I am grateful for that clarification, which is extremely important. Forgive me if I have misled the Committee in any way.
The Bill, as drafted, could mean that many of the safeguards and programmes that drive improvements in SEN provision in communities would simply be dropped or made no longer relevant. That would redesign the SEN approach taken by government to date and completely disrupt the important work of local authorities in this area. There are also serious concerns that SEN provision could be harmed both by the establishment of academies on such a large scale and by the new academies being drawn from those schools that are already strong and which in many cases would be the best place to take on more SEN pupils and deliver real improvements in SEN provision.
As it stands, and as we have discussed, the legislation completely removes local authorities from consultation on academy status. The central funds for SEN provision will be handed out to many schools in a given area. If that is the case, it is vital that we create a framework that gives local authorities, parents and children with SEN, as well as other academies in the area, some certainty and consistency in relation to other schools in the area about what provision each will provide for special educational needs.
Amendments 18, 100 and 110 deal with the issue of special schools by seeking to remove reference to them in the Bill. The way in which we treat less fortunate members of our society is a good measure of any civilised society. The interests of people with SEN are currently addressed primarily by local education authorities. We are greatly concerned that this Bill will damage the ability of local authorities to fulfil their important role in this field and will run the risk of damaging the education, and therefore the life chances, of a great many pupils with special educational needs—the very last group of pupils whom a civilised society should place at risk.
Earlier, I was mistaken in saying that special schools would become academies in September, which would be much too early. I am glad that that is not the case. However, I still think that the Bill is being taken through its legislative process in haste. Although I now understand that special schools would not have even the permissive right to become academies in September, many issues relating to special educational needs need to be better thought out before such schools are enabled. Perhaps we need to see provisions in the Bill that assure us that all these complex details will be properly worked out before schools for special educational needs can become academies.
Academies Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 23 June 2010.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Academies Bill [HL].
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
719 c1394-5 Session
2010-12Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 17:03:22 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_648777
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_648777
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_648777