Examination of Witnesses (Questions 220-229)
MRS EIRWEN
GRENFELL-ESSAM,
MS PAULA
JEWES, MR
HUGH PAYTON
AND MR
CHRIS GOODEY
11 JANUARY 2006
Q220 Mrs Dorries: You have spoken
a lot about the jungle and the difficulty that the system is quite
simple, it is just when it comes to the LA. Do you think that
is because the LA is both the commissioner and the provider—it
commissions what is available in the statement and then provides
it—so there is that conflict of interest? The conciliation
service that Jeff has spoken about is Parent Partnership (I think
it is called), and the first line management of Parent Partnership
is the LA also. So you have got the LA which commissions and provides
and runs the Parent Partnership also, so there is no autonomy.
Do you think that is where the conflict—
Ms Jewes: There is a conflict
in the Parent Partnership independence. We find our Parent Partnership
is not always independent. It is difficult for the Parent Partnership
because he will sometimes make recommendations on which we can
say: "That was not in the best interests of the child; he
is not independent", but perhaps it was with all good grace
that he did that.
Q221 Mrs Dorries: Are you saying
that the Parent Partnerships that you are aware of make recommendations?
Under their code of practice they are specifically—
Ms Jewes: They do advise parents
on specific issues regarding statementing. So, for example, I
know our Parent Partnership officer advised a parent not to ask
for quantification in part three of his statement, for speech
therapy I think it was, and that was basically illegal. He would
probably say that there was a reason for it, but the problem with
us knowing that he is reporting to the head of special needs means
parents are suspicious of him and we tend to leave him outside
the door sometimes of the meetings with the local authority because
we feel he may not represent our best interests. It is a conflict
and there is not much more I can say about Parent Partnership.
Q222 Mrs Dorries: Do you know how
much has been spent on that Partnership?
Ms Jewes: I do not know. It is
one individual full-time in Merton, so whatever his salary is
and his costs.
Q223 Mrs Dorries: In my constituency
we have three, who work well. I think they actually exercise the
code of practice very well; they do not make recommendations whatsoever,
but I cannot see that kind of integrity being carried across the
country.
Ms Jewes: It varies and I think
it is just one of those inbuilt potential problems that if he
was independent, and we knew he was independent, it would sort
that out.
Q224 Mrs Dorries: Would you like
to see the LAs not being their commissioner and the provider?
Ms Jewes: The thing about statementing
is there is that conflict too, but what LAs see is their two%
of statemented children costing them, sometimes, up to 65% of
their SEN budgets (it varies); they see a child on School Action
getting £200 a year's worth of provision and in the next
seat a statemented child with, perhaps, slightly more needs but
not that different, getting £8,000 worth, potentially, or
more—with residential and overseas statements it can cost
£60,000, £70,000 or £80,000 on a single statement.
The local authority also knows that the law could entail them
to have unlimited costs; if enough people demanded their rights
and got to tribunal, got a statement, and there were a few more
autistic children diagnosed in the borough, their costs could
shoot through the roof. So there is, in theory a limitless cost
of statements; they see an inequity in the way there might be
a learning support assistant "Velcro-ed", as they call
it, to one child in a classroom and not allowed to support others
in need, and there are lots of reasons why they resist the statementing
process apart from being the commissioner versus the adjudicator,
and so on. I think their worries and their perceptions are misguided.
Parents do not want money, they want provision and if that provision
is an expert provision and is shared, that is better than having
a learning support assistant, who does not know what they are
doing, Velcro-ed to your child. So the whole thing is misguided
and there are lots of reasons why there is this inbuilt conflict.
Stephen Williams: I do not think we picked
this up earlier. In the Department's written submission to this
inquiry they said that their policy was to preserve a parent's
right to seek a special school place—not the right to have
a special school place. Do you think parents widely appreciate
that they have a right to shop around but they do not necessarily
have a right to find what they are looking for?
Mrs Dorries: They do have a right in
law, do they not?
Q225 Stephen Williams: That is not
what their evidence says.
Mrs Grenfell-Essam: The right
to seek; as long as they give them the right to seek. Most authorities
would actually say: "These are the schools I will provide
you with. This is your local school". They may provide a
list of all the specialist schools in the area but they will actually
give a lot of clauses, such as "subject to budgetary constraints".
They will argue that: "The mainstream school is cheaper for
us"—they will not actually tell you that; they will
say "It is the best provision".
Q226 Chairman: We are coming to the
end of this session. We want to remain in communication with you,
so do not think this is the only time you will be able to communicate
with us, but I will run across from Chris through to Eirwen: what
one thing do you think we need to hear from you that we have not
heard?
Mr Goodey: Something you have
not heard yet? The Government White Paper on adults with learning
disabilities, Valuing People, aims to give adults with
learning disabilities a full life in the community. It is an extremely
radical measure and I just wonder what we are doing—I realise
I am in an isolated position out of this group of four—segregating
children at the age of three if we want adults to be full members
of the community.
Q227 Chairman: Thank you for that,
Chris. Hugh Payton?
Mr Payton: I would say two factors,
which I think are critical. One is transform the level of skill
within the mainstream schools sector for special educational needs,
and I do mean transform it. I think that will make the biggest
impact you could possibly do. The second aspect is look at the
thresholds that are set for special educational needs across the
country—setting such low policy levels that it is not beneficial
to children. So two messages from me.
Q228 Chairman: Thank you for that,
Hugh. Paula Jewes?
Ms Jewes: The two messages from
me are that children with special educational needs rights to
education will be lost and eroded if there is not a continuing
form of legal protection in the form of a document like a statement
or a provision document that is legally protected. The second
thing I would like to say is that the potential effects of getting
this policy right are of enormous benefit to society but, also,
the costs of getting it wrong, which we see today, are disastrous
and life threatening.
Q229 Chairman: Eirwen?
Mrs Grenfell-Essam: Tony Blair
was talking about his inclusion project for actually chucking
out the dregs of society back into education, but the actual fact
is lots of children are being excluded from school because schools
cannot educate them. I would like the answer to that question.
Why can they not?
Chairman: Thank you very much for this
session. We have learnt a lot. As you think about this after this
meeting, if you think of things you should have said to the Committee
or would like to reinforce those views, do e-mail us or communicate
with us in any way you like. Thank you very much.
| 
