House of Lords, Third Reading of the Education Bill:
IPSEA comment

Back to home page

Government seek to reassure parents that Clause 2 of Education Bill cannot harm children with special educational needs ...

Clause 2 of the Education Bill, currently being debated in Parliament, gives the Secretary of State the power to relieve any school or LEA of any duty under education law, on application by that school or LEA. IPSEA was concerned that this may be used to undermine the rights of children with special educational needs. Together with the Special Educational Consortium and our patron, Baronness Davina Darcy de Knayth, IPSEA drafted an amendment which would exclude the key duties in special educational law from the effects of Clause 2.

Although the Government resisted the amendment, Baroness Ashton gave the following assurances in the House Lords, recorded in Hansard for July 3rd.:

"The first clear point on the effects of the [new] law in relation to the specific sections mentioned in Amendment No. 3 is that they could not be changed if that change would be likely to damage the education of children with special educational needs. No change that harmed children with special educational needs would be possible. It is clear that simply abolishing the duties in any of the sections to which the amendment refers would not be lawful. It would be detrimental to children with special educational needs, for example, to have no duty to assess or identify. Without those duties the basic provisions for children with special educational needs would not function. Therefore it must not be lawful to remove them.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, pointed out, many of the duties in Amendment No. 3 are expressed as 'when necessary'. Clearly it is necessary for someone to act to secure the best interests of children with special educational needs, but it would be to the detriment of those children if they did not do so. It follows that having no duty on anyone to act when necessary must be to the detriment of children with special educational needs. Accordingly, it would not be lawful to remove any of those duties. I hope that I have made it as clear as I can that that is the meaning of the legislation as the Bill is drafted ...

We will make it clear in guidance that we would not consider as standard-raising any proposal that simply proposed to do away with those duties ...

Finally, I know that the Special Educational Consortium was concerned that it might be unable to police any proposals coming forward because it would not know about them in time. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, is concerned that proposals should not be left entirely to the Secretary of State's opinion, for all of the right reasons and none of the wrong reasons.

I will make the commitment that if the Secretary of State were to receive any application affecting the duties set out in the five sections included in the amendment, the Special Educational Consortium would be informed and consulted about the proposals. That would ensure it would have an opportunity to be involved in the decision making.

IPSEA welcomed this statement as affirming the Government¹s commitment towards the key rights of children with special educational needs. As a steering group member of the Special Educational Consortium, IPSEA hopes to play a key role in 'policing' any proposals which may affect the rights of children with special educational needs."

Back to top