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!

Oh don't be dramatic, you haven't been attacked.

I feel that I have. you don't own this board and it's not for you to question peoples' bona fides without good grounds. It's quite incredibly rude, and seems designed to make sure I don't feel comfortable coming back here again.

Plus a cursory search on my name would show you how long I've been on MN. you might have done this before insinuating I had some kind of agenda.

KKKB to be honest I don't recognise you as a regular poster on this forum but have seen that you are a regular poster on MN by searching your username. There is plenty of info on the web on who has responded to the draft bill so it is surprising that you need to ask. The draft bill as others have said is pointless in its current form and ill thought out.

I asked you what it was. We all have agendas ffs. I was interested in yours.

Perhaps it is because you have a Ds coming up for an annual review in May. Perhaps you've been asked to give evidence to HoCs.

The only nastiness on this thread is from you because you have decided you don't like my questions, which are reasonable.

In fact I see some of your posts as poor attempts to bully.

To get back to the original question, the best analysis of the draft that i have seen is on the IPSEA web site at www.ipsea.org.uk/news/hot-topics/changes-to-sen-law-3.aspx I hope this answers the question.

Starlight, putting this as tactfully as possible, you do have a bit of a tendency to jump on people you perceive to be new posters fairly suspiciously and aggressively, and you could perhaps think a bit about whether this is appropriate or necessary.

Delalikis,

I don't see it that way at all but woukd be happy to review any 'tendency' if you can point out the posts. Iirc I tend to be extremely welcoming of New posters.

Try looking at this
www.ipsea.org.uk/AssetLibrary/News/IPSEA%20comparison.pdf
The chief Exec of IPSEA is ,I think, a Lawyer.

Hmmm...I have to be honest here. I would classify this thread as a 'thread about a thread'. Which isn't done on MN. If the OP was wanting to reassure posters on the thread that says Draft SEN legislation -worrying that could have been addressed on that thread.

The tone of the OP could have been much more open, friendly, and explanatory, rather than simply stating that what has been read so far is untrue.

We do have to remember, though, that whilst we love this board and feel that it is 'our safe place' it isn't. Any poster can post here, and with any agenda. We can't stop it, because it isn't ours to stop. That doesn't apply to this OP, just a general point.

I think this is a time of high anxiety for all, with the structure we have all versed ourselves in unravelling before our eyes.

www.ipsea.org.uk/news/hot-topics/changes-to-sen-law-3.aspx

That's the link Nigel1 gave.

'The chief Exec of IPSEA is ,I think, a Lawyer'

yes I believe so.

I think a lawyer should be able to find their way around a piece of proposed legislation so perhaps that explains the suspicion.

I know Levenes have a lot to do with IPSEA and I think they are decent so the IPSEA draft is probably the best starting point.

Others have got some of the stuff wrong and that includes SOS-SEN

I honestly cannot believe some of the responses on here. It's quite ridiculous. I have asked questions in good faith because my analysis of the legislation (and that of colleagues of mine experienced in education law) seemed so much at variance with much of the public comment. As a parent of a child with ASD - currenlty going through statement review - this obviously concerned me and I'm weary of reading the rubbish in the press about it.
In return I have had imputations made against my bona fides, professional competence, posting style ... if these are the tactics being brought to bear in the campaign against this legislation then I don't give much for your chances of success, frankly. Where you have succeeded is in making me feel I'm not welcome here; I hope that gives you pleasure.

dang, just when I sit down with me popcorn and it all goes quiet

Wow this is almost as exciting is AIBU!!

Can vouch for Karlos. But kind of irrelevant in any case. She simply asked a direct question. Real shame that just because someone isn't 'known' here (even when they actually might be, as K is a n-c) a straightforward question can induce such an attack just because it isn't in the right tone. Hope it doesn't put off anyone from joining.

Karlos hope you don't mind me butting in.

Back to the OT: an omission in the draft bill which imo is hugely important is the obligation to specify & quantify a statement. Simply isn't even mentioned.

Dear, oh dear. I am sorry that what I said has been taken so personally. I tried to make suggestions too but merely said what I said because, as a lawyer myself, I wouldn't trust anyone else's judgment on a piece of legislation unless I respected the person who had written it and I had checked it out myself.

That is a bit pompous but that is me. I put it badly and I apologise. We're not all the same and it, if course, doesn't mean you are not professionally competent if you were looking for guidance.

I think emotions are running high on this board on this topic and my thoughts on reading Star's posts were actually - are you ok Star? I did not read them as usually 'Star like'.

So, you are right. We shouldn't be too hard on new posters but let's not be too harsh on those who respond to them.

There is a lot of baggage and upset on this site because of our personal experiences.

Karlos is quite right about the specific errors she has referred to, though there is a bit of a question mark about the failure to include a right to ask for statutory assessment which seems absolutely basic and unlikely to be a simple drafting error. However, what she has missed are, in summary:

• No duty to specify and detail provision, which would make it virtually unenforceable;
• Health care provision is not enforceable, and the phraseology makes it looks very much like things like speech and language therapy, occupational therapy, hydrotherapy etc would be counted as health care provision;
• No provision for statements to remain in place after a decision to cease to maintain;
• A pretty pointless and badly thought-out mediation requirement;
• No provision for any new Code of Practice to be laid before Parliament.

So yes, there are very genuine reasons to be concerned, and the recent Guardian article was pretty accurate. The loss of any duty to detail provision in statements is potentially disastrous, and for children who need speech and language therapy in particular the consequences of being unable to enforce it again are unthinkable given the massive problems in getting SALT from NHS providers. I think it's also a great pity that they haven't taken the opportunity to make care provision enforceable, because for many disabled children education and care are so closely intertwined that it is totally artificial that the tribunal can't consider children's care needs.