Can anyone point me to a commentary on the draft special needs bill written by an expert and reputable lawyer in the field?

[KarlosKKrinkelbeim]

I ask because (as a lawyer myself) I have been looking at the draft Bill, as a result of hearing and reading a lot of scare stories, most of which seem to be unfounded as far as I can tell.
For example, rights of appeal will be curtailed; untrue, they are the same as under the current law.
Or that LAs will only be obliged to use "best endeavours" to make the specified provision - as far as I can see they remain obliged to make the provision so this is also untrue.
Now, I'm pretty expereinced when it comes to statutory interpretation, but the level of fuss suggests to me I'm missing something. if there is somethingout there by someone who is a genuine authority I'd like to see it. I know there's plenty of guff written by Guardian/DM journos but as they generally have an axe to grind and wouldn't know how to interpret legislation if their little lives depended on it, I'm not hugely interested in their comment.
Ta!

Why did you come here to ask?

Fwiw, imo there's no reputable lawyer in the SEN world.

Because it seemed a logical place! These changes will potentially affect all of us here, I should think.

Yes but who are you?

I'm a very regular poster on MN with a ds with ASD, since you ask.
I'm not asking for access to anyone's privileged legal advice. If there's any credible practitioner or academic comment on these provisions which anyone is aware of in the public domain I'd like to see it. i'm not sure why this request is being treated as suspicious in some way.

Many thanks. Are these written by qualified lawyers?

What problems are you referring to?
I see 2 main issues; first, there's no explicit provision for parents (or schools for that matter) to request an assessment. but clause 28 specifically provides for parental right of appeal against refusal to assess, which would be meaningless unless there was also to be a mechanism for parents to attempt to initiate assessment, so this looks like oversight. Second, there's no transitional provision for children with existing statements but again, unless the intention is for all statements to lapse and for their to be mass re-assessment post commencement of the legislation, which seems unlikely, this looks like oversight.

So discriminatory idiotic laws can be passed on the basis that we all treat them as 'oversights'?

The request is suspicious, because regular poster or not, your new name and posting style is not familiar, and your request is fairly demanding, so I'm assessing whether I should put the effort into responding or if you are just a lazy journalist.

It's a reasonable consideration.

Erm, no. The point I'm making is that currently the draft legislation is very far from being of the quality of bills which are formally introduced to Parliament to start the legislative process. So a lot of fleshing out is going to have to be done on it before it can actually start that process. That may result in provisions we like or provisions we don't, but the point is that what currently exists is very very far from a finished article.

I've been posting on this site under this name for quite some considerable time, as it happens. perhaps the lazy one is you? In any event, there's really no need to be quite so rude.

It may well be very far, but the timeframe doesn't allow for much improvement.

I believe the plan is to introduce the legislation in Spring 2013, which provides ample time to sort the drafting, on the assumption the policy is settled.
the point from our perspective is to sort it in the right way. The other concern is that implementing regulations around mediation, which will need careful thought if this is not to become as user-unfriendly a process as tribunal.

Who has defined the tribunal process as 'user-friendly'?

It's a bloody unaccountable shambles!

Huh?!? Is this thread serious??

So what is the point of consultations, pathfinders and select committee evidence gathering now then?

Seriously. I've never seen you on this board before. What is your agenda?

I said "user-unfriendly".
I know you're very keen to attack me for asking these questions, for some reason best known to yourself, but you might actually read what I've written first.

Not quite what you wanted, but an interesting read March write up from the Pathfinders

Karlos, you clearly know nothing about me, despite my whole life having been played out on MN.

But I apologise for missing you meant user-unfriendly.

I think that is the point Hot. What is the purpose of the new legislation?

It doesn't give anything new, it doesn't make anyone more accountable. So why do it?

thanks Lougle and others who have sought to assist. As for those who have sought to attack me as some kind of sinister fifth columnist, I've actually found it quite nasty and have reported your posts. This always was and still ought to be a place where people can come and ask questions and seek help. I don't expect to be attacked for doing this.