Examination of Witnesses (Questions 276-279)
MR STEVE
HAINES, MS
CATHY CASSERLEY
AND MS
PHILLIPPA RUSSELL
18 JANUARY 2006
Q276 Chairman: Can I welcome Steve Haines,
Phillippa Russell and Cathy Casserley to our proceedings. It is
very good of you to come and give us your time. This is a very
important inquiry to us and we are trying to learn as much as
we can about an area that this Committee has been away from for
far too long. I want to divide the questioning into three sections
and I want to start with looking at definitions and legislation
on the whole notion of disabled people and pupils with SEN, and
the relationship between those. Could I ask—to start with
Phillippa: you know what the terms of reference of this inquiry
are, what do you think we should be trying to get out of this
session with you?
Ms Russell: I hope we can use
this session, which the Disabilities Rights Commission warmly
welcomes, to explore some of the issues around the interface between
the SEN framework and the disability discrimination legislation,
in particular the implications of the forthcoming disability equality
duty. I thought it might be useful to say a very few introductory
words about the Disability Rights Commission and our role, because
we clearly have a very specific role and duties. The DRC, just
to introduce ourselves, was created by the Disability Rights Commission
Act of 1999, and Section 2 of that Act sets out the following
duties for the Commission—just to define our key roles.
Firstly, and most importantly, to work towards the elimination
of discrimination against disabled people and, secondly, to promote
the equalisation of opportunities for disabled people. I think
we are all aware that currently disabled people, including children
and young people, frequently miss out on the life chances which
are available to their non-disabled peers. Thirdly, to take such
steps as are considered appropriate with a view to encouraging
good practice in the treatment of disabled people. So we are very
much about working with disabled people, with services structures,
in order to maximise participation and equality of opportunity.
Fourthly, we have a statutory duty to keep under review the workings
of the Disability Discrimination Act 195 and, also, to produce
statutory codes of practice on request from government. Clearly,
this Select Committee's brief is of particular interest to us
because nothing probably enhances the life chances of disabled
people more than access to and support in appropriate education.
So we very much look forward to the discussion. I do not know
if you would like me to introduce my colleagues?
Q277 Chairman: If you would.
Ms Russell: I think the best way
is if I turn to each of them and ask them just to say a word or
two about themselves. Perhaps I should have said about myself,
I am a Disability Rights Commissioner, I was Director of the Council
for Disabled Children, I am now the Disability Policy Advisor
to the National Children's Bureau, and I am the parent of a disabled
son.
Mr Haines: My name is Steve Haines.
I am the Policy Manager for Education and Employment at the Disability
Rights Commission.
Ms Casserley: My name is Cathy
Casserley. I am a Senior Legislation Advisor at the Disability
Rights Commission.
Q278 Mrs Dorries: Pro-inclusionists
tend to be mainly those who are fighting on behalf of disabled
groups. Do you think that there is a blurred definition between
children with special educational needs, adults in terms of Asperger's,
other autism and other disabled groups, and physically disabled
children? It does seem to be that those who are fighting on behalf
of inclusion tend to be the parents and support groups of physically
disabled children, and the other children, the SEN children, seem
to be swept up along with that.
Mr Haines: There is a fundamentally
different definition relating to disability and special educational
needs in the legislation. When you say "physically disabled"
that is obviously very much part of the group, but the definition
of disability extends to long-term health conditions, it extends
to autism and it extends to the whole breadth, really, of special
educational needs. However, special educational needs defines
itself even further than disability. Just two cases to illustrate
the difference: a child who used a wheelchair in a fully accessible
school would not necessarily be defined as having special educational
needs. On the other hand, a child perhaps with emotional and behavioural
difficulties who did not meet the definition of disability under
the DDA would have special educational needs and not necessarily
be considered disabled. There is also a different approach in
the two definitions as well. Obviously, one—special educational
needs—refers specifically to the education environment whereas,
I think, disabled children and, perhaps, the social model definition
which we tend to use, which is not necessarily reflected in the
DDA, is one that identifies the environment as having disabling
factors within it that can be removed. So there is a difference
in the approach: one, special educational needs, is to put in
the equipment and support which will perhaps help children over
barriers, and the definition of disabled, which is about removing
those barriers. Those two things need to be seen in co-existence
when we look at the breadth of how we are going to approach supporting
disabled children in school.
Q279 Mrs Dorries: Do you think there
are local authorities who are blurring the boundaries then? It
seems to me that they, also, are not making definitions between
the two.
Mr Haines: One of the things that
we know, and the DDA is a relatively new legislation (it is worth
remembering the Act only came in in 2001) is that awareness across
the board of what the definition of disabled children means and
how authorities and schools should be dealing with disabled children—the
whole concept of making reasonable adjustments—is something
there is very little awareness of. The Ofsted report of last year
showed a lot of that and showed that accessibility planning had
not really taken place in over half of the schools. So it just
shows there is a low level of awareness. Perhaps there is a distinction
we need to make between the actions that local authorities are
taking and, perhaps, those that they are not taking because the
awareness of the definition is quite low.
|
