My Lords, noble Lords who have spoken on this issue have eloquently highlighted the significant barriers that stand between some children and young people and the good education they deserve. The aim of the Bill is to help to overcome these barriers. I hope that I can reassure noble Lords that these provisions, in conjunction with existing legislation and guidance, are sufficient to achieve this aim.
The Government’s view is that the majority of pupils are best served by attending a mainstream educational institution. For those with particularly acute needs, a special educational institution may be appropriate. These institutions provide face-to-face teaching and are subject to rigorous accountability arrangements. They also support social, emotional and physical development in a way that more isolated approaches to learning struggle to replicate. Wherever possible, the support provided to children and young people, including through education, health and care plans, should enable them to access the benefits of mainstream or special education. There will be individuals for whom, despite additional support, a mainstream or special institution would be inappropriate.
As has been discussed, local authorities have a duty to make arrangements for pupils of compulsory school age who may not, for any period, receive suitable education. In the context of this duty, suitable education is defined as,
“efficient education suitable to [a child’s] age, ability and aptitude and to any special educational needs he may have”.
New statutory guidance was issued in January on the use of alternative provision and on the education of children unable to attend school because of health needs. Local authorities must have regard to this statutory guidance and the clear expectations it sets out. If a local authority does not follow the guidance, the issue can be taken through the local authority complaints process and, if not resolved, referred to the department. I believe this addresses the concerns raised by the noble Lord, Lord Patel, in Amendment 81 about ensuring the quality of alternative provision.
The guidance sets a clear expectation that alternative provision should deliver a high-quality education that leads to good academic attainment on a par with mainstream schooling. It also reinforces the importance of flexible provision that meets pupils’ wider needs.
In drafting this guidance we have listened carefully to organisations that represent children and young people, such as the cancer charity CLIC Sargent. In response to these views, we recently amended the guidance on children with health needs to give greater emphasis to supporting children’s social and emotional needs. The current arrangements provide an appropriate balance between legal duties and statutory guidance. This ensures that all children unable to attend school are covered by the duty while retaining the flexibility to clarify how the duty should be discharged.
The noble Countess, Lady Mar, in a number of amendments has raised a number of specific points about the use of alternative provision, including in relation to EHC plans and personal budgets. I am pleased to reassure her that the Bill does not prevent a local authority naming an alternative provider in an EHC plan. Where alternative provision is named in a plan as additional specialist provision, it can also be covered by a personal budget, including a direct payment. The Bill, therefore, gives local authorities the flexibility to use alternative provision where it is in the best interests of the child or young person.
However, alternative provision is intended as an exceptional arrangement, and decisions about its use need to be considered carefully. For the majority of children and young people, the aim of alternative provision should be to support their reintegration back into mainstream education. Local authorities would need to consider any requests from a parent or young person to include alternative provision within a plan. The current arrangements allow for local authorities to ensure that the arrangements constitute a “suitable education”, in line with their legal duty. In doing so, they mitigate the risk that alternative provision is used inappropriately or for longer than necessary.
5.45 pm
Given the diversity of institutions that provide alternative provision, we do not believe that it would be feasible to impose blanket duties on them in relation to SEN provision. This does not mean a lack of accountability for these pupils. Where a local authority arranges alternative provision, it then has a duty to ensure that the arrangements are suitable to a child’s special educational needs.
I listened with interest to the examples given by the noble Countess, Lady Mar, and my noble friend Lady Brinton of the value for some children of online or blended education. This is certainly something that could be provided for in an EHC plan, and I have no doubt that blended learning will be used much more in future, as the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, and my noble friend Lord Lucas said. Personally, I do not think that our first attempt at embracing IT in education has been a great success but, as my noble friend Lord Lucas said, more and more products are becoming available online, and I am sure that they will be more widely used in future.
The current provisions within the Bill maintain the position that, wherever possible, the focus of education, health and care plans should be on supporting children and young people to access suitable mainstream or special education. They do, however, allow sufficient
flexibility for local authorities to specify alternative provision within a plan where this is in the pupil’s best interests. I believe that the current duties on local authorities and accountability mechanisms strike the right balance. We will, however, continue to work with organisations such as CLIC Sargent to ensure that statutory guidance on alternative provision supports the needs of all pupils. I therefore urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.