Isle of Wight Conservative MP, Andrew Turner raised the Jon Platt school absence fines case in the House of Commons yesterday (Thursday).
Mr Platt faces a Supreme Court hearing next Tuesday after the Department for Education insisted the IWC appeal last year’s High Court ruling that Mr Platt had no case to answer for non-payment of school absence fines, after he took his then-six year old daughter out of school for a family holiday.
Mr Turner said,
“One of my constituents will appear in the Supreme Court next week because the Department for Education wants judges to interpret the word “regular” in relation to school attendance.
“If the Government win the case, the law will retrospectively criminalise the actions of tens of thousands of parents. If the law needs to be changed, it should come before Parliament for proper debate and scrutiny.
“Will the Leader of the House encourage the Secretary of State for Education to make a statement on the situation?”
The DfE “requested permission to intervene”
David Lidington, Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons replied,
“My hon. Friend will understand that it would be inappropriate for either the Secretary of State or me to comment on this case when it is currently before the courts.
“The Department requested permission to intervene in the Supreme Court, supporting the local authority, because following the lower court’s decision we need clarity on what the law actually means before we can take any policy decisions that may be necessary.”
No update from IWC Executive member
Earlier in the week, the new Executive member for Children’s Services, Chris Whitehouse, said he intended to take “independent legal advice” on whether the case could be withdrawn, adding that he “may issue a purely personal statement in due course”. That has not been forthcoming.
He’d previously called the case a “vindictive harassment” and said it was “an outrage that Isle of Wight Council resources are being used to pursue this case against a responsible parent”.
Legal agreement?
After Cllr Whitehouse said, “I am limited in what I can say formally about this case because of a legal agreement,” we asked him two days ago:
Cllr Whitehouse
Cllr Bacon’s letter of this morning states there is no ‘legal agreement’ that would stop you talking about the Platt case, as you claimed in your statement to the press. Indeed, he publishes letters that he says support his view.
- Given this clear gap – please detail the part of the ‘legal agreement’ that you say restrict you.
- Bacon also states that you have the ability to stop the Platt case. Will you? If not, please state why.
As yet, Cllr Whitehouse has not provided a reply.
Source: They Work For You
