Although Article 13 is not included in the Human Rights Act, the Government stated at the time that it could still be relied on. If this amendment is not accepted, the Government are laying themselves open to a well-publicised test case. In Committee, the Minister claimed that paying compensation would damage the tribunal's ability to base decisions on what is best for children in educational terms. But the tribunal should be considering what is best for children without qualification, although in most, but not all, cases it will be in educational terms. I believe to be totally misguided the argument that the change proposed by my amendment would make tribunals formal, acrimonious and adversarial.
Employment tribunals cope very satisfactorily with awarding compensation and still remain informal.
As the Minister pointed out, the ability to require an educational remedy will put costs on LEAs and that could lead to acrimony. However, there is no reason at all why the tribunal proceedings should become more acrimonious and legally based by the addition of making payments of compensation possible, particularly as the cost could be less than for educational remedies. I have no doubt that publicly recorded payments of compensation would cause LEAs to think again, and that will be a powerful protection for disabled children. If the Government continue to deny financial compensation, they will be deliberately weakening the rights of all disabled children. I urge the Minister to think again.