Fourteenth Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation |
|
Mr. Roy Beggs (East Antrim) (UUP): Thank you, Mr. Gale. I, too, am pleased to participate in this discussion under your chairmanship. As we consider the order, we must remember, as we do in relation to all aspects of education, that the needs of the child are paramount. Children of all abilities, with and without special educational needs, must be considered when discussing this difficult and sensitive issue and we must be careful not to allow ideology to override practical realities. Northern Ireland’s education system is in crisis. On the one hand we are being forced to introduce a flawed comprehensive school system that has failed Great Britain—it is so flawed that one of the country’s leading educational experts, Chris Woodhead, has rejected it as crazy—and on the other, Northern Ireland’s education and library boards face a crippling and ever-growing financial crisis. The callous cuts that our boards are being asked to make beggar belief. The situation is serious in all five boards, but I draw the Minister’s attention to the North Eastern education and library board, which recently refused to cut its budget by the £6.3 million needed to achieve a balanced budget. If the proposed cuts were implemented, that would represent a reduction of £770,000 from the special educational needs budget. Educational psychology, educational welfare, peripatetic services, classroom assistants, special schools and special educational units would all be affected. Moreover, a further £25,000 would need to be cut from the special educational needs transport budget. It therefore strikes me as somewhat ironic that we are debating an order that is unamendable. The Minister has expressed impassioned support for special educational needs, but the financial straitjackets on our education and library boards mean that the order’s implementation will be restricted. I am disappointed that the Minister and permanent secretary have not accepted an invitation to present themselves to the North Eastern board to address the financial crisis. Mr. Gardiner: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is unaware that earlier this week, the chief executive met with the permanent secretary, and I met with the chair and deputy chair of the North Eastern education and library board—at my invitation. Mr. Beggs: I am pleased that that small step has been taken. However, that does not answer my point about the Minister taking the opportunity to meet with elected representatives and appointees of the board. There is still time; it may happen. Turning to the order, I welcome the greater choice given to parents and the greater weight given to their views. However, that must be based on informed parental choice. Under the order there is potential for parents to make a choice with which education and health professionals may disagree. For example, the school that the parents choose for their child may be unable adequately to provide for the child’s needs. However, there is no recourse to any means of changing the parental decision. In all cases, the choice should be set against firm criteria that include the provision of specialist care and support for the child and for the receiving school and teachers. Trial periods, with regular reviews, might help to alleviate concerns about the issue. What consideration has the Minister given to trial periods? Should those not be set out in the legislation? Training, as a whole, for teachers and classroom assistants could have been considered in more detail. There is concern that teachers, particularly at primary level, are generalists and will thus not have undergone the specific training required for teaching children with moderate or severe learning difficulties. Training requires substantial resources and time. Current Northern Ireland education and library board policy states that the maximum amount of classroom assistance available per child is 15 hours a week. That amounts to two thirds of a child’s day. What about the other third? Moreover, a huge administrative burden will be placed on the boards to train teachers in the appropriate matters, and schools will have to make sacrifices while that training is undertaken. In the primary sector all teachers will have to be trained, with disruption to normal class time. Training for special educational needs teaching must begin at the college or university stage. It should be a compulsory part of the teacher training course. The appropriateness of the mainstream curriculum must be considered, as well as the level of support and assistance that a child with special educational needs will require. Will the school have to provide all learning materials in a range of formats suitable for all educational needs, such as Braille, audio and large print? Will that be the responsibility of the school or the board? What will happen if materials are not available? Will parents be able to sue the school? The undertaking is considerable and involves huge cost. Many schools already feel under-resourced and there is concern that resources allocated specifically for a child with special educational needs may be used more generally in the classroom setting. Thus the child with special educational needs could be disadvantaged. What checks are made, or will be made, to ensure that special educational needs funds are deployed for the purpose for which they have been granted? Moreover, there is a need for greater resources to be made available for children with physical disabilities and that should be resourced through capital work plans in all schools, improving disabled access throughout the whole school estate. The order is a direct read-across from legislation relating to Great Britain. Yet no regard has been given to the Northern Ireland context, the needs of families and pupils there and, more worryingly, the problems encountered thus far through the equivalent legislation’s application in Great Britain and reactions to them. There is a general need, although it is not reflected in the order, to protect the core funding of special schools and the funding of special units within mainstream schools that already address the needs of many children with special educational needs. We all want those excellent facilities to be maintained. Why has the new Roddensvale special school in Larne in my constituency, which offers a much needed community service, not had provision for a hydrotherapy pool? Why is such provision not covered in the handbook for special schools, especially when the children concerned are known to benefit so much from using such a facility? I assure the Minister of the willingness of the local community to match the school’s funding for such provision. What representation has been made to the Health Minister about ensuring the provision of qualified physiotherapists to staff such a new hydrotherapy pool at Roddensvale special school? Why should the pupils in Larne be discriminated against? The new Sandleford special school in North Antrim has a hydrotherapy pool. Will the Minister make an early decision on whether funding will be provided for the hydrotherapy pool at Roddensvale by the Department of Education? An early decision would mean that parity of provision could be raised through local funding—the generosity of East Antrim people and the business and commercial sector—in Larne. I echo the appeal from the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) for the urgent provision of additional speech and language therapists. We need more qualified personnel in East Antrim. Indeed, that appears to be the case throughout Northern Ireland. Certainly, speech therapy provision in the Larne area is less than satisfactory, although a good service is provided by limited staffing resources. On behalf of my party, I broadly welcome the order, as it will benefit, and improve provision for children and students with special educational needs in Northern Ireland. 3.17 pmMr. Gardiner: I thank hon. Members for their thoughtful contributions to the debate. It has been, I hope, an informed and informative discussion. Several important points have been raised, which I shall try to address. If I should fail to address them all, I shall write to hon. Members to cover any points that I inadvertently miss. As you will appreciate, Mr. Gale, a great many points have been raised. First, I shall again outline the purpose of the order. It seeks to make a positive impact on the lives of children with special educational needs, to promote parental choice and to provide support to parents in making such choices. It is a major step forward in ensuring that the educational sector is free from discrimination on the ground of disability, and it will promote the understanding and appreciation of diversity at a young age, thus helping to shape a more inclusive and tolerant society. The hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) made some remarks about special schools and their future after the order is implemented, some of which were echoed by other hon. Members. I want to make it absolutely clear—it is vital to stress this point—that there is no implication in the legislation and no policy intent to phase out special schools in any way. The hon. Member for Lagan Valley asked how many parents are likely to choose to move their children into mainstream schools. The Department may have to consider that, but we recognise the fundamental importance of special schools and their unique role, and wish to preserve and build on that. The vast majority of children with special educational needs are educated in mainstream schools and units. That is an important point. Some 60 per cent. of children with statements of special educational needs are in the mainstream sector and that percentage may increase. I think that it was the hon. Member for Lagan Valley who asked about the experience in England, for which I have figures. Since the Act was introduced in England, there has been a reduction of placements in special schools of about 2,000. However, I add as a caveat that that must be seen in the light of a general trend. In 1986, the figure was more than 105,000. It reduced to about 93,000 in 1989 and to 90,000 in 1999. When the Act was introduced, the figure was 88,600. The last figure that I have available is 86,770 in 2003. Over time, a general trend has been reflected in those figures, so it might be a misuse of statistics simply to attribute the drop to the introduction of the Act. Given the possibility that might open up, we shall have to consider carefully how parental choice and the movement of children will impact on both mainstream and special schools. We regard special schools as continuing to play a vital role in the support of people with significant and complex needs, in accordance with parental wishes and the receipt of professional advice. We anticipate that special schools will further develop their role in the provision of not only their work, but the advice and support that they give to mainstream schools. In 2003 the chief inspector’s report highlighted the developing quality of special school provision. It identified, in particular, the expertise of many special schools in providing for specific need, a point that I wish to reinforce. I am sure that all members of the Committee will join me in congratulating those who work in special schools and in commending them for their work. Their provision for our children elicited a glowing report from the chief inspector. The hon. Member for Fareham referred to the costs of inclusion. I said earlier that the Department for Employment and Learning and the Department of Education have provided £57.8 million for the coming budgetary period to facilitate the implementation of the legislation. It may answer questions that were asked by several members of the Committee if I explain for what the money will be used. It will provide guidance about the legislation; it will train staff—an important point to which reference has been made; it will fund advice and conciliation services; it will extend the remit of the special educational needs tribunal; it will improve the physical accessibility of educational institutions; and generally support inclusion. In addition, about £19.5 million will be made available over the same budgetary period to support children with SEN statements in mainstream schools, including the costs that arise from the order. Significant funding has been made available specifically for disabled access schemes. Over the past two years, £3.5 million has been made available. A further investment of £22 million is planned over the next two years. Considerable investment has been put into major work schemes in the schools estate over the past five years, with funding amounting to £735 million having been announced for 137 new or refurbished schools. All those schools and new build will have disabled access as an integral part of their construction. The hon. Member for Fareham talked about access to the curriculum. Boards will have a duty to produce accessibility strategy for all their controlled schools, from which governors will produce accessibility plans. Independent schools and the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools will produce their own free-standing plans. I stress that the Department envisages the process as a partnership and will certainly be helping the ELBs and schools to deliver the strategies and plans that are necessary to ensure access to the curriculum. I come now to advice given to parents. It is essential that structures are in place before the legislation becomes operational. One such structure involves advice. An independent conciliation service needs to be set up and I assure the Committee that it will be. That will be done within the ELBs. The special educational needs code of practice will be revised and supplementary guidance will be provided to that end. The hon. Member for Lagan Valley raised the question of the totality of funding on special education in Northern Ireland in the schools sector. In 2003-04, which I am afraid is the last year for which full outturn figures are available—although the accounts have not yet been audited—about £148 million was expended in Northern Ireland on provision for children with special educational needs. That included some £125 million expended by the boards for special schools— £82 million to meet the additional costs of statemented pupils in mainstream schools and £43 million spent on units. Also included was some £15 million for special educational needs, which was distributed directly to schools through the targeting social need element of the local management of schools formula. The total available for targeting social need was £44 million. Another £8 million supported the implementation of the special educational needs code of practice. I hope the figures help him to see the exact current state of provision. The hon. Gentleman made the point that we need to examine the current provision, see the changes in the sector and ensure that we are making the appropriate budgetary need in future years. That is right. I assure him that we will keep a careful eye on the situation to ensure that the budget matches pace with need. We have already put in the sums mentioned: the £57.8 million and the £19.5 million. At this stage, that is an estimate of what the need might be. We will watch the situation closely and try to ensure that we amend the figures accordingly. The hon. Member for Lagan Valley also asked what feedback I had had from ELBs and schools. I am delighted to say that the feedback from the boards was overwhelmingly positive. The main concerns of schools are, of course, the resources—I have outlined those to him—and, in particular, the need for training, which both he and the hon. Member for East Antrim mentioned. There is provision in this coming year, 2005–06, of £750,000 specifically for training to meet those needs. I hope that that helps to assuage his concerns on those points. I turn to the important point about speech and language therapy that was made by the hon. Member for Lagan Valley and echoed in the remarks of the hon. Member for East Antrim. The Department has been working closely with the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety. They will recall from the Grand Committee debate that we had in the House last year that I gave specific assurances on the point that we would be working closely with the DHSSPS. The DHSSPS has increased the number of student places for speech and language therapy. Currently, 140 students are in training as a result. That is a critical area, which we must get right in order to ensure that support is in place. In many ways, it matters little whether those therapists will work in special schools or the mainstream school sector once they are trained. It is, however, essential that we make good the backlog of professional therapists. Sadly, the investment in their training was not made for many years. If we do not make good that backlog and provide that support, all our aspirations about enabling children to enter a mainstream school are worthless. The early intervention project for children with learning difficulties also operates across all education and library boards and concentrates on the delivery of a more efficient and effective service for children at key stage 1 by focusing on training for teachers, parents and classroom assistants. Language skills are essential at the earliest stages—P1 and P2—and my Department is striving to put those skills in place. The hon. Member for Lagan Valley mentioned the Equality Commission’s conciliation service and its coverage. I stress that the education and library boards will set up a conciliation service for SEN. The Equality Commission’s conciliation service will cover disability discrimination. The education and library boards’ service must cover SEN, as that is their responsibility and concern. I do not want there to be any confusion about who is responsible for what in the conciliation process. The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the anticipatory duty of FE colleges and asked if a college could evade its responsibility by claiming that it did not know or could not reasonably have been expected to know that a student was disabled. The answer is that the college would be expected to show that it has taken reasonable steps to discover whether a student or a prospective student has a disability. The code of practice is likely to include guidance on how colleges might attain that information. There is an anticipatory duty under the order. Colleges and universities should make alterations and adjustments in advance of the order, for example, using colour in corridors when redecorating for visually impaired students. Specific adjustments can be made only when a college is aware of a particular disability, but there is general provision and a general anticipatory duty on colleges to make them. The hon. Member for East Antrim asked what steps were being taken now to ensure that the education sector is ready for the new legislation. It is vital that the education sector is properly supported and guided in the early days of the new law coming into force. The Department for Education and Skills and the Equality Commission are issuing three codes of practice and other material to provide guidance on the three main areas of the new law: special educational needs, disability discrimination in schools, and disability discrimination in further and higher education. Those codes will be in place before the law becomes operative in September. The Department is also producing guidance on accessibility planning, as I said, for schools and boards. Funds have also been earmarked for the boards for training and awareness on the new law. The Department has plans to raise general awareness of the law later in the year through best practice events and by publicising the way in which the law will come into effect. The hon. Member for East Antrim mentioned initial teacher education. Those involved in that education are aware of the challenges that pupils with special educational needs present to teachers and are reviewing current provision to ensure that those needs are incorporated in the training. As part of the current review of teacher education, the General Teaching Council for Northern Ireland has taken account of the implications of the SEND order in its proposals for a revised teacher competence framework. I hope that that goes some way to addressing the hon. Gentleman’s concerns on that point, which are rightly founded. The hon. Gentleman also talked about the possibility of trial periods, which is an interesting suggestion. The Department will consider that idea and other best practice ideas put forward by schools. I intend to host an event that will advocate best practice in schools. We shall certainly consider implementing the idea and I thank him for the suggestion. Both Northern Ireland Members raised, in one way or another, the question of the efficient use of resources. I must make it clear: we cannot write a blank cheque. The remarks of both hon. Gentlemen, particularly the somewhat tangential remarks of the hon. Member for East Antrim about the wider funding situation in the education and library boards, were also clear about that. There is no implication that a blank cheque can be written. In some cases the funding required to enable a child to gain access to mainstream education would deplete the school’s delegated budget to a point that would be detrimental to the efficient education of other children. That is clearly set out in the order; account must be taken of it. In those circumstances a mainstream placement would not be suitable for the child in question. The order is not intended to jeopardise the efficient education of other children. The aim is to give a child with special educational needs or a disability the same right of access to mainstream education as children who do not have such needs and disabilities. However—at this point I can answer the other question that was raised in this context—such children do not have an absolute right to attend a specific school. A child will not, because of a special educational need, be able to say, “I want to attend that particular school.” They will have the same right of choice as a child without such a special educational need. Mr. Beggs: Families are close in Northern Ireland and, when there is a child with special educational needs, the parents often wish that child to attend the same school as their brothers or sisters, so that they will have support. I recognise that making provision everywhere would entail huge cost, but I believe that in every provincial town schools have got to address, initially, the issue of catering for the needs of children who may want to enrol. Mr. Gardiner: I understand the force of the hon. Gentleman’s remarks. It is right that any parent who is considering where best to educate their child—particularly a child with special educational needs—will consider a mainstream school very much in the light of the considerations that the hon. Gentleman just raised. If there are siblings at a school, it is natural that a parent would want the child with the special educational needs to have their additional support. Indeed, that might in some instances be a critical factor in determining that a child should go into a mainstream setting rather than stay in a special school. That support can make all the difference. I agree with the hon. Gentleman about that. We want, through the order, to ensure that all schools can be open and supported in opening their doors to children with such needs. We have had a useful debate on an important measure, which will, I hope, be of great benefit to children, young people and adults in Northern Ireland who have special educational needs and disabilities. I thank the Committee for the way in which it has considered the order and for the positive remarks that hon. Members have made this afternoon. Question put and agreed to. Resolved,
Committee rose at twenty minutes to Four o’clock. |
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2005 | Prepared 18 March 2005 |