 House of Commons |
Session 2009 - 10 Publications on the internet Children, Schools and Families Bill |
The Committee consisted of the following Members:Sarah
Davies, Sara Howe, Committee
Clerks † attended the
Committee Public Bill CommitteeTuesday 2 February 2010(Afternoon)[Mr. Clive Betts in the Chair]Children, Schools and Families BillClause 8Right
of appeal against determination by local authority not to amend
statement Amendment
proposed (this day): 75, in clause 8, page 11,
line 12, at end insert
‘and inform the parent of their right to
appeal to the Tribunal.’.—(Tim
Loughton.) 4
pm Question
again proposed, That the amendment be
made.
The
Chairman: I remind the Committee that with this we are
discussing the following: amendment 157, in clause 8,
page 11, line 13, after
‘parent’, insert ‘or
the head teacher of the school which the pupil
attends’. Amendment
233, in
clause 8, page 11, line 14, leave
out subsection (4) and
insert— ‘(4) The school at
which the pupil is registered may appeal to the
Tribunal.’. Amendment
165, in
clause 8, page 11, line 18, at
end insert— ‘(5A) On receipt
of an appeal a determination must be made within 8
weeks.’.
The
Minister for Schools and Learners (Mr. Vernon
Coaker): Good afternoon, Mr. Betts. I welcome
the Committee back to its
deliberations. I
apologise for somewhat interrupting the flow of our proceedings, but in
the short break, I found some statistics that might be of interest to
the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham, although I will see
whether there are more that might be of use. Ofsted is currently
reviewing its pool of specialist special educational needs inspectors,
as recommended by the Lamb inquiry. Of the 386 Her Majesty’s
inspectors who inspect for Ofsted, a quarter specialise in inspecting
one or more area of SEN. Ofsted has not yet provided me with figures
for additional inspectors, but they will be included in the response to
the hon. Gentleman’s recent parliamentary question. I hope that
information helps him and other Committee
members. On
amendment 165, we share the desire that parents not be left waiting for
a long period following an annual review meeting before they receive
the authority decision on whether amendments are made. The annual
review cycle already has statutory time limits. Section 324 of the
Education Act 1996 requires the review to be completed within 12 months
of the statement being made or of the previous review. The deadline set
by the amendment could go beyond that 12-month period. If the review
started at the beginning of December and there was an eight-week period,
the deadline under the amendment would be the end of January, whereas
the statutory deadline would be the end of December. I know that is not
the intention of the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole, but
that would be the effect of her
amendment. As
always, I will try to help the Committee. Perhaps there is some
confusion over this issue. I am perfectly satisfied with the existing
statutory limit for the review period of 12 months after a statement is
made. An issue arises if somebody appeals the result of the
review—perhaps the hon. Lady means that there is an issue with
the appeal time. I will give an example. If a statement is made at the
end of December and a parent appeals the review, the appeal to the
first-tier SEN tribunal could take six months. If the parent does not
agree with the first-tier SEN tribunal, they can take the matter to the
second tier, which could take another two or three months. Clearly,
that raises
issues. That
process is the responsibility of not the Department for Children,
Schools and Families, but the Ministry of Justice. A lot of work has
been done to streamline that appeal process, but I know it causes
issues. I say to the hon. Lady that I will speak to the Ministry of
Justice about the appeal time to see whether anything can be done. The
Ministry of Justice has worked exceptionally hard to ensure that the
appeal time is kept to a minimum. As always, I can talk to my
colleagues to see what can be done as a consequence of this important
issue—another Minister is in the room to hear me say
that. Annette
Brooke (Mid-Dorset and North Poole) (LD): I thank the
Minister. I had an overriding concern that the whole thing was getting
dragged out at different stages, so I tabled the amendment to probe the
situation. I will be grateful if he has further discussions with the
Ministry of
Justice.
Mr.
Coaker: Of course, and we can discuss what can be done. I
know that everyone is working hard on that. Following my brief
comments, I hope that the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham
will withdraw the
amendment. Tim
Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con): The Minister
got those statistics rapidly, so it would be churlish of me not
acknowledge the helpfulness with which he has approached our
amendments. The clincher before lunch was his assurance that a video
will be available for people who need assistance to use the tribunal
system. As I said, these are probing amendments, and our good debate
has clarified some points. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to
withdraw the
amendment. Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn. Clause
8 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
The
Chairman: Before we come to clause 9, I would like to make
two brief comments. First, while we made some progress this morning, it
would probably not be described as rapid. I know that there is
enthusiasm in the Committee for a later sitting this evening to try to
make further progress, but nevertheless I have a responsibility to the
House to try to ensure that we make good progress. While I can keep
hon. Members in
order, I encourage everyone to be as succinct as possible, because
ultimately the one thing that we cannot change is the 5 pm deadline on
Thursday when proceedings have to
conclude. Secondly,
it is my view that the next two groups of amendments will allow
sufficient debate to mean that we shall not need a stand part debate on
clause
9.
Clause 9Exceptional
provision of education in short stay schools or
elsewhere
Annette
Brooke: I beg to move amendment 166, in
clause 9, page 11, line 29, leave
out ‘compulsory school’ and insert
‘participation’.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss
amendment 168, in
clause 9, page 11, line 34, at
end insert— ‘(1B) In
relation to England, each local education authority shall make
arrangements for the provision of suitable education at school or
otherwise than at school for 16-19 students pursuing such examination
courses as may be specified in an order made by the Secretary of State
who, by reason of illness, may not for any period receive suitable
education unless such arrangements are made for
them.’.
The
amendments are focused on the first aspect of clause 9, which I
generally welcome. I have long been interested in the education
provision for children with long-term illnesses, probably because I
spent seven months in hospital as a teenager. I have also carried out
quite a lot of constituency work relating to the issue, so I have been
thinking about what could be improved. Clearly, the requirement for
full-time education up to 16, as it stands, is a great improvement.
However, I am concerned about the statutory guidance, which will have
to be revised because, as I am aware from case work, parents are not
always told about their rights when they apply for home tuition and
perhaps have no knowledge about the choice of alternative
education. I know of children with long-term illnesses who have been
placed in pupil referral units that were not what I would say
was suitable education. The statutory guidance will be
important. I
am grateful to the Minister for enabling me to talk to some of his
officials because that clarified what was troubling me about the
clause. It became apparent that the compulsory school age was one
matter, but that we would change the participation age in the near
future. By the time it is raised to 18, my second concern will have
been addressed. However, I feel that the Bill should say
“participation” rather than “compulsory
school” age, because people should have the right to participate
in school along with their peers and be supported in alternative forms
of education, should that be
appropriate. Amendment
168 is more direct than amendment 166. I do not want to make
legislation on the basis of one case, but I would like to refer briefly
to a constituency case that relates to the background of the amendment.
The daughter of one of my constituents has ME. She eventually had home
tuition and got five good GCSEs. She wished to do some time at home and
some time at
school in the sixth form to pursue her A-levels, but that turned out to
be a nightmare. At the time there was the triangle of the Learning and
Skills Council, Connexions and the local authority, and we could not
obtain a promise of funding for home tuition. She has gone back to
school but, with ME, is finding it difficult to cope with full-time
study in the sixth
form. The
clause retains the position whereby it is effectively up to the local
authority’s discretion to provide post-16 education, but that is
wrong. When we have young people who wish to pursue A-levels or other
courses of their choice, there should still be a duty on the local
authority. I realise that the Minister might want to add conditions to
such a policy to ensure that students follow appropriate courses, so
with great help from the Bill team, I have tabled amendment 168, which
states: “In
relation to England, each local education authority shall make
arrangements for the provision of suitable education at school or
otherwise than at school for 16-19 students pursuing such examination
courses as may be specified in an order made by the Secretary of
State”. I
hope that the provision is expressed in a way that the Minister
considers
acceptable. When
parents have a very sick child, they are so busy sorting out their
health needs that a battle with the education authority is just one too
many things to cope with. My constituent has had a difficult time. We
know that quite a lot of young people have ME, and I am sure that we
can think of other health conditions that make it difficult for young
people to attend school full time, yet from which they might well
recover. I hope that my constituent’s daughter will attend
university in due course. I will be very grateful if the Minister will
consider the amendments. I tabled them not to oppose the Government,
but to close the
loophole.
Mr.
Coaker: The clause is extremely important. It will ensure
that full-time education is available in alternative provision not
only, as the law states at present, for those excluded from school, but
for those who might not be at school for medical or other reasons. As
such, it is one of those clauses that sometimes pass a Committee by,
despite their significance, and the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and
North Poole is right to draw the measure to our
attention. We
want to ensure that the provision is enacted as soon as possible. As
the hon. Lady said, the compulsory school age of up to 16 is obviously
easily defined under law. As for post-16 education, raising the
participation age will not happen until 2013 for 17-year-olds, and not
until 2015 for 18-year-olds, and her concerns are about the provision
of full-time education for those people in the interim. Through
guidance laid out alongside the Bill, we intend to explain what is
expected to happen. The raising of the participation age is good
legislation, and we must ensure that what everyone regards as a good
way forward does not create a difficulty, albeit even in the short
term. We intend to address that through
guidance. 4.15
pm The
hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole seeks to amend clause
9(2)(a) so that local authorities would be under a duty to arrange
education for all children of participation age who, for reasons of
illness, exclusion or otherwise, may not for any period receive
suitable education. I assure her that the amendment is not necessary. In
accordance with the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act
2009, local authorities will have a duty to ensure that enough suitable
education or training is available for all 16 to 19-year-olds in their
area. We intend those provisions to come into force on 1 April this
year. It is our intention that local authorities and education
providers will take steps to ensure that special arrangements are in
place to support a young person’s continued participation in
learning. When the powers for funding a commission transfer
to local authorities in line with the ASCL Act, those local
authority functions will be further strengthened.
Amendment 168
would create a new duty for local authorities to arrange suitable
education for 16 to 19-year-olds who
are “pursuing
such examination courses as may be specified in an order...who by
reason of illness, may not for any period receive suitable education
unless such arrangements are made for them.”.
I assure the hon. Lady
that in our view, this amendment is also unnecessary. The Education and
Skills Act 2008 created a new legal duty for local authorities which,
once in force, will require them to exercise their functions so as to
promote effective participation in education or training for all 16 to
18-year-olds, including those who suffer from illness. In addition,
local authorities will be required to exercise their new functions in
the ASCL Act, to secure the provision of education or training for 16
to 18-year-olds, with a view to enabling those persons to fulfil the
duty to participate. As I have said to the hon. Lady, alongside that we
intend to put into guidance the need for local authorities to provide
education or training opportunities for the young people covered by the
clause. The hon. Lady has highlighted a slight gap, which we intend to
fill through guidance, and with that assurance, I hope that she will
withdraw the amendment.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2010 | Prepared 3 February 2010 |