House of Commons Hansard Debates for 3 Jul 1992

Mr. Forth : Does the hon. Gentleman agree that part of the problem with the existing provisions is that many parents, who are anxious and eager to do the best for their child, contribute to prolonging that procedure by exercising their existing extensive rights to produce new information or to put new arguments on behalf of their

Column 1095

child? Tragically, that is often the case. If we could deal with that practice it would go a long way to overcoming the existing problems.

Mr. Wigley : I accept that parents' involvement can delay the procedure, but not for three years. We should have a slick procedure so that an LEA, or an LEA in conjunction with professionals, can assess the needs of an individual child. The parents or those representing that child should have the opportunity to react to that assessment, and if there is any disagreement it should be subject to an appeals procedure as quickly as possible. There will always be some delay, but it should not be anything like as long as three years. I am sure that all hon. Members would agree on that. When statementing, some LEAs are not driven by the objective needs of a child. Unfortunately, they are conditioned by their perceived ability to fulfil services. Therefore, they will statement needs in line with what they think they can deliver rather than what might be sufficient to meet the absolute need of a child. That underlines the need for greater consistency and objectivity. The Government must undertake the strategic role of issuing adequate guidelines and monitoring LEAs to ensure that they carry out their responsibilities.

I do not believe that the Minister was suggesting that there should be less parental involvement in the system. If there is such a lack of parental involvement or representation on behalf of a child, the danger is that that child will receive a less comprehensive statement and his needs will not be adequately met. Therefore, there is a danger that those children with special educational needs who have more articulate parents may get a better deal. Perhaps that is what leads to some of the delays. We need the system to work properly. The appeals procedure also has a number of shortcomings. It involves the work of two members of the LEA and one lay person. In my case two county councillors together with a lay person consider an appeal. The appeal procedure is not independent and therefore the danger is that if an LEA believes that it has a shortage of funds and resources to meet requirements, its appeal procedure will merely reiterate that attitude. Either the statementing system or the appeals procedure must be independent --it would probably be easier to make the appeals procedure independent. I am aware of the speech made a couple of weeks ago by Baroness Blatch and I should like to know from the Minister how the Government intend to review the appeals procedure and when that process will be completed. What is the likely outcome?

The lack of specialist staff is often due to lack of resources, and sometimes to lack of training. The Audit Commission report says : "Consideration should be given to introducing financial incentives to LEAs to implement fully the 1981 Education Act."

I agree wholeheartedly with that, but it is worth noting that my LEA has had no additional central funding for the implementation of the 1981 Act. That has led to some of the current problems. Speech therapists are among the specialist staff who are required. I draw to the Minister's attention the way in which the Welsh Office has interpreted the law in an

Column 1096

attachment to circular 54/89. I appreciate that this is not his prime responsibility, so perhaps he could pass it on to his colleagues at the Welsh Office. That attachment states that education authorities should provide speech therapists for statemented children if health authorities for any reason fail. That is unsatisfactory. Health authorities are funded directly by central Government and they may fail to provide that service due to lack of resources. The buck is then passed to the LEA, which must find its own resources--by raising the poll tax or whatever is necessary--and, according to the Welsh Office interpretation, it has a statutory obligation to do so. I am not arguing that there should not be such a statutory obligation, but for goodness sake let us be sure that the resources are there. We should not allow for a systematic method by which central Government can avoid responsibility. Priority should be given to providing extra resources so that extra speech therapists can be trained. The Audit Commission report has noted the need for resources to be transferred to meet the staffing targets for such specialists. Whether dyslexia is a recognised disability is subject to much interpretation. Some educationists do not recognise it as such. A youngster in my area, now aged 13, has only just been recognised as suffering from it, but has had the problem for several years. Teachers, particularly in primary schools, should receive more training to recognise the signs of dyslexia so that they can give some help to pupils. Training courses are available and there would not have enormous resource implications. The University College of North Wales in Bangor has an excellent course. Such training should be encouraged.

The Education Reform Act 1988 has given schools certain characteristics, which have implications for special educational needs. First, schools now compete for children. Secondly, schools are funded as a result of formulae. Thirdly, crude attainment levels and assessment figures are published. Those three factors are worrying, because they militate against the needs of children with special needs. The results are already apparent. Schools are increasingly reluctant--or even refuse--to accept children with special needs. There has been a massive increase in formal statementing and in my area the special school population has increased. That may or may not be a general trend. The amount of integration in schools has also diminished and schools that have opted out are following selective admission policies.

It is fine to devolve as much as possible to individual schools--I am all in favour of that--but the LEAs must retain powers to monitor and ensure that standards are maintained and, indeed, raised. There is a danger of a resource drift as a result of the changes in the education structure. Money that was intended for special educational needs may be redirected for other priorities at the schools level. That is unacceptable and I note with interest what the hon. Member for Ealing, North said about ring fencing.

Special education may also be affected by the forthcoming changes in the structure of local government in Wales. A White Paper on the subject is being issued in October and I believe that Wales may have about 24 small all-purpose authorities which will be education authorities. There are good reasons for that, and there is generally all-party support for unitary authorities. However, there are worries about the implications for special education. Will those small authorities have the necessary specialist staff? Will they be able to adopt a strategic approach? If

Column 1097

not, which strategic organisation will monitor and oversee the requirements of children with special educational needs? I should be glad if the Welsh Office could clarify its position, as the implications are far reaching.

Under the present Government, more market forces are coming into play. If there are also weaker local education authorities, the combination of those two factors could result in children with special educational needs suffering. I conclude by drawing attention to the recommendations of the Audit Commission, which include the following :

"guidance should be issued by the Department for Education ... and Welsh Office to define the level of need in a child which should trigger the use of the 1981 Education Act procedures

LEAs should be given guidance to help them define the responsibilities of ordinary schools for pupils with special needs and to clarify when the LEA will itself provide extra help parents of pupils with statements of special need should have the right to state a preference for their child's school, within limits

consideration should be given to introducing some incentive for LEAs to implement fully the 1981 Education Act"--

Hear, hear to that.

It continues :

"statements should be changed to give a greater focus on the objectives for the child and on the school's responsibilities statutory time limits for the completion of assessments and statements should be set, with redress for parents if these are not met".

The commission also recommends steps that LEAs should take to improve provision. It states that

"a clear distinction between the role of purchaser of services (the LEA) and provider of services (usually the school) is required." The commission makes another important point when it states : "all LEAs should follow the lead of the minority of LEAs which have increased the capability of ordinary schools to provide for pupils with special educational needs".

This is a critical time and the Government need to respond if we are to receive--as we thought that we would 11 years ago--the full value of the 1981 Act. I believe that there is common thinking on that throughout the House. If the Minister cannot respond fully today, I hope that in the next few months--certainly in this parliamentary year--we shall receive a response from the Government. I hope that there will be a strong move towards achieving those objectives. 11.34 am

Mr. Terry Dicks (Hayes and Harlington) : I congratulate the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) on raising this subject, and I agree with much of what she said. However, I did not agree with the emphasis she placed on lack of funding as a major cause of the problems.

Speaking as a disabled person and a spastic, I remind the House that when the subject first came to light in the late 1930s and during the war, it was suggested that brain injury meant that one was mentally retarded and should be locked away. Perhaps some of my political colleagues still believe that, but that was then considered to be the right answer ; there were no statements of need. For the first nine years of my life, although unable to walk properly, I survived in an inner-city school in Bristol as best I could. Even after an operation to correct that problem, I had to survive in school with a relatively severe disability to my hand which made mobility awkward--it still does at times. Therefore, I understand the problems.

Column 1098

The information and technology on, and understanding of, disability has changed since my young days, but I wonder whether attitudes have changed. I am not sure that they have. I am grateful that the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) raised the subject of dyslexia and I am surprised that the hon. Member for Cambridge did not, although she may have mentioned the word in her speech.

I served on my local authority for a considerable time, and it flatly refused to recognise dyslexia as an illness until recently. Even in 1984, after I had been in this place for one year, I was approached by a parent who was convinced that her child was dyslexic. The education authorities had flatly refused to recognise that. We have to be careful about so-called experts ; educational psychologists do not always know best. I accept the view that parents frequently know better.

In the case of the mother who came to see me, the so-called experts kept saying that the child merely had a learning problem that could be put right with extra attention in class. That was nonsensical bunkum and the solution did not work. The mother was convinced that something was wrong with her child, but could not identify what it was. She met experts in the subject of dyslexia who convinced her that that was the problem with her child. The family had an almighty row with the director of education and the experts. Finally, they argreed--I think to get me off their backs--to send the child to a dyslexic school, with the authority paying the fees. I wonder how many other kids in the same position, whose parents lacked the foresight and fortitude of that mother to approach a Member of Parliament, were left in chaos.

My local authority gives such children no special help. I think that the problem lies not in a lack of funds, but in the preconceived attitude of the experts, whose training at university as psychologists often teaches them not to recognise dyslexia. They are taught to consider the problem as a learning difficulty and, whatever anyone else says, that will remain their view. Such a perception is blinkered and tunnelled, and I am sure that many kids have suffered as a result.

I am not exactly sure about the Government's view on the subject, but they should direct every local authority to recognise immediately that dyslexia is an illness--a disability--which must be helped in a special way. If the Government continue to allow local authorities, for financial or other reasons, not to recognise that problem and to palm off parents by telling them that their child merely has a learning problem, the Government will have much to answer for. I understood the intervention of my hon. Friend the Minister on the role of parents in delaying procedures. However, if it were not for the parent in my constituency--and, I am sure, many parents throughout the country--challenging the statements and comments of so- called experts in schools, many kids would not be receiving the special education that they do now. I appreciate why my hon. Friend intervened on the matter of statements being delayed by parents' tenacity, but we must not undervalue that tenacity.

Another aspect of special need that the hon. Member for Cambridge did not mention--neither has anyone else--is that of the gifted child. I have a grandson who may be specially gifted. The Act contains no provision for the

Column 1099

gifted child who, if left to push himself or herself along within the class, becomes frustrated. That frustration can lead to disruption in the class and learning difficulties.

Why are the needs of a gifted child, with all that that entails, not recognised as special ? I cannot understand why the Act does not provide for those needs, or why people involved with special needs do not consider that aspect. I recently received a booklet on special needs that did not contain one word or one line about the gifted child, which I find amazing.

Whether we like it or not, gifted children are likely to be future captains of industry, senior civil servants or even, God forbid, politicians. If we do not recognise the special treatment and needs of such children and the help required by their parents--who may have fallen behind their children in intellectual terms--I do not know what will happen.

Mr. Forth : In case I do not manage to answer the point later, I shall try to deal with it now. I can reassure my hon. Friend that the important point that he makes is well understood at the highest level in my Department, and is carefully considered. However, we face the difficulty as to whether it would be right to place the children of whom my hon. Friend speaks into the category of those with special educational needs as we all understand them, and as we have referred to them in the debate, as learning difficulties or whether those children should be dealt with in a different way. While I take my hon. Friend's point--the matter is being studied--he may agree that it is arguable whether we should seek to deal with gifted children under the umbrella provisions that we have debated this morning or whether they would be better provided for in a different way.

Mr. Dicks : My hon. Friend's helpful remarks are much appreciated. I accept the dilemma faced by educational experts and members of the Department when placing children in categories. However, I would rather that gifted children were placed in the present category than pushed aside and forgotten because they do not fit into a category. Perhaps we should write into the Act a special clause stating that we also recognise the special needs--or whatever we choose to call them--of the gifted child. Many parents who are concerned about that matter, go to their education authority, where officials say that they have no responsibilities for the problem. They say that they do not need to take into account whether the children are bright, and can only place them in an ordinary classroom and hope that they fight through. Often they do. Often they help with the teaching. My eight-year-old grandson reads to younger children to help out the teacher. He says, "If you're not going to listen to me, I'll stop reading." He wants to do that. His teacher must be frustrated when there are 25 to 30 children in a class and she cannot give him the special help that he requires.

Ms. Armstrong : I am interested in what the hon. Gentleman says. He is making a powerful case for very good comprehensive education. I invite him to study the HMI report that was published a couple of weeks ago about the education of the very able, in which the point is made very powerfully that when a teacher is able to develop good, differentiated learning and to adapt the curriculum and topic work for the specific needs of

Column 1100

individual children, the very able have been most effectively challenged and have made the most progress. The report also refers to the fact that that has enhanced the overall examination results of the school. Therefore, differentiated learning within the classroom works effectively for the very able as well as for other children.

Mr. Dicks : I am grateful to the hon. Lady, but to suggest that I am a supporter of comprehensive education is worse than to suggest that I am a supporter of the arts. Comprehensive education has done more harm to the youngsters of this country than any other system that I can possibly think of. If we still had grammar schools, some of these gifted kids--the top 3, 4 or 5 per cent. from working-class homes--would be in those schools and making real progress in an atmosphere that is not to be found in comprehensive schools. The quality of teaching is not to be found in those schools, either. That is the difference between Opposition Members and Conservative Members.

I believe that every child is special. Special help should be provided for disabled kids, but special help should be provided for bright kids, too. I do not believe in some airy-fairy comprehensive system where all the kids sit together and have to move forward at the same rate. Bright kids should be put on the fast track. Slightly retarded kids should get special help. The average kid, the one in the middle, should get help, too. It is this nonsensical comprehensive system which has ruined the lives of many kids. It is beyond the pale.

The problems faced by dyslexic and gifted children are very important, but they have only been touched on by Opposition Members, apart from the hon. Member for Caernarfon. There must be recognition of the needs of dyslexic children. I hope that my hon. Friend will send directives, if not something more powerful, to all local authorities telling them that they have no choice but to recognise dyslexia. I accept his comments about gifted children. I hope that very soon a report on education will be published that it will recognise that some children have special needs and that they must be catered for.

11.42 am

Mrs. Bridget Prentice (Lewisham, East) : I am pleased to take part in this debate about one of the most important aspects of education. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) for raising the issue.

I want to deal specifically with the special educational needs of those with physical and mental disabilities. I accept the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge about young people with emotional and behavioural problems and also the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) about young adults who need special training--a point which I have raised on previous occasions in the House.

In all my years of teaching--I taught some of the most academically able, as well as those who needed very much more encouragement and support so that they could achieve their full potential--I became more and more convinced that we do those young people no great service because we very often reach them too late. My colleagues in the teaching profession will back me when I say that

Column 1101

they do not often have the opportunity to give those young people the help that they need because they are unable to reach them as early as they ought.

I want to deal, first, with some general thoughts on special educational needs, secondly, with an example of good practice in my constituency which I believe should be developed throughout the country and, thirdly, with a personal experience. The HMI-Audit Commission report "Getting in on the Act" makes important recommendations about how we are failing both as educators and as legislators. I hope that the Minister will refer to some of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge in her speech and will also deal with some of the points made by the report. Children with special educational needs are not among the first to receive any spare funds that education authorities might have. They are few and far between, given the scant resources that the Government have passed on to local education authorities. It is essential that the work done with children with special educational needs should be closely monitored and evaluated. The teachers who work with children with special educational needs are dedicated professionals. They need resources and support to carry out their work and to develop it. They also need to be able to exchange ideas. That support is not always available, except on a voluntary basis when teachers in their own time share their experiences and develop ideas. That evaluation must become part of the timetable of the school day so that any necessary changes and adjustments can be made to suit the needs of individual children. We often forget that children are individuals and have different personalities. They cannot be lumped together en masse. That is one reason why additional resources, in the shape of more teachers and learning assistance, are needed so that children with special educational needs can be helped in small groups.

In order to ensure that children receive the essential support that they need as soon as possible, we must reconsider how and when we statement them. That point was made by the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr.Wigley). I agree with him. It is time that we looked at statementing children before they go to school. That brings me to my second point about good practice.

I am extremely lucky in representing a constituency which runs the Portage project. For those hon. Members who have not heard of it, I should explain that the name comes from the American city where it was first developed. It is a support and development system under which people work with children with special needs and with their families in their own homes. Portage is based in my constituency of Lewisham, East, but it is available to the whole borough. Teachers visit the families in their homes. They teach parents how to stimulate, motivate and encourage their children from as early an age as possible. That means babies as well as toddlers. Both physical and mental stimulation are important aspects of a child's development. Some parents who become involved in the Portage project are very distraught. They wonder how they will be able to help their child, who may be suffering from several disabilities. The teachers--and, I should emphasise, the other parents--work together to support the new parents and to show what strides can be made, if action is taken early enough. I visited the project again last week. I cannot tell the House just how wonderful it was to see children between the ages of 12 months and five years running

Column 1102

around together, playing with toys, reading, modelling and doing all the things that we hope all children between those ages can do. Mums and dads were exchanging the moans and groans as well as the happy times and the funny stories that children inevitably provide. I do not want, however, to paint a wholly idyllic picture. Far from it. There was much relief that day at the Portage project. It had only recently been confirmed that it would be funded by Lewisham council. The project had been funded by a Government grant, but funding stopped at the end of the year. Time had run out. It was left to Lewisham council to pick up the tab and keep the project going. I am delighted that the council recognised the outstanding work that is being done by the project and chose to keep it going. However, it was a hard decision for the council to take, bearing in mind all the competing demands on its budget. Pre-school work is not a statutory requirement, so there is no obligation on the council to provide that service. It is a great weakness of the education system that no obligation is placed on local authorities and the Government to ensure that pre-school work is provided.

Councils are constantly being forced to make horrendous decisions between competing but excellent projects. Lewisham has made a point of doing all that it can to help children with special educational needs, and I am glad that it has, but if the Government were truly committed to helping all our children they would give local authorities sufficient resources to set up projects such as Portage everywhere. Standards would then be raised dramatically across the country.

I visited All Saints school, Blackheath, last week, where a number of children who have learning difficulties are integrated into the mainstream. It is a small, community-based school, with a wonderful atmosphere, a small, dedicated and professional staff and a head who believes that integration into the mainstream is essential not only for children with special educational needs but for all the children in the area. One of the reasons why it does so well is because, being a smaller school, it is able to direct resources to deal with specific problems. The head teacher was grateful for the support that she received from the local authority. The school had a true community spirit, and if we are serious about integration and supporting children with special educational needs we should encourage such schemes.

I want to speak on a personal note. I have a nephew, Christopher, who has Down's syndrome. He lives with his parents and younger brother in America. My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge spoke of how articulate people managed to get resources more easily than those who were not. That is true of Christopher. He is lucky in two regards : first, his parents are articulate, able and willing to challenge the system and, secondly, he lives in an area where resources are available to help children with special educational needs. He received the physical and speech therapy that he needed to enhance his development. At the age of seven, his reading standards are the same as every other seven-year-old, he is beginning to become more articulate and conversational and he is doing all the things that we hoped for him.

I told my sister-in-law yesterday that I would be speaking in this debate. I asked, "What would you say as the mother of a child in that situation? What would you want to happen?" She said, "Tell them that you must

Column 1103

integrate into the mainstream and that you must have high aspirations for those children ; otherwise you will constantly fail them."

There must be much more integration into mainstream schooling. We must ensure that we have dedicated professional staff, which means more resources for local authorities. We must ensure that all children are targeted as early as possible so that they can be developed as quickly as possible, because unless we do so at the earliest stages of their childhood development we shall lose them. I hope that the Minister will confirm that the Government will consider that in the next few years. If they do not, we shall undersell some of our most wonderful young people by not ensuring that they get the support and the opportunities that they deserve.

11.53 am

Miss Emma Nicholson (Torridge and Devon, West) : Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me in this important debate.

I want to put a slightly different gloss on the debate. The Government have received much criticism this morning. I know that the Minister will handle each point in a constructive and well-briefed manner. I have a long history of supporting the Minister in his various different duties and I shall not be dissatisfied with his response.

I want to offer perhaps a plurality of approach that moves away from many of the single answers that hon. Members have offered from personal experience. There is great inspiration in the work that is being carried out, and I want to deal with that. I want to offer the House the thought that humans have an infinite capacity for change : however late it is discovered that a child has special needs, the child can still move forward and alter. Human nature is such that we have the capacity for change throughout our lives. In Poland, where I was recently as patron of the Friends of The Polish Children--I am sorry that I do not speak the language and cannot identify it correctly in Polish--special needs children are children until the ends of their lives because, in their attitude, they are, perhaps, childlike or have childish qualities. The word "child" in this context is already recognised as a definition that can be helpful beyond the statutory age of being a child in our society--16 years. The human capacity for change is limitless and we should not take the attitude that unless a child is taken at a particular age or in a particular way there is no possibility for growth within the context of special needs education.

Perhaps the first difference that I wish to point out and argue is that in the past decade we have seen an enormous shift in the way in which we treat people with difficulties. We see it in health, particularly in mental health, where there has been a great shift out of institutionalisation and into the community. We see it in physical disability, for which a wide variety of options are now available to people. There have been all sorts of innovations--both legislative and practical--with Government grants being available, for example, to alter offices or factories to suit the special needs of an employee with a physical problem. We see it in our approach to genetic disorders, one of the worst of which is Tay-Sachs. The Tay-Sachs Society is

Column 1104

foremost in its identification of the extraordinary difficulties that the Tay-Sachs child faces in its short and wretched life. Some positive things can be done for them.

I suggest, however, that under the Abortion Act 1967 and the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 we have made changes in the make-up of our society that mean that we have fewer people with the gravest physical disorders or mental handicap. Those of us who have worked in or have travelled widely in the developing world, especially in countries where abortion is unavailable or is denied to women--Romania, for example-- have seen a higher number of children than the western average with what we would define as special learning difficulties. If one looks more deeply, one finds people with the gravest of physical disorders--perhaps an IQ of 10--whose life can hardly be deemed to be a life by western standards.

In passing the Abortion Act and the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act, we have taken a clear step away from allowing the widest possible variety of human beings to be members of our society. I am not passing a moral judgment, but merely making the point that one way in which we have tackled the problem is by creating a society that has fewer people with the very gravest of physical and mental disorders. Some Members look shocked. They should look at other countries, where they will see the balance. They will remember what the United Kingdom used to be like in the 1940s and 1950s, with a great variety of physical and mental problems.

We have fewer people with major difficulties and are therefore able, perhaps, to devote a greater percentage of our attention and to offer better and more appropriate facilities to people with special learning difficulties and physical needs, whom we now define as having challenging behaviour, both through health and teaching. Perhaps the main thrust of the debate and of the wonderful opportunity that the Government have given the House and society to help people with special learning needs is consultation on how to achieve the best possible provision for people born with difficulties.

I deal now with the non-governmental, as well as the governmental, aspect of assistance. So far, the debate has centred almost entirely on Government provision, but I want to show that no single state provision can ever match the need. There are some children and some adults in our society for whom a non-governmental approach appears less threatening. They respond better to such an approach, or the speed with which niches of need can be identified and matched may be better within the framework of a voluntary organisation.

I am not suggesting for one moment that the state does not have a major role to play. I have been familiar with the Centre for Autism at Henley for 25 years. It operates under the Department of Health, and I am not suggesting that it should be taken over by a voluntary organisation. I am a governor of the Mary Hare grammar school for the deaf, which has the finest provision in the United Kingdom for children with profound hearing difficulties. Incidentally, the school began as a voluntary organisation and was taken into the mainstream of the state. It is a grammar school, which provides the best possible educational needs-matching for profoundly deaf children. If there are no physical disabilities, behavioural disorders or difficulties are often marked by truancy. That word covers a multitude of reasons for absence from mainstream schools. We have talked today about the need

Column 1105

to integrate children into the mainstream from special schools. I remind the House that not all mainstream education is appropriate for special needs children. It would not be physically possible to replicate in a mainstream school what Mary Hare grammar school for the deaf in Newbury offers. One could spend all the money in the world, but one could not offer a profoundly deaf child the total learning environment that he needs and deserves and receives at Mary Hare grammar school merely by transplanting a portion of it to a mainstream school. I know how difficult autism is and what a tragedy it is for the parents and for the child. One cannot offer the necessary provision, which is made at Henley, merely by transporting some of the facilities into mainstream schools. I am arguing for a plurality of approach in recognition of the complexities of the human condition. There is no single solution.

However, if one has a child who can go into mainstream education, he or she may still find it very difficult to cope. In such circumstances, behavioural disorders may, and frequently do, result in truancy. Many children who truant--I apologise for that horrible use of the word, but it is the current phraseology--have a horror of authority. I draw the House's attention to a wonderful group of people called Cities in Schools which tries to get such children back into mainstream schooling. Special educational needs in America have already been mentioned today. The concept of Cities in Schools was born in the United States. The Cities in Schools group is a unique mixture ; I have never come across a voluntary organisation precisely like it. It has federal funding, state funding, local and business input. It arose from the voluntary network and has pulled itself into its complex, interesting framework of funding which comes from diverse sources. It is carefully put together and is still a voluntary trust.

Cities in Schools set up special schools where they bring together parents, children and teachers and cross departmental boundaries. Its great success story is that in 25 years it has brought children back into mainstream schools. Its definition of success is when a child goes back to mainstream schooling and does not truant. I am proud and delighted that we have now founded a Cities in Schools group in the United Kingdom. It has been going for several years. Some centres are already funded and running, and children are beginning to succeed in them.

I do not believe that the Cities in Schools concept could possibly have worked if it had been a state initiative because, in the eyes of truanting children, it would have had an authoritarian stance. Cities in Schools has a long way to go. I am on the board and I was a founder member, and I know that it is bringing children back into mainstream schooling. It pulls in teachers, parents and social services and, often--alas--the police where crimes are involved. Cities in Schools is an example of a partnership involving the state, parents, the voluntary sector and other professionals outside education. I believe that it represents the way forward.

Another organisation I know well is the Child Psychotherapy Trust, which celebrates its fifth birthday on Tuesday 7 July. It is based at the Tavistock clinic in London, and I am sure that most hon. Members know a great deal about that wonderful clinic. The Child Psychotherapy Trust deals with troubled children whose problems have, sadly, often been induced by adults. The children may have suffered sexual abuse, bad parenting and difficult backgrounds. Most of the children whom I

Column 1106

have met there do not have inborn difficulties--they have externally induced problems to which they have reacted adversely in educational terms.

Again, the trust was initially a voluntary body. It is working hard under the Department of Health and trying to link the children to the mainstream. I hope that the Department of Health will see its way to financing the training of the child psychotherapists who have an enormous input into the children's educational future.

Another organisation that deals with a harsh angle of life is the Thomas Coram Foundation, with which I am working at the moment. It is the oldest children's charity in Britain, dealing with people who have enormous difficulties with housing and being unable to stay in one place. Trying hard to bring such children into the mainstream of education is a full-time role.

At the moment, I am the foster parent of a child with special educational needs. As the child is a ward of court, the Official Solicitor makes an input. As a foster parent, I have become keenly aware of the parental role in defining the best possible answers at any given moment as the child grows and matures. The parent's role is large. Several hon. Members have mentioned that role.

It is true that many parents do not want their child to leave a special school. It is not necessarily because they believe that the child will not get exactly the same provision in mainstream education ; it is because they are fearful and understandably protective and they are worried about allowing the child the broader scope. They fear that the child will get hurt. Parents do not feel merely that one cannot replicate a special school environment within mainstream schooling. It is not merely a question of saying that the state is not putting enough money into mainstream schooling. The parental embrace means that parents do not want the child to be hurt, and they are fearful of letting the child leave the special school to go into the mainstream world. The parents' role is crucial, but it is sometimes difficult to define and to understand.

More than eight Departments have an input into children's futures. How do we know that? The new declaration of the rights of the child, which arose from the International Year of the Child in 1979, calls on eight Departments to agree the provisions before the declaration can be endorsed internationally. We have not ratified the declaration, although ratification may come soon, because we want to do the work correctly and properly. With eight Departments, there is a crossing of boundaries all the time. I argue that the overlap of responsibilities is necessary and that moving towards a Ministry for children would be a regression and would narrow the perspective. I believe that the crossing of boundaries and the inter-departmental flow of knowledge and experience are essential. No single Department could possibly have the knowledge of how to deal with Tay -Sachs disease, with autism, with behavioural disorders resulting in truancy, with physical disfigurement and with mental handicap. That is impossible. The flow of information from all the experts is necessary. I argue for a plurality of approach because of the polarity of children's needs.

Who are the children with special educational needs? Why am I fearful when people say that statementing is too vague? I understand their worries because a vagueness of approach may mean backing out of meeting the need. One child whom I know well is a small child who will not grow. Her special needs teacher has to be with her to ensure that

Column 1107

she can open the door, because she cannot reach the handle, and to ensure that she can get to the cloakroom where she cannot get on to the lavatory or turn on the taps. She is as bright as a button ; her IQ is as good as anyone's if not better. Her special needs teacher is different from one required by another child. Another child whom I know well is significantly and severely dyslexic. Let us recall that dyslexia is not yet a single, definable condition. It is important to realise that, rather like schizophrenia, it covers a multitude of as yet unquantified learning difficulties. The special need of a child with a severe mental handicap is to get to a special school by the fastest possible transport, if the special school is some distance away.

In my constituency, we have an above average number of children with special learning difficulties. The reason is that my constituency is an especially beautiful part of the world. I know many parents who have come into my constituency once their children have been defined as having special learning difficulties. They have left their previous jobs and have taken less well paid and less challenging jobs. The parents know that they will die eventually and they want their children to be integrated into the countryside. The county has almost double the national average of children with special learning difficulties.

I do not always support statementing. It is a hard label and parents tell me that their children are uncomfortable about it and that it can cause awkwardness in class. There are many ways in which to support and help the children to do the best that they can and to lead the most fulfilled and enjoyable of childhoods without statementing them.

One school in my constituency has taken a special lead in dyslexia. It is a fee-paying school which has made dyslexia its mainstream preoccupation. The children are not statemented ; it is just a school which decided that there was a great modern need for such provision on which it would concentrate.

In Devon at large, there is below average statementing. I suggest to the Minister that we do not have below average care and nurturing of children with special educational needs. I think that we have well above average and fine provision for children with special educational needs.

There is no simple answer and we all have a learning curve to go through on special educational needs. There will be many more answers that we can dream are possible today as we learn more and more about the difficulties of children with special educational needs and with learning difficulties, and as we increasingly analyse, identify, quantify and are able to meet those needs. I am confident that the Government are fully committed to that task.

12.15 pm

Ms. Liz Lynne (Rochdale) : I disagree with the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) on one point. I do not believe that statementing should be got rid of ; I believe that it should be strengthened and that money should be made available by the Government for that purpose.

This afternoon, thousands of special children will come home from schools that are failing them to parents who love them but who feel let down and left out by

Column 1108

Government, by local authorities and by schools. Those children will come home knowing that Britain has not delivered what they and every child deserve.

Why are those children special? They are special because they need extra care and attention ; they are special because they need individual help. Above all, they are special because they deserve the right that other children have--the right to realise their full potential.

The House must not misunderstand me. Most special schools for children with special needs provide a good service, and many mainstream schools are doing their best with limited resources to educate those children. The reality is, however, as every special needs parent knows, that the children are not being given the very best, which they deserve.

Last week's Audit Commission report revealed widespread problems in the way in which children with special needs are first identified and, secondly, provided for. Sadly, 10 years on, the words of the Warnock committee still have not reached those whom it addressed and the same is true of the recommendations in the Education Act 1981. They were both attempts to improve identification of difficulties and to provide suitable help, although I do not agree totally with every aspect of the Warnock report.

As Bob Chilton of the Audit Commission said last week, although the principles of the Act have

"proved robust, the procedures for implementing them have fallen into disrepair".

The 1981 Act required local authorities to identify children with special needs, to provide suitable teaching and help for those with greatest difficulties, to make a quick assessment of a child's needs, and to provide an easily understood statement of how those needs would be met and action to match the words. However, as the Audit Commission made clear, and as all those involved with special educational needs know, the reality is very different.

One in five children are estimated to have special educational needs at some point in their lives. Some children have temporary difficulties with learning while others have more serious needs or profound disabilities. For those who need statements, there is the agony and uncertainty of waiting. Statements rarely come in the recommended six months ; the average time is 15 months and in some cases it takes even longer. The Government must ensure that the guidelines turn into a firm legal requirement. When statements do not arrive on time, parents must be able to get an assessment elsewhere and bill the local authority.

Statements must assess the actual needs of the children. Too often, they are just vague statements of intent. Too often, they dodge real commitments. Too often, they are led by the facilities that local authorities have available or can afford to provide. Even when a statement arrives, there can be a long delay. A friend of mine has a child with special educational needs--who, incidentally, is also a friend of mine. I talked to her on the phone this morning. David has received his statement, but it will probably take a whole year for that statement to be acted on. That is just not good enough. Parents must be fully involved in the process. They must be properly consulted. They must know who is responsible for providing what, and they must be given a real choice in what happens to their children. When there was talk of special schools closing in Rochdale, the first the

Column 1109

parents heard about it was when they read the local newspaper. Parents contacted me and my predecessor, Sir Cyril Smith, asking why they had not been consulted and told what was to happen to their children instead of reading about it in the newspaper. They asked the local education authority to call a public meeting, but the LEA refused. We therefore called a meeting on their behalf and helped to set up the parents action committee in Rochdale, which is still going and does good work lobbying the council, exerting pressure and ensuring that parents are properly consulted, rather than lip service being paid to consultation. Often the experts say, "This is what should happen to your child." But the parents are the people who really need to be consulted. They deal with their children all the time, not just during school time.

It is time that parents of children with special needs had the same right as all other parents to a say in the schools to which their children go, whether mainstream or special schools. Although I believe that we should strive for integration, I also strongly believe that we shall never entirely get rid of the need for special schools. There will always be children who need special education in special schools--those with profound learning difficulties, in particular.

Mrs. Anne Campbell : I should like to correct one point that the hon. Lady made at the beginning of her speech. She said that she disagreed with me, but in fact it was never my intention to say that statements should be got rid of. I want to make that quite clear. What I said was that a disproportionate amount of local authority resource is spent on the statementing process and on identifying rather than on meeting needs. I hope that the hon. Lady will take that into account.

The hon. Lady then referred to the process of consultation--

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes) : Order. The hon. Lady is starting to make a speech.

Next Section

Home Page