Annette
Brooke: I thank the Minister for his lengthy reply and for
his responsiveness on the issue. I am pleased that he will pick it up
in guidance, which I hope will be as strong as possible so that we do
not have the difficult situation of a local authority not wanting to
find the money for a genuine case. With those comments, I beg to ask
leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment,
by leave, withdrawn.
Mr.
Nick Gibb (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con): I beg to
move amendment 192, in clause 9, page 12,
line 1, after ‘if’, insert
‘, following an independent assessment of
the physical or mental health of the
child,’.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following: amendment 167, in clause 9, page 12,
line 2, after ‘child’, insert
‘and after consultation with parents, carers
and medical
professionals,’. Amendment
187, in
clause 9, page 12, line 3, leave
out ‘impracticable or otherwise inappropriate’ and insert
‘detrimental to the child’s
well-being’. Amendment
191, in
clause 9, page 12, line 4, at
end insert— ‘(3AAA)
A decision under subsection (3AA) shall, at the request of the
parent of the child concerned be subject to annual
review.’.
Amendment 158,
in
clause 9, page 12, line 10, at
end add— ‘(5) After
subsection (6) there is
inserted— “(6A)
Where a local authority considers that it would be impracticable or
otherwise inappropriate for full time education to be provided for a
child under this section, a local authority must, within 2 months, draw
up plans for such support as is necessary to allow the child to return
to full time education as soon as this is
appropriate.”’.
Mr.
Gibb: Clause 9 requires local authorities to provide
full-time education for children who, for whatever reason, are not
attending school. Subsection (3) provides an exception to that duty
if “the
local authority consider that, for reasons which relate to the physical
or mental health of the child, it would be impracticable or otherwise
inappropriate for full-time education to be provided for the
child.” Amendment
192 would mean that that requirement would apply only following an
independent assessment of the physical or mental health of the child.
It reflects concerns raised by the National Autistic Society, which
said in a briefing to members of the
Committee: “We
recognise that there may be some circumstances where it may be
inappropriate for a child to be in full-time education, but have
concerns about:
Who would make
the assessment about what is appropriate for the child and;
Whether the
clause would provide local authorities with a wide ‘get out of
jail free’ card not to provide education for children for whom
they are unable to find appropriate education locally or whose needs
mean that provision would be very
expensive”. It
continues: “Given
the wide lack of understanding of autism and the potential for a
conflict of interest, we believe that assessments on appropriateness
would have to be made independently by someone with experience and
expertise in the child’s condition. Autism is a complex
condition and without a full understanding of how to communicate with
the child and what their needs may be, it is unlikely that a fair and
comprehensive assessment would be
made.” We
agree with that assessment, which goes
on: “The
use of the word ‘impracticable’ in the clause is of
particular concern here. We would like to know in what cases it would
be ‘impracticable’ for a child to receive full-time
education, if this is not related to
cost.” It
would be helpful and would reassure the National Autistic Society if
the Minister could address that specific concern in his response. The
NAS also
states: “An
assurance that there will be independent assessments to determine state
of the child's physical/mental
health” would
be helpful, and that is what the amendment seeks to
do. Amendment
191 reflects concerns raised by Barnardo’s. In its briefing, it
said: “Whilst
Barnardo’s accepts that it is pragmatic to allow exceptions, we
would like Members to seek assurances that this will be on a
time-limited basis and subject to review after a fixed period, agreed
with the parents or
carers.” It
goes on to
explain: “We
know from the experience of our services and the young people they work
with that some young people facing temporary barriers to
participation—for example, teenage mothers who have recently
given birth or young people with mental health difficulties—end
up drifting out of education
altogether.” Amendment
191 would insert a new subsection requiring that any decision about not
providing full-time education,
because of the physical or mental health of the child, be reviewed
annually if requested by the parents of the children
concerned. With those few
words, I await the Minister’s
response.
Annette
Brooke: This string of amendments focuses on the words
“impracticable or otherwise inappropriate”. As has
already been said, they have been viewed as a “get out of jail
free” card. There is concern about how that will be interpreted
at a local level. Amendment 167, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member
for Yeovil and me, suggests that there must be
consultation with parents, carers and medical professionals.
Taken with amendment 192, which seeks a full independent
assessment, both amendments make a strong support package and both are
important.
We have heard
what the National Autistic Society
said. Another amendment that we
tabled—amendment 187 —was
suggested by the Special Educational Consortium. The
amendment would delete “impracticable or otherwise
inappropriate” and
insert “detrimental
to the child’s
well-being”. That
is suggested because there is a concern that the local authority is
given too much discretion. There need to be checks and balances on that
discretion, because we all know how very expensive an out-of-area
placement can be, and one has to be clear that the child’s
interests have been put
first. I
find amendment 191 quite appealing. We have submitted amendment 158,
whereby “a
local authority must...draw up plans...to allow the child to
return to full time education as soon as this is
appropriate.” That
may pick up the teenage pregnancy point that we mentioned earlier. It
is a difficult area. Even though we are talking about a
relatively severe condition—a very special condition—and
they will all individually be very different, we need the checks and
balances so that we put the child’s interests first rather than
the monetary interests of the local authority. I know that they are a
big constraint for a small local authority. I hope that the Minister
will be able to give us some reassuring words on all these
amendments.
Mr.
Coaker: Approximately 70,000 children are affected by the
issue each year. Let me reiterate the point because, as I think we all
know from our constituencies, it is an important and emotive topic. The
clause will for the first time make full-time education available for
those who are in alternative provision who have not been excluded from
school. I think we all regret that that does not happen at the moment,
so the Bill will put that right. However, in putting it right, we do
not want to create unintended consequences. Having said that the
aspiration is for any young person who is not in school or who is in
alternative provision to have full-time education, it may be that in
certain circumstances—for example, for medical reasons or the
best reasons—it is simply not appropriate or suitable for that
to happen.
As hon.
Members would expect for a Minister of the Crown, I would not quite
call subsection (3AA) a get-out provision, but there could be a great
deal more clarity and certainty in the phrasing and in what we mean. As
I say, we do not want to have a clause that everyone supports if tucked
away in it is something that says we do not expect children to have
full-time education
if it is simply inappropriate for them. We do not want the measure to be
used by some as a way of avoiding their responsibilities under the
clause. I
ask the hon. Members for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton and for
Mid-Dorset and North Poole to withdraw their amendments. I will take
some legal advice on the matter and come back on Report with a
Government amendment to try to deal with the points raised by them and,
indeed, many others. I hope that is helpful to
them. Caroline
Flint (Don Valley) (Lab): Referring back to a comment made
by the hon. Members for Mid-Dorset and North Poole and for Bognor Regis
and Littlehampton, will the Minister clarify how the clause will affect
pregnant teenagers? Clearly, being pregnant is neither an illness nor a
disability. Those girls are not being excluded either. Will he reassure
me on that matter—in relation to this clause or elsewhere in the
legislation—because where the young woman’s desire is to
continue in the secondary school that she has been attending, it might
be problematic to provide suitable and appropriate
education.
Mr.
Coaker: That is a very good, concrete example of the sort
of person we mean. It might be someone with a medical condition or it
might be someone who for other reasons—for example, a young girl
who is pregnant—is in alternative provision. As the law stands,
unless such a young person is excluded from school, there is no legal
entitlement or necessity for the authority to provide full-time
education for them. I think we all consider it to be an anomaly that if
someone is ill or is not in school because of particular circumstances
and they are in alternative provision, they are not legally entitled to
full-time provision, whereas if someone is excluded from school, after
six days out of school, the local authority is legally obliged to
provide full-time education for
them. In
exactly the circumstances that my right hon. Friend referred to of a
young girl in such a situation—I am sure we can all think of
other examples where somebody is not ill, but for certain reasons they
are unable to be in school and they are in alternative
provision—if the clause is passed, the legal necessity will be
to ensure that full-time provision, where appropriate and necessary, is
provided. I want to frame the clause in such a way that although it
makes that a legal certainty for young people in that situation, it
allows flexibility where appropriate. We want to do so in a way that
does not allow anyone to evade their responsibilities. I hope that was
helpful to my hon. Friend. With those remarks, and our commitment that
we will table a Government amendment on Report to do what I think my
right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley and Opposition Members
want, I hope that the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton
will withdraw his
amendment. 4.30
pm
Mr.
Gibb: I was impressed by the Minister’s response.
He is right that the law is improved by clause 9 and that, in putting
right a law, he does not want to create the unintended consequences of
having to provide full-time education for children who clearly, for a
variety of reasons, cannot cope with it. I now understand that he
is also cognisant that, in trying to tackle any potential unintended
consequence, he does not want to create more of such consequences. As
such, he has agreed to take away clause 9(3), which will insert
proposed new section 19(3A) into the Education Act 1996, and I am
grateful to him for doing so. I do not claim that my amendment is
perfectly drafted, and I understand why he wants to take further
advice. If he wishes to consult, Opposition Members will be happy to
participate in that and make the legislation exactly right. I know that
people outside the House, particularly the National Autistic Society
and Barnardo’s, will be pleased with the Minister’s
response. With those few words, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment. Amendment,
by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
10Areas
of
learning
Mr.
Gibb: I beg to move amendment 54, in
clause 10, page 12, line 17, leave
out ‘areas of learning’ and insert
‘subjects’.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following: amendment 52, in clause 10, page 12,
line 21, leave out ‘areas of learning’ and
insert
‘subjects’. Amendment
238, in clause 10, page 12, leave out
lines 22 to 29 and
insert— ‘(3) The following
are the core subjects for the first and second key
stages— (a)
mathematics; (b) English,
and (c)
Science. (3A) The following is
a core subject for the second key
stage— (a) a modern
foreign language. (3B) The
following are the other foundation subjects for the first and second
key stages— (a)
geography; (b)
history; (c)
art; (d)
music; (e) physical education
and sport; (f) information and
communication
technology.’. Amendment
50, in clause 10, page 12, leave out
line
36. Amendment
182, in
clause 10, page 12, line 36, at
end insert— ‘( ) The
governing body and head teacher of every maintained school or
maintained nursery school shall have responsibility for developing
areas of learning to meet the needs of children in their
schools.’. Amendment
53, in
clause 10, page 13, line 4, leave
out ‘area of learning’ and insert
‘subject’. Amendment
183, in
clause 10, page 13, line 5, at
end add— ‘( ) The Secretary
of State shall from time to time, though not more than once in each
parliament, review the effectiveness of arrangements for areas of
learning including attainment targets, programmes of study and
assessment
arrangements.’. For
reasons given previously, I am not minded at this stage to allow a
stand part debate, as all these matters will be considered as part of
the debates on the amendments.
| 
