, who noted that the United States was concerned not about our failure to be part of the treaty, but about whether the treaty itself would succeed in its principal mission of enhancing the position of the euro. That is a clear expression of the American Government’s position, and it is consistent with our position because we, too, recognise that that is a fundamental priority. I am not often asked by constituents whether the treaty is an EU treaty or some other kind of treaty; what they are worried about are the economic circumstances in which they live, and that is what we have to start talking about.

Although I welcome the debate, I am disappointed that it was secured only as a result of Standing Order No. 24, and that for that reason we had less than 24 hours to consider it, but it is also necessarily important to talk about what will happen at the European Council, which is almost immediate. At that Council we need to drill down on the key issue of what we need to do to ensure that growth comes to Europe and to Britain.

[Mr Buckland]

On that point, should not priority be given to tackling the tariff barriers and, indeed, non-tariff barriers that often exist between the EU and countries such as Japan and other major competitors, which are a real block to more effective trade?

[Neil Carmichael]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I thank him for that intervention. It is crystal clear that we need to engage properly with the large economies, such as those of Japan, China and the US, because they understand that we are talking about a European dimension. He has hit the nail on the head in that regard. It is critical that we look outward for trade opportunities and inward to ensure that we are internally competitive. That means that the single market needs to be further upgraded and that the energy market needs to be made into a European market, because until it is we will continue to suffer from price variance and supply problems. If Members want to know about that, then rather than worrying too much about what is happening in Europe with regard to policy, they should just ask their constituents, who will tell them that they want more stable and lower energy prices, and the way to achieve that is by developing an energy market.

To do all those things, Britain must be a key player in the European Union, and the Government are rightly ensuring that we are. We have to be there in order to develop bilateral relationship and to be part of the leadership of the European Union, so it is right and proper that we show a responsible attitude to the way in which the treaty we are talking about unfolds. If we are seen to object to any measure intended to protect the euro or to deliberately obstruct the measure they wish to introduce, we are at risk of taking some blame for something that we do not want to happen in the first place. Therefore, it is in our interests to start co-operating with those nation states that are considering the treaty. That is why we should be sensible about the use of the EU institutions.

At the beginning of this whole process, immediately after the veto, I said that we should consider the questions relating to the use of the EU institutions. There are two good reasons for allowing the use of the EU institutions: first, to secure our reputation as a country that is involved, engaged and ready to contribute to the future of the EU; and secondly, to ensure that we can easily observe what is going on, because we have a clear and obvious interest in making sure that the EU treaties, such as the Lisbon treaty, are enforced and maintained as part of the governance of the EU. That is how we will be able to check the legality of the treaty we are talking about today. We will do that not by complaining about it or chucking grenades into the process, but by allowing it to happen and ensuring that we keep an eye on what is happening. That is the Government’s key objective and I am pleased to note that that is what the Government are doing.

I will end with the points that are really important to my constituents. In my constituency we need jobs, growth and investment. There are firms in my constituency that depend on European markets and that are part of significant and complicated supply chains stretching across Europe. We need to think about the importance of those supply chains to our economy and ensure that we encourage investment across Europe and between nation states where appropriate. The critical issue is to move the terms of debate away from the questions of treaties and so on and towards what we actually want the EU to do and how we express this country’s objectives for the EU. The electorate are much more impressed if we talk about economic growth, because that is one of their priorities, as it is ours. It is also a question of labour mobility, because when people are thinking about moving jobs they appreciate a flexible labour market, and one of the things the European Council should focus on in the coming days is labour mobility and youth employment. I note that that is on the agenda, and rightly so, and think that the electorate and the House will welcome it when the results are announced.

Transparency and Consistency of Sentencing

Debate between Robert Buckland and Neil Carmichael

Thursday 2nd February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Neil Carmichael]

I thank my hon. Friend. What he has said reaffirms my view that transparency is important. I do not doubt that the Secretary of State listened to that carefully as well.

The rule of law is essential to us as libertarians, as politicians, and as a country with common law at its core, and it is important to bear in mind that the separation of powers makes the rule of law work well if we respect that separation of powers. It is vital for us to recognise the independence of judges, to understand that—as the Secretary of State said—they are there to make judgments, and to understand that they are likely to be the best people to talk about a case because it is they who are judging it and know all about it. I think that politicians are heading into dangerous territory if they become too prescriptive about the way in which they think judges should be sentencing.

I also think it dangerous—this point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland)—to think in terms of a sort of toolkit that forces certain decisions to be made because of what we think is happening in a relatively abstract way. It is important to make the distinction between specific cases and setting rules, which is what we are talking about, and to respect the fact that the separation of powers is core to our way of proceeding.

Why do we give out sentences? Surely one of the most obvious purposes of sentences is to ensure that people stop misbehaving, and that is what we need to talk about in this debate. Several Members have referred to the number of individuals who are reoffending, and it is true—I have checked the facts myself—that 57% of short-term jail sentences result in reoffending within 12 months. That is completely unacceptable: it is not what we are doing the job for. We need to understand why there is so much reoffending. I think that many aspects of the problem are connected with the way in which prison operates. For instance, a number of my constituents have encouraged me to think about the standard of literacy in our prisons, and quite right too. Far too many people who end up in prison, especially the young, cannot read or write properly.

[Mr Buckland]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for spelling out the appalling problems of reoffending in statistical terms. Does it surprise him to learn that 70% of young offenders in detention have some form of speech, language or communication disorder?

[Neil Carmichael]

No, it does not, because I was told that a few weeks ago. I think that the “toe by toe” approach in our prisons is an important way of lowering that figure. I urge the Ministry of Justice and the Secretary of State to think carefully about how we can improve literacy in our prisons so that those leaving prison can have a better chance of participating in society and employment.

Of course, the same applies to drugs: there are just too many people in prison taking drugs, too many people going to prison with drug habits, and too many leaving with a drug habit, which is completely unacceptable. It is important that we tackle that in a rigorous way.

A lot of people have talked about restorative justice. It is a great way of dealing with the victim relationship, and we should promote it. In my constituency of Stroud, a huge number of people want to support restorative justice, and there is a small campaign to promote it. I do not think that many of the campaigners know that it was introduced by Michael Howard, latterly of this House. It was persisted with by the previous Government and by this Government—and quite right, too.

Obviously, for a wide range of crimes, custodial sentences matter and are important; we have gone through all the figures in the past two or three hours. I do not think that many Members on either side of the House would dispute that crimes involving knives, and burglary, should attract custodial sentences. However, there are clear grounds for thinking about community sentences as well. I have taken the Secretary of State for Justice to my constituency and shown him an excellent scheme operated by REACH Gloucestershire, which is busy reconstructing a pathway along a very long canal. That is working, and people know it works. I have talked to people on the scheme; it is hard work, and they recognise that they do not want to do the same again. It is good for them to be given a job of work, and a form of punishment that makes them think carefully about how they operate in society.

Such community sentences are to be encouraged, but let me state clearly that there should be custodial sentences where appropriate. There should also be consistency; my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) emphasised its importance. However, that has to be matched up with the role of the judge, and his responsibility for making judgments. I come back to the central point that we cannot be too prescriptive. We should not go down the populist route of saying, “Hang ’em and flog ’em”; we should instead take responsible decisions to make sure that our judiciary, sentencing process and prisons operate in a way that is consistent with our values as a democratic nation, with our objectives of making sure that we deal with crime and stop reoffending, and with our fundamental belief in the rule of law.

First Great Western Rail Franchise

Debate between Robert Buckland and Neil Carmichael

Tuesday 20th December 2011 Westminster Hall

[Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alan, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) on securing a debate that I think most hon. Members in the Chamber have bid for at some stage. Fortunately, she got lucky just before Christmas, and I am grateful to her for that. I am also grateful to the Minister for attending the debate. We have had many discussions about rail services to and from Swindon, and she knows the passion that I and my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) feel for railways, especially considering Swindon’s unique railway heritage as the hub of the Great Western Railway. We regard Swindon as its home.

To bring things bang up to date, Swindon is a thriving town of 200,000 inhabitants, with rail services that run to the west, the east, the midlands and the south and are relied on by thousands of commuters in the town and region. Connectivity to London, Heathrow and other parts of the south is vital, and time and again that is cited as an important issue to local businesses and passengers.

The draft franchise document will be of huge significance and must meet the aspirations of rail users, both passenger services and freight. It must also be based on a correct set of specifications. In short, the mistakes that were made in the 2006 franchise must not be repeated; we must not step backwards. We must start by looking at the current service, rather than holding a Dutch auction—as my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice) said—to see who can get to the bottom the fastest.

Since 2006, there has been a race to rectify some of the problems that have been created. How many of us have had to endure problems with punctuality, for example, and how glad are we that much has been done to rectify that situation? The recent Government announcement about extra capacity will provide some relief, but we are running to stand still. As I have said, those issues were not properly addressed.

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Buckland]

I do not have time to take an intervention because other Members wish to speak.

Unless the new franchise delivers a service that is punctual and has appropriate capacity and competitive ticket prices, it will have been a missed opportunity. To put it bluntly: if our passengers do not get value for money, we will have failed.

Peak fares from Swindon remain unduly high compared with those from neighbouring stations and other parts of the network. That seems to be a hangover from another time, and it is causing a competitive disadvantage. Season ticket holders who have to travel at peak hours and are captives of the service now pay in excess of £7,000 a year, yet the service that they receive does not even guarantee them a seat at certain times of the day. That is wrong, and I believe that the terms of reference and the franchise process must specifically address the needs of frequent users and season ticket holders. I accept that smart ticketing may help, but I feel strongly that more needs to be done to cater for that group, perhaps by introducing reserved seating, for example, or by offering an enhanced service that makes people feel valued.

The link between improved rail services and wider economic benefits is clear, and we should factor in such considerations to the franchising process. Just as road schemes are often justified in terms of their wider economic benefit, we must ensure that the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and the Treasury are involved and engaged with the rail service to allow the fullest exploration of any wider economic benefits. Locally, we need strong engagement between the Department for Transport and the new Swindon and Wiltshire local enterprise partnership.

Academies Bill [Lords]

Debate between Robert Buckland and Neil Carmichael

Thursday 22nd July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Neil Carmichael]

That is a good point. Three-tier systems are not particularly common, but where they exist I am sure that that is a difficulty. They do not occur in Gloucestershire, but they do, or did, in Northumberland, where I hail from.

I often find in my postbag complaints about statementing. For many parents, getting a statement is something of a struggle. Local authorities tend to take a long time over these decisions, partly because it is a budget issue, partly because it is a question of understanding why a statement should be issued, and partly because it depends on the resources available within the appropriate department. Many parents find it difficult to get the statement that they think they require for their children, whom they clearly want to look after.

[Mr Buckland]

Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the problems with the amendment is that any assessment ignores the fact that SEN is a dynamic area of education which is changing constantly, so that as soon as an assessment is made it will be largely out of date?

[Neil Carmichael]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. SEN is an emerging story—we all know that. The hon. Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass), with her vast and important experience, made those points as well. That complicates the situation on statementing.

It is not just a question of parents getting a statement, but of what happens when they do. That is just as problematic. I have seen in my postbag cases where a statement has been provided but its consequences are not deliverable for the child. We must remember that provision through local authorities is not as perfect as it ought to be.

We need to consider what happens in academies—that is what the amendment is all about. We already have governors in schools, and they are very important. Governance performs a valuable function in ensuring that schools perform properly, reach appropriate targets and deliver the high-quality education that we need. In the schools of which I have been a governor, we have had a governor specially responsible for special educational needs.