My Lords, I have three amendments in this group. As this is the first time that I have taken part in Committee, although I took part on Second Reading, I have been told that I should declare my interests, which are in the Lords register. In particular, this afternoon, I should like to declare my non-pecuniary interest as the chairman of the trustees of the Chailey Heritage Foundation. The foundation is a non-maintained special independent school with a registered children’s home. It works in partnership with a clinical facility, run by the NHS on the same site, and it has just launched a transition service for 19 to 25 year-olds. Some of these young people will continue from Chailey and others will come from a much wider area. This is the group to which my amendment refers.
Seeing is worth a thousand words, so I am particularly grateful to my noble friend who, during the very precious Recess, came to meet the children, young people and staff at the foundation. His visit had a profound effect on those he met, and I think it is fair to say—I hope the Minister will agree—that the occasion was of mutual benefit. My noble friend met some very severely disabled young people. I was interested in the examples given by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp. The young people at Chailey are not of that sort at all:
they are much more severely disabled. However, they do well at school, within the limits of their disabilities; some have 15 or more medications a day and none of them can walk or power their wheelchair unaided. Our ambition for these young people is that, having had a very worthwhile, stimulating education, which Ofsted says is outstanding—something that we are very pleased about—they should then benefit from this education.
They have some understanding but very limited, or no, speech and have learnt to communicate through different means, often using sophisticated modern technology. They have acquired some knowledge of how to operate in society. We believe that they should participate in their own lives and not be consigned to a wasted life in a nursing or residential home. Despite their very complex needs, we have plans for four of our young people to move into assisted living and we are seeking some sort of employment for them, although we realise that it will be very limited. The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, mentioned the National Audit Office review. I agree that saving money in the long term depends on the initial education of these young people. Semi-independent, rather than fully supported, housing can save considerable money in the long term.
I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Patel and Lord Low, and noble Baronesses, Lady Jones and Lady Hughes, for supporting Amendments 170, 171 and 173. I was hoping to see the name of the noble Lord, Lord Nash, on these amendments when we looked at today’s Marshalled List, but that may come in time. The amendments are very similar to others on the Marshalled List this afternoon. We all wish to see education, health and care plans continue, where appropriate, to the age of 25. I was encouraged by the follow-up letter, written by my noble friend after Second Reading, in which he recognised that some people with special educational needs require more time to complete their education beyond the age of 18: as we all know, they generally learn more slowly than other young people. Having been a Minister, I appreciate the Government’s concern about legislating.
We understand that there could be an expectation that every young person with SEN would have an entitlement to education up to the age of 25, regardless of whether they were ready to make or had already made a successful transition into adult life. Those of us who have brought up children, or worked with children and young people, know that our task is not complete by 19. The years between 19 and 25 are also very formative; it is a time of experimentation, finding limits and testing boundaries. We do not expect a 19 year-old to settle down into adult life or decide where they are going to live for the rest of their life. Young adults with complex needs are different, in that they require very intensive support. They have to make this transition and develop a sense of themselves as adults and what it means to be an adult. Creating the right environment to achieve an understanding of adult life is an important part of supporting development, and we believe that it is “educational” for those with complex needs.
4.15 pm
My noble friend witnessed the post-19 support at Chailey School and how needs can be met creatively using a person-centred approach. However, at present it appears to us that it could be very likely that young people making use of that service will lose their right to maintain their EHC plan.
Children with complex needs have the right to receive education that prepares them for adult life. In order to ensure that this social and financial investment during their school years is protected, we think that the Government must guarantee that these young people have continued support past the age of 19. I have tabled this amendment so that instead of the Bill saying:
“A local authority may cease to maintain an EHC plan for a child or young person only if”,
it will state that a local authority:
“must maintain an EHC plan for a child or young person up to their 25th birthday unless”.
While my noble friend knows all the issues, I sense a reluctance in the department to incorporate the word “must”. I have been told that it does not allow for flexibility, but I point out that the word “must” appears 224 times in the Bill. I think that one more time will not bring the ship down, but could make a world of difference for these young vulnerable adults.
In the draft code of practice there are clear references to the local offer covering transition for young adults, but reading past debates in Hansard I sense that many of us in your Lordships’ House are deeply concerned that too much is left to the discretion of the local authority, particularly taking into account their best interests. Like the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, I spent many years banged up in council chambers listening to various debates. I remember how we really valued our independence and freedom, but there are occasions when local authorities need to be persuaded, contained a bit and told what to do.
While some local authorities have staff with a really good understanding of the learning needs of young adults with very complex needs, we know that many do not. There continues to be circularity in local authorities being able to decide if an EHC plan should continue and then having discretion over how long to provide services while an EHC plan remains in place.
Clause 45 outlines the conditions for when a local authority may cease to maintain an EHC plan for a child or young person. Subsection (3) states:
“When determining whether a child or young person no longer requires the special educational provision specified in his or her EHC plan, a local authority must have regard to whether the educational outcomes specified in the plan have been achieved”.
I would like to see this clause strengthened so that young adults with complex needs can be confident that they will continue to get the support that they require through the education, health and care plan. I would specifically like to see subsection (3) amended so that plans are not cut off when educational outcomes are achieved. For this reason, I have suggested an amendment that a local authority must have regard to whether “health and social care” outcomes are being achieved.
The rationale for the amendment is that the outcomes for young people with complex disabilities often include elements that are wrongly perceived as either health or social care. I shall give two very brief examples. To achieve the objective of a level of independence in communicating their views, a young person will need to be able to use a communication aid such as Eye Gaze to a very high level, something that can be achieved only with the support of health and educational professionals working together.
My other example is that if a young person wants to buy something in a shop, she or he will need to interact independently with the person on the till or the shopkeeper. This activity is both an educational and a social objective, and would benefit from my amendment.
Amendment 173 refers to Clause 45 and contains subsection (4), which states that:
“In determining whether it is no longer necessary for an EHC plan to be maintained for a young person aged over 18, a local authority must have regard to his or her age”.
My amendment seeks to delete this whole subsection. If it remains part of the Bill, I am concerned that it will result in some young people losing a plan once they turn 18. This echoes what the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, and the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, were saying. While local authorities have the power to continue a plan beyond the age of 18, we know that in practice many will seek to move a young person into adult social care at the earliest opportunity. Currently young people have statements until the end of year 14; that is the academic year in which they are 19. While the code mentions 19 to 25, it has a continued emphasis on age 18, and I am particularly concerned about the requirement in 7.16, which states that:
“Where a young person is aged 18 and over, local authorities must take their age into account when reviewing their support”.
This requirement to have regard to age is applied only to young people over 18. The phrase appears often in the draft code, and I am very puzzled as to why 18 is the key age in it, when the Green Paper and the Bill both refer to ages 19 to 25, and young people can remain in school to the end of the academic year in which they are 19. It is unclear why having regard to age is particularly relevant at 18. Perhaps my noble friend can enlighten me on that point, because young people do not suddenly change in their capacity or need to learn when they celebrate their eighteenth birthday.
I fear that the requirement to take age into account may be interpreted as meaning that some young adults stop learning at this age. The draft code concerning young people aged 19 to 25 on page 124 states that local authorities,
“must take into account whether it is in the best interests of an individual to stay in education or training”.
However, it does not give any indication of what “in the best interests” might mean. I am struggling to understand why the local authority, rather than the young person and his or her family, is in a position to make this judgment. It seems contrary to the principles set out at the beginning of the code and to the concept of choice and control that underpins the philosophy of personal budgets, for instance. I remain concerned
that the best interests, particularly the social, educational and learning needs, of adults with complex conditions, will be misunderstood.
My noble friend has been very generous in the time spent on the Bill—on briefings, on visits, on follow-up letters and on meetings. I know that he is determined, as are the rest of us, to get all this right. I therefore ask him to consider our concerns, our fears and our arguments and to rethink these parts of the Bill, and to return with amendments that meet our needs and, much more importantly, the needs of the young people for whom we all share a commitment to a better future.