Children and Young Persons Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 73: 73: Before Clause 17, insert the following new Clause— ““Appeal to the Special Educational Needs Tribunal (1) In section 325 of the Education Act 1996 (c. 56) (appeal against decision not to make statement), after subsection (2) insert— ““(2A) If the child referred to in subsection (1) is looked after by the local authority the child himself may appeal to the tribunal.”” (2) In section 326 of that Act (appeal against contents of statement), after subsection (1) insert— ““(1ZA) If the child referred to in subsection (1) is looked after by the local authority the child may himself appeal to the tribunal.”””” The noble Baroness said: I will also speak to Amendment No. 101, which is in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Walmsley. The purpose of the amendments is to enable children in care to appeal in their own right, first, in Amendment No. 73, to the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal and, secondly, in Amendment No. 101, against a placement move. On Amendment No. 73, the Bill does not address the issue facing those looked-after children with special educational needs who wish to appeal to the special educational needs tribunal, SENDIST. Currently, children in care do not have anyone who is sufficiently independent from the local authority in a position to act for them in tribunals. Therefore, they are being denied access to appeals. This is a significant issue for looked-after children, because almost a third—28 per cent—have a statement of special educational needs, compared with just 3 per cent of children generally. Looked-after children with special educational needs are even more vulnerable and have considerably poorer educational outcomes than other children with special educational needs. There is all the more reason, therefore, for them to have a proper assessment of their needs. Yet the evidence shows that local authorities often fail children with special educational needs in a number of ways. They refuse to make statements or make inaccurate statements with vague or misleading information about provisions that they are legally obliged to provide. They also make bad school placement decisions. Without adequate recourse to SENDIST, those problems are compounded. As things stand, however, looked-after children have no proper recourse to SENDIST. The Government recognise that the situation needs to be addressed. In the Care Matters White Paper, they promised to, "““issue strengthened guidance to carers and those with parental responsibility setting out how they can support children in care with SEN, including their right to appeal. Where carers experience difficulty supporting a child or young person’s appeal we will ensure that Independent Reviewing Officers (IROs) advise those who appeal to SENDIST on behalf of the children in care””." While those measures represent a step forward, they are not an effective solution to the problem. The proposal for revised guidance seems to imply that it is required only for foster carers and does not address the needs of children placed in residential care. There is a real problem here. To challenge decisions by a local authority, the authority itself would need to go to the tribunal and, depending on the complexities of the case, invest in alternative professional opinions or reports to challenge decisions that it had already made. Again, the reference in the White Paper to independent reviewing officers advising carers is a helpful start to increasing the viability of tribunal appeals in relation to children in care, but alone it would not make more funding available or compel an appeal to be brought. Clause 17 introduces a statutory requirement for a designated member of staff for children in care. This is a welcome step, which will, I hope, lead to earlier and quicker identification of children in care with special educational needs and to better record keeping and evidence gathering in relation to statementing. However, such individuals would not have rights to appeal under the current system. If they considered that a child needed a statement or that the contents of a statement needed to be appealed, they would need to refer the matter back to the social services department. In addition, such teachers will be employed by local authorities and will still lack the level of independence that would ensure that appeals were brought where necessary. We move the amendment on behalf of the Children’s Society. It believes that looked-after children with special educational needs in residential care should be granted an entitlement to appear in their own right, as is the case in Scotland for young people aged 16 and 17. In addition, it believes that those children should be granted a statutory right to independent advocacy to support them in doing so. Amendment No. 101 also relates to the child being able to appeal in its own right. The purpose is to enable application to the court for Section 8 orders in relation to children in care. One of the most frequent issues brought by children and young people to independent advocacy services relates to their being moved from placement to placement when that is not in their care plan and is against their wishes. Clause 10 provides the need for review before children are moved to alternative accommodations, but we do not believe that that offers strong enough protection. We would like to see a new legal provision that permits children with sufficient understanding, and others, to apply to the courts to prevent a placement move. We believe that that could be done through an amendment to Section 8 of the Children Act 1989, allowing children to seek leave to the court to apply for a Section 8 order. There are four types of order: a contact order, a prohibited steps order, a residence order and a specific issue order. It has always been an anomaly that these orders cannot be made in respect of one of the most vulnerable groups of children in society—looked-after children. The amendment would extend that right to those children. The amendments are wholly consistent with what children and young people have been saying to the Children’s Rights Director for England and they very much reflect the advice that Dr Roger Morgan has been giving on these matters. I beg to move.