---

Lord Henley: Again, I do not think there is much I can add to what I said at an earlier stage in terms of my views about the Bill as a whole. For that reason I think my noble friend would accept that I cannot support any proposals which open up the right of appeal to the child in the way that my noble friend suggests and which could have considerable cost implications. That said, I believe that the amendments would remove a potentially very difficult issue; that of determining whether a child is of sufficient understanding.

For those who think that the proposals set out in the Bill and as amended by my noble friend's amendment--I stress that though I cannot support the amendment I have no intention of opposing an amendment to my noble friend's Bill--would restore an entitlement that existed before the establishment of the SEN tribunal, I should point out that things have changed considerably. What has changed is that we have replaced a two-tier bureaucratic system with an independent informal tribunal with expert members--my noble friend knows that tribunal and knows how expert it can be--that puts the needs of the child at the heart of its considerations. That is certainly very much a move for the better.

My noble friend implied that allowing appeals for children was very much a moral question. I have considerable sympathy with my noble friend's views. That is a very important point. The fact is though that we should bear in mind practicality when legislating. For the reasons given so clearly by my noble friend Lord Pearson, many--probably most--children with special educational needs are not so placed as to be able to respond independently to the statutory documentation of a statement. To ask them to do so would place them under unfair pressure. The approach of the tribunal that we have created under the 1993 Act to encourage various ways of hearing the child's views is the appropriate, right, proper and sensitive way to tackle this matter. To place the weight of statutory involvement on the child is not the right approach.

I wish to make one further point. My noble friend referred to the support of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lichfield. It would be right for me to put on record that I received a letter from, if I may call him this, my own bishop--the bishop in whose diocese

11 Dec 1996 : Column 1156

I live--the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Carlisle to say that he was hoping to speak in favour of the right reverend Prelate's amendment, but, sadly, was not able to be here this evening as a result of having to return to that far outpost of the north west. I thought it right to put that on record so that all involved in the Bill would know that both the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lichfield and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Carlisle wished to speak and wished to offer their support, even if it was not in my interest, to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway.

Lord Campbell of Alloway: I thank my noble friend for that concession. I have the letter from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Carlisle but I think it was very fair of my noble friend to mention it. He says that it is a moral problem. We all have a sense of morality. I did regard it as a moral problem and still do, but I am much comforted that a couple of bishops of my Church think it is too. I do not feel so alone any more.

Lord Addington: The noble Lord may well have won the moral argument. The Government seem to be objecting to the Bill on the grounds of cost and administration. The noble Lord's amendment clears everything away and gives us a good view of it. We can take some heart from what has been said. I hope that the Bill is taken forward and that it, or something similar, reaches the statute book very soon.

Lord Henley: I rise to speak just for the sake of the record because I object to what the noble Lord has just said. I did not base all my arguments on cost and administration. I based my principal arguments, if the noble Lord had listened to me, on the interests of the child. That is very important indeed and I want to get that on record. Having said that, obviously questions of cost and administration are also important. But the first interest--the interest of Her Majesty's Government and all other speakers--should be and quite rightly is the interest of the child.

Lord Addington: If I misinterpreted the noble Lord, I, of course, apologise. However, I think that further intervention rather emphasises the point I was trying to make.

8 p.m.

Lord Morris of Castle Morris: As convention requires, I begin by reminding the Committee that this is a Private Member's Bill, that the Labour Party takes a neutral stance on all such legislative proposals, and that I can only speak, therefore, on my own behalf and not on behalf of my party. But

"lest out of ignorance and infirmity, or out of malice and obstinacy it be misconstrued or depraved",

let me assure the Committee that my party takes the issue of special educational needs and this Bill very seriously indeed. My honourable friend the Member for Sheffield Brightside, made this absolutely clear in a recent speech to the London Special Needs Books

11 Dec 1996 : Column 1157

Conference outside the confines of the Houses of Parliament, and therefore I may quote from it. He said:

"The degree to which our education system is able to meet the challenges that learners with special education needs present is a crucial measure of the effectiveness of our education system. Children with special educational needs form a large proportion of the children in our schools ... they must be able to access the most up to date information technology alongside good quality printed material. They must be offered the best possible policies to work with the best possible materials".

It is with that degree of serious commitment that we on these Benches approach this Bill and the amendments before us.

I am happy to give my full support to Amendment No. 2, and to the other amendments in this group. It removes what some of us felt at Second Reading was an imprecision, and it clarifies the main thrust of the Bill. Legal argument about what is to be understood by a phrase like "of sufficient understanding" might perhaps have burgeoned and flourished, and introduced unnecessary distraction into tribunal proceedings. It seems to me that nothing substantial is lost by omitting the entire concept from the Bill, which will be the better and clearer as a result.

On this Bill--as on every other Bill that comes before us--Members of the Committee will have received a fair amount of briefing, some solicited and some unsolicited; some helpful and some less helpful. I must confess that my thoughts on Amendment No. 2 were greatly assisted by papers which I received quite unsolicited from Simone Apsis who wrote that she had,

"survived 10 years at a special school",

and added:

"I would have welcomed the opportunity to represent myself at the special education needs tribunal. My parents forced me to attend a special school against my wishes. I would have liked the opportunity to make my views known and to put pressure on the local educational authority to send me to a mainstream school".

It is precisely that situation which this amendment (and the Bill as a whole) proposes to address.

I cannot for the life of me see that the acceptance of the amendment would involve the Government in any financial consequences worth talking about. Neither can I believe that herds of wild, ravenous and starving lawyers are going to make a Gaderene rush to get their feet into this particular trough if the Committee were able to accept this amendment today.

In the nature of things, there are not going to be many cases of this kind. It seems only equitable that all children should be entitled to the benefits of this Bill, and the amendment is fully in accord with what I take to be at the heart of this Bill, namely, that the interests of the child must be paramount.

I am happy to support the amendment and I still hope that the Minister will, sooner or later, feel moved to accept it even if there is "trouble at t'mill" in Carlisle which deprives him of the presence of his bishop.

11 Dec 1996 : Column 1158

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: Before my noble friend replies, I simply repeat that if these words were taken out of the Bill then children who are clearly not of sufficient understanding will be entrusted with all these processes. I do not believe that that is acceptable.

Lord Campbell of Alloway: I do not believe that it is reasonable to reply.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch moved Amendment No. 3:

Page 1, line 10, after ("child") insert (", excluding a mentally handicapped child,").

The noble Lord said: This is a very brief probing amendment, of which I tried to give my noble friend notice this morning. Again, it is only aimed at mentally handicapped children. I am told that one of the disadvantages of the tribunal's procedure is that it is confined to considering educational issues, such as curriculum matters and so on, and cannot sufficiently consider the social aspects of the child's needs.

For most mentally handicapped children the social environment of their school is likely to be more important than more strictly curricular considerations. Most of the children of whom I am talking would be unable to attempt the national curriculum, for instance. So I am really asking my noble friend the Minister whether he agrees that the tribunal's remit might be widened accordingly to allow it to give more consideration to the child's social needs and general environment. I am not advocating that the composition of the tribunal should be altered in any way to achieve that and certainly not by the addition of any statutory social worker, for example. I am simply advised that the tribunal might sometimes reach a conclusion more sympathetic to the needs of mentally handicapped children and their parents if it could give more weight to social considerations. I beg to move.

---