Peter Weir
Strangford · Ulster Unionist Party · Northern Ireland
“Funding was secured for that scheme, and we have been able to take further steps on it. As highlighted by my colleague Diane Dodds, we have seen my successor, the current Minister, be able to implement it at the beginning of September 2021 and funding be made available for it.”
“One of the great fears — I saw it particularly, as Education Minister, from the point of view of children and the domestic setting between partners — was what was going to happen in families when the doors closed and the locks went on. What was happening behind closed doors?”
“There is another significant element of the Bill. I have spoken about it in the Chamber on a couple of occasions. There is always a slight danger that we, as legislators, see legislation as being the end of a process and think that we can pack it away, put it on the shelf and forget about the problem because it has been solved.”
“I welcome the passage of the Bill's Final Stage and commend all the campaigners who have pressed so hard for it and the Bill sponsor. For Pat Catney, hearing some of the tributes must be like hearing eulogies at your funeral, without having to go through the indignity of dying, which is always a double advantage.”
“As highlighted by a number of Members, the impact of period poverty, though not confined to it, has been particularly acute in young women's education. We know that the impact can lead to the missing of education and constraints within education, and that it does so in a disproportionate way.”
“I support the Bill's Final Stage, and I commend the Bill's sponsor for introducing it. I thank the Minister and the Department for the positive attitude that they have taken towards it.”
The complete record
Every one of 3,831 lines we hold for Peter Weir, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 68 of 77.
“In about three weeks' time, the Committee is due to be briefed by officials on the detail of the budget, and that constrains some of the conclusions that I am able to make today. <BR /> <BR />I begin by looking at the overall picture of the Department of Education resource figure. DE has gained an allocation of around £40 million from the Executive. The Committee understands that a considerable sum — around £35 million — has been added to the 2016-17 baseline to meet substantial additional liabilities associated with teachers’ pensions. I should say, at this point, that clarification on this allocation is most welcome. My understanding is that the enhanced budget was then subject to about a 5% cut.”
“I have great pleasure in following the leaders of the two main opposition parties, one still mysteriously in the Government. I will perhaps remark on that later. <BR /> <BR />First, I congratulate my colleague Mervyn Storey and wish him well. I know that he is constrained to 34 minutes in his summation, but at least we can look forward to some very punchy comments then. <BR /> <BR />Before I move on to a couple of more general points in my capacity as a DUP MLA, I want to make a few remarks on behalf of the Committee for Education. During the previous debate of this kind, virtually a year ago, on 27 January 2015, my predecessor — I think that it was Mr Storey — was able to comment in rather more detail on the Department of Education’s budget than will be possible today.”
“I thank the Minister for his response, and I welcome the initiatives that are taking place. One of the weaknesses at times is the lack of realisation of the careers availability in STEM subjects and the disjoint with careers advice. Will the Minister outline any initiatives that are taking place to ensure that we upskill our careers advisers in schools to ensure that there is greater awareness of the opportunities for careers in STEM subjects?”
“Will that assessment comprehensively cover all the issues on barriers to teacher mobility? Will it include the outstanding issue of the Catholic teacher training certificate?”
“I thank the Minister for his statement covering that range of issues. I refer him to the largest portion of the statement, which was on teacher qualifications and, indeed, the effort being made to coordinate between North and South measures to reduce obstacles to teacher mobility. I note that the statement says that the Minister has tasked the teacher councils:”
“I thank the Minister for her answer. In terms of the priority that has been given to this, what funding bids did she put in for 2015-16 in the monitoring rounds?”
“Where the three great minds of the Minister of Education, the Health Minister and Mr Agnew — that triumvirate in the Assembly — have come to a conclusion, the humble Chair of the Committee would not stand in the way of such deliberation. To that end, we also formally support amendment No 2. <BR /> <BR />In conclusion, as Chair and as a DUP member, we are supportive of all the amendments today. There is an opportunity to complete a good piece of legislation that, hopefully — this is the ultimate test — will improve the lives of children with special educational needs.”
“Therefore, the aim was not to be in any way disruptive, so the changes in terms of the two years to three years and the identity of the reviewers seem to be perfectly sensible. Again on Amendment No 3, which is the other ministerial amendment, there is a degree of tidying-up. It follows the direction that the Committee decided to go in. As such, I take reassurance from what the Minister said in connection with that; it is relatively uncontroversial. <BR /> <BR />I do not think that anybody saw a major problem with Mr Agnew's amendment; the only issue was about whether it was strictly necessary. It was indicated by the Minister that, having consulted with the Health Minister, it is an appropriate amendment.”
“They wanted the assurance that children in any part of Northern Ireland would always get equal access to support identified in a SEN statement. I note that the Minister's text refers to treatment that would normally be provided by the Health and Social Care Board as part of the statutory functions relating to healthcare. What the Minister indicated to us in his opening remarks gives us reassurance. If he could confirm that the amendment will not in any way damage the equal and consistent treatment or access for SEN children throughout Northern Ireland, that would be of great value to Members. <BR /> <BR />I will turn briefly to the amendments in my capacity as a member of the DUP. The amendments overall are fairly uncontroversial. Amendment No 1 is largely a tidying-up amendment. As was indicated, it is the principle of review.”
“The Committee agreed not to support bringing forward amendments relating to transition cooperation. As was indicated, there is not a formal position on behalf of the Committee on Mr Agnew's amendment. However, we heard the assurances that were given by the Minister, and we will listen closely to any other arguments that are used in today's debate. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 3 modifies the Committee's amendment that relates to the provision of therapeutic and other treatments identified in a statement. The Committee wanted to ensure equality and consistency of access to provision from health bodies for children with special educational needs. The amendment reflects the views and concerns of parents and other stakeholders who contacted members.”
“Notwithstanding that, I anticipate that Committee members will be content with the changes proposed in amendment No 1. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 2, from Mr Agnew, references transition plans. During Committee Stage, Members considered proposals from stakeholders to strengthen transition arrangements for children with SEN. At the time, the Committee accepted departmental assurances about the transition service and the existing cooperation among DE, DEL and the Department of Health and plans to extend cooperation in that regard to include DSD and potentially other Departments.”
“Thus, I think that it is fair to say that this is an uncontroversial change. <BR /> <BR />Secondly, amendment No 1 changes the period of the review of the cooperation between the Department of Education and the Department of Health from two years to three years. When the Committee put forward that amendment on timescales, it was intended in such a way so as not to create any additional layers of bureaucracy or additional pressures in different reviews. Therefore, it also seems perfectly reasonable that that fits in with the suggested time frame. Additionally, it changes the identity of the reviewers from the RQIA on its own to the RQIA and, presumably, the Education and Training Inspectorate. The Committee previously made its views known on the benefits of statutory independence for inspection organisations such as the ETI.”
“I will make a few remarks on the amendments — I will try to keep them relatively short — as Chair of the Committee. I will then make a couple of remarks as a DUP Member. <BR /> <BR />As we have heard, there are three amendments before us. The Committee has not dealt formally with any of them, so I will limit myself to some related observations and questions. I will deal with the amendments in order. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 1 appears to be a simple tidy-up of the Committee's cooperation amendment that was agreed at Consideration Stage. There are a few changes. The reference to pooling Education and Health budgets, as the Minister indicated, has gone. As the Minister also advised, that has been clarified to be already part-covered by section 4 of the Children's Services Co-operation Act.”
“As I said, as a Committee, we will want to scrutinise to make sure that the detail fits the good intentions of the Bill. At this, the Second Stage, I commend the Bill to the House.”
“It is fair to say that it is difficult to see how such matters could be addressed effectively through legislation. I know that many Committee members have direct connections as school governors, some are former teachers and some are parents or grandparents. There is genuine concern for the protection of our children from what is perceived to be a considerable and growing threat. From that point of view, I ask the Minister if there is any assurance that he can give us today on cyberbullying. If it cannot be given today, could it be given during the anticipated Committee Stage? <BR /> <BR />I will allow my colleague to address matters from a party perspective. I commend the Bill to the House, as I think that it is a good step.”
“Clearly, none of the above is the policy intention of the Bill. However, Members would value any reassurance and clarification that can be given by the Minister on those points today. <BR /> <BR />I said that the Bill is a good beginning. I think that the Committee hopes that the Department will use the information that it gleans from the database, along with the pupil absence data, to develop useful guidance that will begin the process of getting bullying out of our schools. As I said, there is a general welcome from the Education Committee for the Bill. I suspect that — this where much of our deliberations will take place — the greatest anxiety, at times, will be about what is not in the Bill; for example, explicit measures in relation to cyberbullying.”
“Finally, members wondered about the freedom of information consequences of the centralised database, and the danger that mischievous or unhelpful individuals might use the stored information to develop bullying league tables for schools, which is something that all of us want to avoid.”
“<BR /> <BR />I mentioned a moment ago the importance of defining a problem and listening to those affected. The third element and the necessary underpinning for the first two is the accurate and consistent capture of information. I think the Committee accepts in principle that the Bill makes adequate provision for that. The recording of bullying incidents, the motivation of the perpetrator and the action to be taken to address the situation is a good beginning for the development of guidance for schools and teachers. <BR /> <BR />That having been said, Committee members indicated some concerns that the recording of information might lead to an administrative or cost burden for schools. Members were also worried that additional responsibilities for schools might lead to an increased risk of vexatious litigation.”
“I believe that feedback will be critical to our decisions; indeed, it is difficult to think of a Bill that has a more direct and crucial impact on the individuals concerned. <BR /> <BR />In that spirit of active listening, I think that the Committee will recognise and welcome the obligations in the Bill for boards of governors to consult on the development of their anti-bullying policies. Members would, I think, particularly welcome the inclusion of children and their parents in developing the anti-bullying policies. It strikes me — I believe my colleague will develop this point — that we need to make sure that the right balance is struck between the role of governors and the role of principals. Again, we will look at the most effective means of doing that.”
“<BR /> <BR />The successful realisation of meaningful change through public policy is generally strongly correlated to listening. Perhaps more correctly, failure to achieve change is sometimes a consequence of not listening. In the case of this Bill, the Department’s consultation appears to have been well done, with a strong set of responses from children and young people. With a view to securing robust and insightful feedback from the same group, the Committee, in conjunction with the Assembly's Education Service and Research and Information Service, has commenced a series of focus groups based on children and young people in schools from all sectors in Northern Ireland.”
“<BR /> <BR />To begin to tackle something, you first have to know what it is. The Bill proposes a definition of bullying. As the Minister indicated, there are other potential definitions, and I think that is something that, as a Committee, we will need to look at. For example, it might identify groups of potential victims, provide more details of the unacceptable behaviour or more widely demarcate the circumstances in which it occurs. I appreciate that, during the Committee Stage, we will, I suspect, get various suggestions from stakeholders, and that will challenge the Department accordingly. It may also be that members will want to explore the workability of the limits to a school's responsibility as set out in the Bill.”
“Cyberbullying has hit the headlines and has perhaps led to tragic outcomes and caused parents, teachers and us as legislators to re-evaluate our understanding of the changing learning environment in our schools. <BR /> <BR />The Department very helpfully briefed the Committee on the findings of its recent consultation and on the contents of the Bill before us today. To be clear and as the Minister indicated, the Bill cannot deal with all the aspects of bullying that we may know about. From that point of view, we need to make it clear that we are doing as much as we can without raising belief and expectations that there is some magic solution and that we will cure all bullying. However, it might begin to reaffirm the position of our schools as a safe place for learning and growth — a place where bullying simply will not be tolerated.”
“Findings from the DE-sponsored surveys in 2002, 2007 and 2011 show that figures for bullying have hardly changed over all that time, indicating that around 30% to 40% of year 6 and year 9 pupils reported being bullied in the previous two months. About 20% of year 6 and year 9 pupils reported bullying other pupils in the previous two months, and, in a more recent survey, 16%, which is a smaller proportion but is still very concerning, reported being the victim of cyberbullying. Now, one may always question just how accurate a handle we can get on the issue from the figures, but what is undoubtedly the case is that the sheer scale of bullying exists and tends to persist.”
“We understand that school bullying can have a substantial impact on its victims, sometimes, though not always, beyond even the expectations of the bully. Sometimes, as we have sadly seen, it can even be to the point of being life-threatening. We want to listen to the concerns of children about bullying, and we are determined, I think in conjunction with the Minister and through the Assembly, to do something about it. <BR /> <BR />Bullying is something that, if we think back far enough, many of us may have directly experienced at school. It is one of those things that we all think we know something about. However, I can tell the House that, through the preliminary scrutiny of these matters, the Committee has already learned some things about bullying that it did not expect.”
“Maybe I should say that, sometimes, I would settle for at least getting those rather than even being just restricted to that. From time to time, in offices or at home, representatives of various organisations are also listening closely to our words, watching the highlights on the BBC or even poring over the Hansard report of our deliberations. Today, things might be a little different because, in addition to Members, the Minister, officials and organisations, we may actually have children and young people watching us as we speak or reading our words at a later time. For their benefit, let me make it absolutely clear from the Education Committee that we take bullying in schools very seriously.”
“Bearing in mind what Mr McCarthy said earlier about the imminence of Christmas, I will try to keep my remarks relatively brief and to stick to my position as Chair of the Committee. My colleague Mr Craig will outline the party position. As the Bill will potentially have an impact on boards of governors, I declare an interest as a member of the board of governors at Ballyholme Primary School, Bloomfield Primary School and Kilcooley Primary School. <BR /> <BR />I am conscious that, sometimes, when I speak as Chair of the Education Committee, I am listened to by a rather restricted audience. Perhaps sometimes it is the other members of the Committee who are listening, or perhaps it is only the Minister or you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and the officials who are paying attention.”
“It is probably more a question of what we regard as clarity and legislative tactics. The Minister clearly believes that it is best dealt with by way of regulations. From a Committee and party point of view, we believe that, in providing that level of clarity and clear reassurance to groups, it is worthwhile pursuing amendment No 8. <BR /> <BR />I commend these amendments to the House. I look forward to the rest of the debate.”
“However, I take on board what was said by the Health Minister and the Education Minister about how it would require additional legislation to amend the role of the RQIA and how, despite its willingness to volunteer, it may not be the most appropriate body to do this. To that extent, as an individual Member, I am persuaded by the argument that amendment No 6 is not one that should be supported; indeed, it could be looked at when putting something in place. <BR /> <BR />Having listened to the Minister, the Committee and, indeed, the DUP are persuaded that amendment No 8 is the way to go. I simply caution that there is probably not a fundamental difference on amendment No 8 between the Department and us.”
“I took on board what the sponsor of the Children's Services Co-operation Bill said — obviously, our amendments predated his — and, whereas I appreciate that the Minister has indicated that there is a level of duplication, I see things slightly differently. I take on board what Mr Agnew said: while there may be some overlap, the two are not necessarily the same and, indeed, amendment Nos 5 and 7, in particular, provide greater clarity. From that point of view, I am fairly relaxed about amendment Nos 5 and 7 and think that they could be useful. <BR /> <BR />I take on board what has been said by the Minister about amendment No 6. Essentially, the RQIA has volunteered for this oversight role. It is clear that, whatever cooperation there is, there will have to be a level of oversight.”
“I am glad to see that there has been a spirit of cooperation in seeing where we can improve the Bill. As was indicated earlier, the focus has to be on making the best possible provision for children, in particular, and their parents. We need to ensure that the process is as smooth as possible and is delivered as quickly as possible and that we do not get unnecessary additional burdens on schools. To that end, I welcome the fact that, when concerns were raised at various stages by stakeholders and then reflected by the Committee, the Department, either by giving assurances or by taking on amendments, showed a spirit of cooperation and allowed us to see those. <BR /> <BR />I turn to the amendments from the Committee's point of view.”
“The other amendments generally deal with strengthening the obligation on the Department's regulatory powers in relation to the SEN plan; the duties of boards of governors in respect of SEN provision; appeals against the content of statements for children under two; and assistance, support and assessment for children above compulsory school age who wish to exercise their SEN rights. <BR /> <BR />Probably not surprisingly, given the complexity of the issue, the Committee took a little longer than expected to complete its work on the Bill. In concluding my remarks as Chairman, I commend my colleagues for their patience, their diligence and their thorough consideration of these important issues. <BR /> <BR />The issues have been fairly well covered, so I will just make a few final remarks from the perspective of the DUP.”
“The Committee also sought the views of the sponsor of the Children's Services Co-operation Bill. He advised — I paraphrase, but I am sure that if I get it wrong he will be happy to correct me — that, while there was some overlap, he did not believe that the amendments unnecessarily duplicated or, indeed, undermined his Bill. Obviously, the Minister has indicated that the Department does not support amendment Nos 5, 6 and 7. <BR /> <BR />The Committee suggested other amendments that the Department agreed to support and the Minister will move today. In particular, I would like to mention amendment No 2, which enhances the obligations on schools in respect of support for children with SEN.”
“The Committee subsequently agreed to table amendment No 6, which would extend the duties of the RQIA to include the assessment of cooperation between the Departments of Education and Health in the provision of SEN services. Some Members indicated that they might wish to consider further related amendments in respect of the period during which a report might be generated by the RQIA.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Committee noted proposals to establish a new oversight body or imbue an existing body with oversight powers in relation to health and education. Members agreed that, for the present, the establishment of a new quango in the health and education sectors would be expensive and potentially ineffective. They noted departmental suggestions that existing duties of an existing body — for instance, the RQIA — might possibly impinge on or duplicate the role of the Northern Ireland Commissioner for Children and Young People (NICCY) and have questionable effect on SEN provision, given the former organisation’s limited experience of the education sector. The Committee obtained the views of the RQIA and NICCY in that regard, and they did not agree.”
“The Committee felt that such an obligation was necessary in order to address perceived long-standing failures by relevant bodies to deliver consistent services for SEN children and to coherently meet the challenge presented by increasing demand for SEN services in schools. <BR /> <BR />The House recently passed the Children’s Services Co-operation Bill, which included provisions relating to general joint commissioning in support of the well-being of children. As the scope of the SEND Bill is limited to SEN and disability, the Committee agreed to table amendment No 5, dealing with education and health cooperation in the provision of SEN services and specifically referencing issues raised in evidence, including the requirement to share information, undertake integrated planning and share budgets as necessary.”
“It agreed that variations in SEN provision, both geographical and otherwise, might be best tackled in the interim by supporting a revised duty on HSCTs to provide services identified in SEN statements. The Committee therefore agreed to support amendment No 7. <BR /> <BR />The Committee also felt that, owing to the limited nature and unsatisfactory level of cooperation between education and health bodies, a more general obligation in that regard was required, linked to specific activities, including the sharing of information and integrated planning, underpinned by powers to pool budgets as appropriate.”
“It was singularly unimpressed by the evidence from the Department, the Education Authority and the Health and Social Care Board in that regard. It was also disappointed by the Department’s inability to share draft protocols covering enhanced cooperation and noted the apparently limited progress at that time in respect of the review of allied health professional support for children and young people with SEN. Members felt that ongoing liaison programmes and departmental assertions of good intentions were, in the case of the former, ineffective and, in the case of the latter, not particularly credible. The Committee therefore took the view that further obligations for health and education cooperation were required.”
“The Department advised that, in any event, new protocols were being developed that were designed to enhance cooperation between Education and Health and that this process was supported by the ongoing review of allied health professionals services. <BR /> <BR />The Committee noted with considerable concern the views expressed by many stakeholders during and, indeed, prior to the Committee Stage of the Bill in respect of what we might characterise as lacklustre cooperation between health and education bodies. The Committee noted the large number of SEN assessments and statements that are produced outside of statutory timescales, as an apparent consequence of poor communication between HSCTs and the Education Authority.”
“Autism NI also suggested that a third-party organisation was needed in order to oversee the effectiveness of cooperation between Health and Education. <BR /> <BR />The Department of Health and witnesses from the Education Authority and the Health and Social Care Board highlighted extensive examples of successful and ongoing cooperation between both sectors. The Department also argued that further statutory obligations relating to cooperation would be unlikely to lead to improvement, as the relevant constraints related to budgets rather than legislation. The Department indicated that further obligations might entail considerable additional costs, with questionable additional benefits for children with SEN.”
“Stakeholders advised that the current provisions permit health and social care trusts to sometimes decline to provide support to SEN children, even where it is identified in a SEN statement, owing to resource constraints. It was argued that that allows for significant variation in the SEN provision available to children in different parts of Northern Ireland. How often have we heard reference to a "postcode lottery"? I think that there is concern that there is that variation within Northern Ireland. Respondents to the Committee Stage, including the Committee for Health, indicated support in principle for amendments that would place an enhanced duty on health and education boards to share information, plan jointly and generally cooperate.”
“A wide range of witnesses to the Committee expressed dismay in respect of the poor and unsatisfactory levels of cooperation between health and education bodies. Many representative organisations expressed similar views on health and education overlaps, at the Committee stakeholder event, which was organised with the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety.”
“Members noted that where parents felt that the school had wrongly diagnosed an educational need, it was likely that those parents would prefer that the relevant PLP should not transfer with the child. Thus the Committee agreed to support amendments that would place an obligation on the board of governors of mainstream or special schools to transfer PLPs with a transferring pupil to the board of governors of the receiving school. That obligation is subject to the agreement of the parent or, in line with the spirit of the Bill, the child, where the child is above compulsory school age. I am happy to indicate that the Department accepted those amendments and the Minister will move them today. <BR /> <BR />I would like to move to Committee amendment Nos 5, 6 and 7.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Department clarified that PLPs would provide greater focus on outcomes and monitoring than the existing non-statutory individual plans and that the revised code of practice would set out the relevant format and content of PLPs, and the timescale for the review etc. The Committee noted the Department's explanations and accepted that statutory PLPs would provide greater clarity and certainty for all pupils. However, the Committee expressed concerns in respect of educational transitions. In particular, members wanted to ensure that important SEN information that identified educational support provision should transfer with a child when they changed school. Members therefore felt that sharing PLPs between schools was essential and that the necessary provisions should be in the Bill.”
“The Committee felt that that change would provide improved assurance for parents of statemented children. <BR /> <BR />I will now deal with amendment Nos 3 and 4. During the Committee Stage, the Association of Educational Psychologists and the Equality Commission suggested that clause 3 be amended in order to set out a framework for personal learning plans, including an obligation for regular review and the transfer of information between schools. The teaching unions expressed concerns about an additional associated bureaucratic burden on teachers and confusion in respect of the monitoring of outcomes associated with PLPs.”
“However, the Committee felt that given the potential for benefits for children in the revised SEN and inclusion framework, the Department should be given the opportunity to properly consult and draft the detailed regulations and revised code of practice setting out its changes to the SEN assessment process. The Committee agreed that it would not put down amendments in that regard. <BR /> <BR />That said, the Committee noted particular concerns raised by parents' representatives, including Autism NI and independent parents of children with acquired brain injury, about SEN statements. The Committee therefore agreed to support an amendment that would insert a new clause — amendment No 8 — requiring the Education Authority to better specify provision for those children in the latter stages of the assessment process through the SEN statement.”
“The Department indicated that the more streamlined approach, coupled with strengthened provision in schools, would lead to a reduction in the number of children requiring statutory assessment and being granted SEN statements. For the majority of pupils, support would be available at stages 1 and 2, which are the school-based stages, without the need for a statement. <BR /> <BR />The Committee noted with concern the absence of detail in the Department's plans in respect of the reform of the statementing process and the consequent concerns among stakeholders.”
“The Children with Disabilities Strategic Alliance (CDSA) called for an amendment to require the Education Authority to better quantify and specify the support available to children in SEN statements so as to ensure improved consistency of support for statemented children. The CDSA contended that the current legislation permitted the Education Authority too great a degree of discretion in the variation of agreed support and the timing of its withdrawal. <BR /> <BR />During the Committee Stage, the Department advised that other regulations and a revised code of practice would be brought forward soon, which would reform the assessment and statementing process, shortening it from five stages to three and reducing the overall timescale from 26 to 20 weeks.”
“In particular, the confirmation that the new process is voluntary and will not compromise or delay SENDIST deliberations was most welcome. However, given the lengthy consultation process that preceded the Bill, it is quite surprising to find that the Department had not previously communicated those simple assurances to stakeholder organisations. That could have calmed a lot of nerves in the broader sector. <BR /> <BR />I turn now to the amendments themselves. They cover a number of themes. I want to begin by talking about the SEN assessment process, to which amendment No 8 applies. <BR /> <BR />The Bill makes only limited reference to the current five-stage process under which children's educational needs are assessed and statements of educational needs produced.”
“I would just like to record the Committee's concern and dismay about the number of statements that are provided outside the specified time frame and the proportion of those that are subject to what are termed "valid exceptions". The Committee accepted the compression of timescales for parental involvement on the understanding that the statutory bodies' timescales would be subject to a more significant compression and that, if parents failed to meet the new deadlines, it would not adversely impact on their children's access to SEN support. <BR /> <BR />The Bill also contains provisions relating to additional mediation arrangements for the SEN assessment process. When the Department explained those new arrangements properly and clarified some points of concern that we had raised, the Committee was quite happy with the relevant clause.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Bill also contains measures relating to a pilot scheme that would allow the transfer of SEN rights from parents to children who are below compulsory school age. It is fair to say that the majority of members questioned the necessity of those provisions, and they noted the very limited experience in other jurisdictions and the lengthy running timescales included in clause 11. The Committee noted that the related regulations are to be subject to draft affirmative resolution, and, on that basis, I think that the Committee was just about content not to oppose the relevant provisions of that element. <BR /> <BR />Clause 5 introduces some reductions to timescales for the SEN assessment process. I will say more about that in a moment.”