House of Commons Hansard Debates for 3 Jul 1992

Mrs. Campbell : I am sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker. In that case, I shall leave it at that.

Ms. Lynne : I am grateful to the hon. Member for Cambridge. I am sorry if I misinterpreted what she said. I am convinced that statementing needs to be improved and I am glad that she agrees with me on that.

Miss Emma Nicholson : Do the hon. Members for Rochdale (Ms. Lynne) and for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) agree that identification of the problem opens the gates to the creation of the appropriate resources? The hon. Member for Cambridge said that a "disproportionate" amount of resources was spent on identifying need, but that is perhaps not the appropriate word. Often one is lucky if one can identify clearly what is wrong, but if one can, one can then call upon the appropriate resources, people and materials. I therefore question that assertion, although I appreciate that it did not come directly from the hon. Member who has the Floor.

Ms. Lynne : I am glad that the hon. Lady recognises that it did not directly flow from my remarks. I agree that the identification of people with special needs is very necessary, but once that has been done, we need statementing--although not for all children--to ensure that those needs are met.

Column 1110

The 1981 Act needs revitalising. The revolution in education threatens the best of intentions. With schools increasingly competing on the basis of crude academic results and under the pressure of the market place, there is a real danger of discrimination against children with special needs, who need extra care and attention. They tend to do less well in league tables of static assessments, but they have the same rights as other children to be given the best opportunities to do their best. We are talking about children whose development and progress are ignored in crude measures of achievement. We are talking about special children who deserve better than to be thrown on to the mercy of the market.

It is vital that the control of special educational needs should remain with local education authorities, but it is also vital that some form of national strategic planning remains to ensure that those needs are met, and that the Government give far clearer guidelines to local authorities. It is also vital that, as the local management of schools develops, enough money is left in LEA budgets to provide for those children with special needs. There will be a need for far more resources, but there will also be a need for better monitoring and inspection and for parents to be given choices. In any decision that is taken about a child, parents must always be fully consulted. That is the main thrust of my argument. We shall then be able to watch special children grow up like other children who are given the best possible opportunities to realise their full potential.

12.25 pm

Mr. John Bowis (Battersea) : I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms. Lynne) with most of whose speech I wholly agree. I, too, raised my eyebrows at the suggestion by my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) that one of the solutions might be to prevent such children from being born in the first place. The debate is about how we can enable and help children in the world, rather than about using devices--

Miss Emma Nicholson : I did not say that. My hon. Friend has it the wrong way round. I was merely pointing out that an effect of the Abortion Act 1967 was that children with very significant physical and mental handicaps are no longer born in our society. That is a fact.

Mr. Bowis : It may be a fact, but it is not a line which I wish to pursue in the debate.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) on her good fortune in securing the debate. Appropriately, she has chosen education as her subject and, within education, special educational needs and how we can enable children, young people and adults to get the best out of education throughout their lives. The hon. Lady did not go on to deal with adult education as I should have liked her to, because I feel that we owe it to older people, too, to give them access to the benefits of continuing education.

We have heard a number of personal testimonies from hon. Members who have experienced difficulties in their own lives or in the lives of their children or friends. That highlights the fact that very often special needs cannot be identified at birth. Sometimes special needs cannot be identified before a child goes to school ; they may develop as a child grows up.

Column 1111

In that regard, Dr. Beve Hornsby, whose school is in my constituency, has told me that sometimes not even the experts can identify dyslexia until a child reaches a certain age. Sadly, dyslexia is not always identifiable at primary school level. Sometimes it is ascertainable only at secondary level. That may be one reason why in some cases statementing may take longer than six months, beyond the 12 months which the Audit Commission has identified as the median period and up to three years, which is far too long. However, there may occasionally be reasons for such delays, apart from parental involvement.

The hon. Member for Cambridge has done us a service by moving her motion. However, she was perhaps a little unfair to the Government. We have moved a long way under the Government. The 1981 Act has brought great benefits. The Audit Commission states clearly that there have been major advances for children with special needs as a result of that Act. The Government have contributed to that progress through their circulars. The Government, through the noble Baroness Blatch, have financed a review into where we should go next. The hon. Member for Cambridge was right to refer to the problems, just as the Audit Commission referred to them. However, we are tackling them and I am certain that the Government will introduce measures to improve opportunities still further.

During the 1960s, children were almost automatically shut out of our society if they were identified as having a special need such as a learning difficulty or a special physical need. They were put into special schools and often into boarding schools. They were taken away from their family and friends and from the opportunity to mix with their own peer groups. They were taken away from the opportunities of the curriculum. That point is even more important today in respect of the national curriculum.

We have moved a long way through the 1981 Act and through Back-Bench measures, but there is still a long way to go. I believe that a little booklet by Micheline Mason entitled "Nothing Special" is required reading for hon. Members. In it, a child relates her opportunities as a result of attending a school where everything is right. She is in a wheelchair and cannot speak very clearly. She cannot go to the toilet without help. She is picked up by bus and she tells the story of her school day and how she receives help through the design of the school buildings and assistance from the teaching and support staff. She also receives help from her fellow pupils who sometimes recognise more easily than the adults what she is trying to say.

That booklet is based on good practice collected from around the country. It is not based on one school. It is what we should be aiming for in the next step. It concludes :

"True integration means more than ramps and induction loops. It means an acceptance regardless of ability or needs."

That is what special needs education is all about. It is about giving opportunities to all our children, irrespective of the difficulties that they must overcome, to benefit from the opportunities that are available to other children in society. The 1981 Act introduced five stages. Much of today's debate has been about the completion of those five stages under Warnock through to statementing and the provision of resources as a right to the child and to the school in which that child is being educated--be it a special school

Column 1112

or an ordinary school. I am not sure whether "ordinary" or "special" are the best terms to use, but, as I represent the constituency in which the Young's brewery produces ordinary and special bitter, I will not quibble with those terms.

Most of our special needs children do not get near the five stages. Most of the special needs children in my schools, and I am sure in the schools of all hon. Members, are at stage two. The school and the parents have identified a problem and are seeking to overcome it without extra resources, the process of statementing and the multi-disciplinary support to which I referred in an earlier intervention. We must consider those people and provide them with particular support.

Circular 8/81 stated of children :

"A small percentage have severe or complex learning difficulties who will need extra funding."

Alas, it gave no formula for LEA funding of the extra help. It also suggested that the numbers would correspond to the numbers under the Education Act 1944. I believe that assessment techniques and the analysis of new problems such as dyslexia have progressed a long way since the 1944 Act. I reiterate that many special needs are apparent only after a certain time has elapsed.

Circular 183 gave a checklist of the developments that one should look for in a child--physical, motor, cognitive, language and social. Memory is not included in the list, but it is mentioned later. The circular also lists the resources that are needed. For example, I refer to the special equipment for the daily life of a child with physical, auditory or visual needs, special facilities for dealing with incontinence, facilities for administering drugs, special education equipment and other specialist resources, in particular speech therapy, occupational therapy, physiotherapy, psychotherapy and so on. Of course, we must also consider the environment of a school and transport. All those matters cost money.

I have previously referred to a school in Surrey that has set out to get it right. That school, which was previously a secondary school, was adapted for all special needs. It had to create a special resource room, a physiotherapy room, a treatment room, a speech therapy room, two sets of adapted toilets and two laboratories on the ground floor. All entrances and exits were ramped. Internal ramps provided access to all rooms on the ground floor. It appointed two teachers with experience in teaching physically disabled pupils, and two part-time helpers. The health authority granted six hours of physiotherapy and six hours of speech therapy. Lifts had to be installed because the Caterpillar stair climber proved to be unpopular and unsafe for the children. There was great commitment and the school was accessible to all children.

That school was accessible not only to children with special needs but to children who had no special needs and who had parents with disabilities. It is necessary for parents to be able to go to a school to see its work, attend its functions and be full members of the school's community. We should bear that point in mind as we consider adapting school buildings.

Earlier this week, I visited a primary school in my constituency. I ask hon. Members to go to that school in east Battersea. In the sixth class, the final class, 27 out of 48 children have special needs ; in the fifth class, it is 28 out of 43 ; in the fourth class, it is 36 out of 46 ; in the third class, it is 38 out of 54 ; in the second class, it is 31 out of 47 ; and in the first class, it is 35 out of 50. More than 60 per cent. of

Column 1113

pupils at that school have special needs, but only eight or 10 of them are statemented. There is extra funding for those eight or 10 pupils, apart from what the LEA is able to provide.

We are right to ask what guidance should be given to local education authorities on when extra resources are needed. That applies not only to the statemented child, unless we want a massive increase in statementing, which I do not think is the case. We must provide for the vast majority of special needs children who are not statemented but who need support. If we do not give that support, a school that is doing its best for its children will bring in the necessary teaching resources and in so doing will reduce the pupil : teacher ratio, which will mean fewer resources for other children. Therefore, the education of other children may suffer. In such a school, there is no prospect of raising external funds.

I warmly welcome grant-maintained status. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong) has fallen out with her Front-Bench colleagues on that matter. Grant-maintained status is the way forward, but it would not be a starter for the schools that we are discussing. Funding must be examined. The school to which I refer is on the border with Lambeth, so several of its pupils come from Lambeth rather than Wandsworth.

I understand that no extra funds follow the pupils across the border from Lambeth to Wandsworth. So Wandsworth has to provide those extra resources. The school is willing to take pupils with special needs, but has to cater for children in two boroughs. Perhaps funding should include some sort of weighting to take into account recruitment so that money can follow the child according to its needs. We could also examine national funding, which has been referred to.

I am not certain that my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) is right when he says that funding for special needs should be ring-fenced. What are we ring fencing ? Until the child is assessed on a continuing basis, we do not know what its needs are. At the beginning of the school year or the school decade, it does not have a clue what resources it will need. It will certainly need some resources, but it is better to take each child as an individual, measure its needs and the resources that it requires, such as adaptations, teaching resources and so on, and set a figure. Perhaps an independent assessment of the figure is needed. As in the system of mandatory student awards, it would then be possible to ask the Department for Education, or the Further Education Funding Council, if the child is in a sixth form or FE college, to consider a claim for top-up support for the school or college.

Other hon. Members wish to speak, so I shall not go further into special needs funding. I welcome the broad principles of the forthcoming review of appeals, the speed of decision-making, and parental choice. Parental choice has rightly been referred to already. I hope that we shall continue to ensure that education and testing are flexible. As the hon. Member for Rochdale said, education should have high expectations of children, irrespective of their needs. It should not lower its expectations simply because a child has a special need.

I re-emphasise the points that were touched on by the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington). He spoke about further education and the need to continue the excellent provision that is made thanks to the Further and Higher Education Act 1992. I

Column 1114

reiterate that education is for life, through life and continuing through life--and that applies as much to a pupil, student or adult with special needs as to any child who enters the education system at nursery or infant level.

12.42 pm

Mr. Stephen Byers (Wallsend) : I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) on her good fortune in succeeding in the ballot for the debate today. I commend her good judgment in selecting special educational needs as the topic for the debate.

All too often, special educational needs are seen to be on the margin of education provision, but about 1 million school children and students have a special educational need of one form or another. We have heard a great deal today about the Education Act 1981. It was a crucial piece of legislation which set the framework for provision as we know it today. However, many of us recognise that, in the light of experience, we need to examine carefully how the 1981 Act has operated and how we could perhaps provide a new framework for the 1990s to lead us into the next century.

As we look forward, there will obviously be criticism of the way in which the 1981 Act has operated and been implemented. We must not allow those criticisms to overshadow the good practice that exists in many parts of the country. I give the House just a few examples. Pre-school provision was touched on earlier. Social services departments, education departments and, often, the health authority come together to work out the specific needs of a child even before it reaches the age of statutory schooling.

Special needs school children have been integrated into mainstream schools. In 1985, there were just 26,800 children with special educational needs in mainstream schools. It is projected that that figure will be well over 100,000 in three years. Schools are trying hard to provide for children with special education needs. On post-16 provision, colleges have opened their doors to young adults and adults with special educational needs and have made a positive contribution. Schools that have developed community use have made positive strides towards involving adults with such needs as part of that provision.

Those improvements have been valuable and important, but we must recognise that we are still failing a large number of our children with special educational needs. If we are serious about building success for the future we must recognise that failure. It would be all too easy to apportion blame, but there is no single culprit or reason for the failure. The Government and local education authorities have to accept their share of the responsibility. The joint report from Her Majesty's inspectorate and the Audit Commission, entitled, "Getting in on the Act", which has already been mentioned, clearly lays the blame at the door of both the Government and local education authorities. It is an excellent report and the press comments did not do it justice. They seemed to concentrate to a greater extent than was necessary on the failures of some local education authorities.

The report is an important contribution to the debate and my comments are based on it, but also on 12 years' experience of local government and on the past two years, which I spent as leader of the Council of Local Education

Column 1115

Authorities.

There are three principal reasons for the profound deficiencies in our provision for children with special educational needs. The first is due to weaknesses and flaws in the 1981 Act, which broke new ground and had to take people with it. As a result, there is some vagueness and it lacks clarity in certain important areas. It does not define special educational needs, and that has caused problems for parents and local education authorities. Some authorities have produced their own definition of special educational needs. I was interested to read a letter in a national newspaper the other day from the chief education officer for North Yorkshire county council, which outlined the council's steps to introduce a clear definition of special educational needs.

The lack of a definition can cause problems. Parents may not be happy to accept the definition used by their local education authority. A national definition of special educational needs is a matter of some importance.

Several hon. Members have referred to a time limit for making statements. It is true to say that if time drags on statements become--to use the words of the joint report--"virtually worthless". There has been discussion of a six-month time limit--I think that the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) mentioned a statutory six-month limit. I urge caution. There can be a variety of reasons why a six-month deadline cannot be met ; a child may be in hospital, or information may be required from other statutory agencies. The Minister mentioned the fact that parents may produce new information which may change the nature of a statement.

A statutory limit would cause great practical difficulties. Most people would find it acceptable if we established that, in normal circumstances, a statement should be issued within six months. If a local education authority cannot do that for some reason, it should inform the parents of the reasons for that failure and give them a clear date on which the statement will be made. That would be a practical solution to a real difficulty.

We must also look at the appeals system. We have already heard that local education authorities are judge and jury in cases that often arise from decisions that they have made. Justice must not only be done, but be seen to be done, and many parents feel aggrieved at decisions made in what is considered an in-house appeal system, even if they are made for all the right reasons.

I support the setting up of an independent tribunal. However, I urge that it should not be too bureaucratic or legalistic. I understand that it may be based on the industrial tribunal model, with a legally qualified chair and perhaps two wing members who have an interest in the subject. When industrial tribunals were first set up they were intended to be friendly and informal. The other day, I read a report of an industrial tribunal hearing in which a respondent was represented by a senior QC and the hearing lasted for eight days. I hope that we do not get into that position. We need a friendly appeals system that recognises the delicate and sensitive issues with which we are dealing. An independent appeals tribunal will be a positive step forward.

The second reason for our system's failure relates to the pressure on the education service. Since the introduction of the Education Reform Act 1988, our education system

Column 1116

has been in a state of turmoil. Market forces have been introduced into education provision. The market is about profit and loss and about gainers and losers. All too often, the losers in the education marketplace are young people with special educational needs, who have become innocent victims of the Government's education policies. The education service has been in a state of almost permanent revolution since 1938. A blizzard of circulars and guidance notes has descended on our schools--a curriculum initiative nearly every other day. As a result, teachers have not had time--understandably--to devote resources to children with special educational needs. They want to do so, but, because of the changes with which they have had to deal, they have not had an opportunity to meet those requirements. The deficiencies in the 1981 Act and the changes since 1988 have been compounded by the third reason, which is a lack of resources. Some 1.5 billion a year is spent on children with special educational needs, but there has been a massive squeeze on local government, particularly in the past four or five years. As a result of local authorities having to comply with the Government's strict capping criteria, demand is now outstripping available resources. The dilemma for local councillors is stark. They can respond to parents' legitimate demands and meet their needs, but, in so doing, they will run the risk of having their spending capped and budgets reduced accordingly. Alternatively, they can deny those demands, comply with Government spending targets and, as a result, fail to fulfil their obligations to the people who elected them to office. The result is not just a capping of a local authority's spending but a capping of opportunities and proper provision for young people with special educational needs.

I received a letter that shows clearly the consequences of a local authority having to cope with a reduced budget. It comes from someone who has responsibility for special needs in a secondary school in a certain shire county council. She says that her authority : "Because of the financial constraints must trim a million pounds from the Special Education budget. The reality of this global sum for individual children is, for example, that a statemented child due to transfer to us in September, who currently has an NTA"--

non-teaching assistant--

"for 5 hours a week, has had the NTA time removed and will be de- statemented in October. At the child's Annual Review in March"-- it was strongly recommended--

"that both the Statement and the NTA help be continued What this means, realistically, is that he will move from a medium-sized, very supportive primary, where he has generally to relate to 3 or 4 teachers per week and works within a clearly defined area of the school, with his NTA's assistance, to a comprehensive of over 1,300 children. Here, he will have to relate to, probably, 12 or 13 teachers in the course of a week and move over a widespread site." That is the consequence of those budgetary limitations for this child with learning problems.

"Thus the authority is setting the child up for almost certain failure."

Such is the consequence of one authority having to comply with the Government's spending targets.

We understand that the problems of resources are likely to get worse because we are about to embark on the round of public expenditure considerations where the Chief Secretary to the Treasury--a true believer, in common with the Minister, in sound money and fiscal constraint

Column 1117

--will no doubt be looking at ways in which to reduce spending on education. Resources are crucial to delivering high- quality special education needs.

Such are the problems that we face now. However, we welcome the forthcoming consultation exercise on how special needs can be met in the future. It should address a number of issues. It should consider resources, but, specifically on the recommendation of the Audit Commission report, it should also consider giving incentives to LEAs to implement the 1981 Act. At the moment, the way in which local government resources are allocated by central Government works against the provision of services. Under the standard spending assessment system one is penalised if one provides services and rewarded if one fails to do so. I should welcome a move to a distribution of resources from central Government that funded authorities that provide services that their people need. The local management of schools must also be addressed. I hope that we all support the idea of delegated budgets. It was Labour and Conservative LEAs that embarked upon them. They were using such budgets for a number of years before the Education Secretary hit on that idea in 1986 and claimed it as a wonderful one of his own. However, we do not like the rigid formula that applies to the allocation of those budgets. Budgets for special schools in particular need to be allocated on the basis of need ; the formula must be made more flexible for other schools so that money can be allocated to meet the special needs of individual children. We know that we are now passing through a period of league tables. I support Newcastle United football club, and that trend causes me a lot of difficulty for a variety of reasons. The raw data provided are misleading to parents, but they are also dangerous for those children with special education needs. We are beginning to see a rapid rise in the number of exclusions from schools as they try to remove--take off the books--those children who may jeopardise their league table place. We need a special means by which to judge how those schools treat children with special educational needs without penalising them with a league table that might be published.

The provision for post 16-year-olds is a matter of concern, as one or two hon. Members have already mentioned. I know that the chief executive of the Further Education Funding Council is keenly aware of the possible difficulties that the changeover may cause to children with special educational needs. There has been a constructive and useful meeting at officer level between the local authority associations and the Further Education Funding Council. I understand that earlier this week a circular was sent from the FEFC guaranteeing that it would continue provision, at least from April 1993 for one year, for those students already in the system. That is welcome. Another subject for concern is inspection. At present, under the existing provisions, Her Majesty's inspectorate has an obligation to inspect how special educational needs are being met in mainstream schools. As I understand it, under the new system with Her Majesty's chief inspector of schools, there will be no such obligation. The Government have a responsibility to ensure that such a provision is made and that the new chief inspector will inspect special educational needs and how they are being met in mainstream schools. We are informed by the Government that the admission policies of grant-maintained schools will become a natural

Column 1118

form of organisation for schools in the maintained sector. It may well become the natural form in Tory-controlled low spending local authorities, but I am sure that it will not become the norm in many parts of the country. It has enabled parents to register a massive vote of low confidence in low-spending Tory authorities, which is why they have opted out in large numbers. However, that has not happened in many parts of the country.

There is a responsibility for the Government to ensure that the admissions policies of schools that opt out--I know that the Government examine those policies when they are considering an application--should not rule out the entry of disruptive pupils. I particularly welcome the decision taken on Newent comprehensive school in north-west Gloucestershire. It adopted an admissions policy that tried to exclude potentially disruptive pupils and it was not accepted by the Minister. However, Langley Park school in south- east London had an admissions policy clearly stating that it would exclude disruptive pupils. When it submitted its application, the Minister's predecessor agreed, which must give us all cause for concern. I welcome today's opportunity to discuss this all-important topic, which is all too often ignored. We need a clear and precise agenda for action so that parents know their rights, local education authorities know their duties and the Government know their responsibilities. That is one aspect of education on which we can build a consensus. Certainly, local education authorities, parents and schools want that consensus. I hope that the Government will respond positively and on behalf of children and adults with special educational needs. They deserve and rightly demand opportunities, and should be provided with them.

1.3 pm

Mr. Richard Page (Hertfordshire, South-West) : I start by freely admitting that I am not a specialist in this subject. However, anyone who has visited special schools--as we all have as Members of Parliament-- cannot fail to be moved by the love and dedication shown by those who work in them.

I have brochures from some of the special schools in my district, including Garston Manor school near Watford which looks after children with moderate learning difficulties, as does Colnbrook school in south Oxhey. Boxmoor school in Hemel Hempstead and the Falconer school at Bushey look after children with behavioural difficulties. However, I wish to draw the attention of the House to two lines in another brochure published by Breakspeare school. It states :

"A new swimming and hydrotherapy pool is being built which will benefit all the children enormously, funds for which have been raised by the parent- staff association."

I mention that in particular because I have had a tiny bit to do with it. I was greatly impressed by the way in which everybody worked together to raise the money. It led to a great spirit of comradeship throughout the school and helped to weld the school into a very loving and caring unit.

I know that there has been talk about more money being needed, but I believe that the spirit within these schools is much more important than all the money that can be poured into them. If that pool had been provided by the state, I do not believe that it would have done half

Column 1119

as much for the school as the school, the governors, the teachers and the parents who raised the money have done for it. I commend them for their efforts.

I freely admit that I am no specialist in this subject, but mention has already been made in the debate of the difficulty of accurate statementing. That is not unique to education. My work in the Public Accounts Committee and recent reports on breast screening show that standards of assessment vary dramatically throughout the country. My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) asked a parliamentary question about the percentage of pupils with special educational needs in maintained primary schools in every local education authority area in England. The figures show enormous variations. The figure is 2.16 per cent. in Cornwall, but only 0.12 per cent. in Northamptonshire. No one can convince me that there is so much more need for the statementing of children in Cornwall than in Northamptonshire. I therefore endorse the call for a standard method of assessing the way in which children are statemented. The method of assessment throughout the country would then be understood and would be regarded as fair and acceptable. It is wrong to have high levels of statementing in one area while it is considered unnecessary in others.

It is easy to identify the extremes of the spectrum. The handicapped child can easily be statemented, but difficulties arise with the children in the middle. We all have experience of parents complaining to us about the time taken to obtain statementing. The parents are worried, they do not know what is going to happen, and the time scales involved are unacceptable. In the case of Hertfordshire, statementing can take up to a year. Even longer periods have been referred to in the debate. That puts unacceptable pressure on parents.

Parents face another problem. They may not agree with the result when it is received. Then, parents have to bear the cost of obtaining expert assessments in order to challenge the statementing or the assessments made by the education authority. There should be a recognised appeals system.

The movement from special schools to ordinary schools leads to doubt and worry. That is not new. When we had the 11-plus, the theory was that if children did well in secondary school they moved up to the grammar school, but if they did less well there they returned to the secondary school. That never happened ; children were not moved. There was a rigid dividing line and late developers did not have the opportunity to move up to the grammar school.

To some extent, the problem with special needs education is similar, but we must approach it with greater care. The Audit Commission study found that annually only 2 per cent. of pupils in the 85 special schools examined moved to ordinary schools. I should like the figure to be higher, but we must ensure that when children move from a special school into main line education there is proper protection to prevent them from falling back and being worse off than if they had stayed in a special school. We must target resources to ensure that such children are not lost in the hurly-burly of an ordinary school. Support must be identified to give parents confidence in allowing their children to move from schools where it is required.

Column 1120

I welcome the Government's fundamental review of the Education Act 1981, which can only offer encouragement that the process of assessment will be shorter. I have spoken of the period of anxiety that parents experience and of the need for a coherent appeals system so that parents do not have to get their own expert assessment before challenging a council. I am happy that the Government have listened to the concern that has been expressed.

I conclude by paying tribute to those who work in special schools. The determination with which they pursue their Members of Parliament to get the best for their charges and the love and dedication that they put into their work will be noted and, I hope, acknowledged whenever the opportunity arises.

1.8 pm

Ms. Angela Eagle (Wallasey) : You, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I are making a habit of being present at the end of debates. I seem to go under the wire just before the guillotine comes down and the Front-Bench spokesmen stand up. Perhaps I shall make it three in a row shortly.

Like the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Page), I am not an expert in this subject. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) on initiating the debate and many hon. Members on the erudite way in which they showed their expertise, care and concern about these extremely important issues. A pluralistic approach is sometimes desirable to the complex and multidisciplinary subject of the education of children with special needs. One of the difficulties is the way in which the various responsibilities of local and national government combine. Children and adults who need special education sometimes fall between two or three stools--the Department for Education, the Department of Employment and local authorities. We must pick a careful way through to ensure the utmost co-ordination.

The motion states :

"this House considers that the opportunities for children and adults with special educational needs are being jeopardised by the fragmentation of education"--

about which much has been said--

"and the inadequate level of resources from central government." I shall confine my remarks to two aspects of the problem. The first is funding, which some hon. Members have mentioned, but I want especially to shine a little light on a matter that has so far been mentioned only in passing. I refer to adults in further education and the way in which the changes in administration of further education as a result of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 are beginning to have a detrimental impact.

When the Department for Education issued circular 11/90 on education for children with special needs, my local authority in Wirral noted :

"Lack of finance has prevented any substantial progress being made in raising staffing levels in special schools and units." It continued :

"Current staffing levels in special schools and units fall far below those mentioned in the Circular."

Conservative Members have given examples of local education authorities apparently not fulfilling even their statutory duties. I suppose that in some instances it could be a problem of inefficiency, but I submit that the levels of funding are so critically low for those statutory duties that

Column 1121

local authorities are often struggling to come to terms even with their duties in law and are failing because they are trying to balance impossibly small budgets. That is certainly the case for my own local authority.

A very timely letter arrived yesterday. It is from a teacher at Wirral metropolitan college which, unfortunately, has just been subject to a cut of £1.2 million in its budget as a result of local authority financial strictures. I must point out that the cut was supported by the Conservative and Labour groups on the council--it was probably what I would describe as a Hobson's choice budget decision. We must bear that in mind as the background to the problem, but I am sure that the Minister is aware of what is happening.

The letter states :

"I have just been made redundant. Nothing unusual in that, I am one of several hundred part-timers at Wirral Metropolitan College who have been affected by the massive cut in the college budget. The loss of my particular job however has far more fundamental implications for the future.

For the last two years I have been placing adults with learning disabilities into community education classes, providing support for them, their tutors and volunteers. The scheme was due to expand in September to include more people with physical disabilities and those suffering from mental health problems.

Although the college has for many years provided a great variety of courses for such adults (a large proportion of which have also been lost as a result of the cuts) this was the only programme which offered the possibility of true integration. The benefits to the students have been enormous in terms of their self-esteem and self-confidence.

Jeremy, who has Down's Syndrome, described his yoga course as marvellous and said it had really helped his confidence and his speech problem by helping him to relax.

John, also Down's Syndrome, loved every minute of his tap dancing class and found the tutor and the rest of the group wonderful. When asked if he wanted to do the same course next year the answer was yes please!' He won't now have that opportunity.

Jean, in a wheelchair, was looking forward to starting a course in September. Her face lit up when she realised that she would be with ordinary' people."

That will not now be on offer for her in September.

My constituent also says :

"Other students on the course have, in the main, been very welcoming and supportive. This has been a useful educative experience for those who may never have come across anyone with a disability before. The government is committed to care in the community, yet here is a scheme fulfilling the objectives of increasing self-esteem, self-reliance, self-confidence, personal choice and well-being and the achievement of individual potential, that is now being cut. If the college is not going to be able to fund such an initiative then is there a case for asking Social Services or the Health Department to take over at least part of the funding?"

I want to leave that question with the Minister.

Hon. Members may think that such a course is incredibly expensive. I spoke to Mrs. Gladden who wrote me the letter. It turns out that she was employed for six hours a week which was not an undue financial burden on any of the agencies involved. The benefits of what she did with her time for the people whom she managed to get out of special schools and to integrate into other courses were greater than the money she used. Mrs. Gladden had 25 students and she was employed for six hours a week.

I draw attention to the non-academic nature of some of the courses. We have talked rightly about education in primary and secondary schools and about further education. There is a case to be made for people with learning difficulties or with special educational needs to attend non-vocational courses which help to integrate

Next Section

Home Page