Only a few days to go: We’re raising £25,000 to keep TheyWorkForYou running and make sure people across the UK can hold their elected representatives to account.

Donate to our crowdfunder

Reporting a comment

Here's the annotation you're reporting. Please enter a brief reason why you think it should be deleted in the form beneath. Thanks for your help!

Clare Murton
Posted on 30 Jun 2009 9:33 pm

In response to Morgan

Badman wrote in his report:
"Our own data concurred with the DfES (2007) report, that there
are around 20,000 children and young people currently registered with local authorities. We
know that to be an underestimate and agree it is likely to be double that figure, if not more,
possibly up to 80,000 children."

So he envisages a likely fourfold increase in the number of known home educators. Add to that the number of those currently known who decline or are not offered home visits. Did Morgan not attend Maths classes? Even leaving aside new training required and all of the extra support Badman recommends (OH yes - Govt have left aside the support aspects of the report) - and you have a rather large dent in the govt purse - hello Darling! - not you Delyth - Alistair.

Better Regulation Executive inform that
"Central Government policy on this is that any proposal that imposes or reduces costs on businesses or the third sector requires an Impact Assessment. Any proposal similarly affecting costs in the public sector also requires an Impact Assessment, unless the costs fall beneath a pre-agreed threshold (generally £5m). This means an Impact Assessment needs to be completed for all forms of intervention (including
primary or secondary legislation as well as codes of practice or guidance) where the Department or regulator considers that the effect will be to increase or decrease costs. This includes proposals which encourage self-regulation or opt-in regulation."

I wonder if Delyth Morgan would do the honourable thing and actually respond to these points? Or are we to be afforded the usual disrespect of completely ignoring rational argument in favour of policy?


Why should this annotation be deleted?
Check our House Rules and tell us why the annotation breaks them.