Examination of Witnesses (Questions 920-939)
LORD ADONIS
22 MARCH 2006
Q920 Mrs Dorries: We were talking
just before you arrived about the grey area between local authorities
and the Government and when we read the transcript back of the
evidence that you have given so far today you very firmly put
the responsibility onto local authorities and seem to steer away
from any responsibility from the Government. We have had a number
of witnesses here who have said that the Government has a policy
of inclusion so could I ask you to categorically state does the
Government have an active policy of inclusion which LEAs across
the country attempt to implement?
Lord Adonis: I think I should
be very clear that Parliament has a policy in this area. The 2001
Act says that parents should have the right to a place in a mainstream
school and the policy should be geared to that so Parliament has
a very clear policy in this area. The Government of course are
duty bound to implement the law, however, it is equally clear
that a parent has the right to express a preference for any school
that they so choose. So we have a duty to promote much better
provision in mainstream schools for pupils with special educational
needs and in all of our experience where that provision is in
place and is good it will often meet the needs of parents and
it will ensure that they are content. They have an absolute right
within the system at the moment, as you know, to apply for a place
in a special school and that must be properly considered.
Q921 Mrs Dorries: Could I have a
yes or a no. Does the Government have an active policy of inclusion
which LEAs across the country attempt to implement? Just a yes
or a no.
Lord Adonis: No, the Government
is duty bound to implement the 2001 Special Educational Needs
and Disability Act and that is my answer to the question.
Q922 Mrs Dorries: Can we move on.
My answer to that question would be yes if I were sitting where
you are and I think I would interpret your answer as no. Why have
the Government seconded seven educational psychologists and educationalists
from a variety of LEAs across the UK, including Essex, whose specific
remit is to reduce statementing within local education authorities
and to increase the Government's inclusion agenda?
Lord Adonis: Reducing statementing
within local authorities can of course be a thoroughly worthwhile
activity in promoting better outcomes for pupils with special
educational needs. Under the Removing Barriers to Achievement
policy and the Code of Practice, a graduated response is intended
to be the policy so the fact that the advisers to whom you have
referred are seeking to promote best practice in statementing,
I do not take to be a bad thing at all. There are many authorities
with lower proportions of pupils with statements that have higher
levels of parental satisfaction and lower levels of appeals to
SENDIST, so the Government does not believe that in order to have
good provision for special educational needs you must have a high
level of statements. That is not our policy at all.
Q923 Mrs Dorries: Why did the Government
give £420 million worth of funding to an organisation known
as the 2020 Group whose purpose of existence is to have all special
schools closed by 2020? Why does the Government employ from time
to time one of the leading members of that group as a government
adviser?
Lord Adonis: I am not familiar
with those particular individuals but I will happily come back
to you on that particular point. I assume that there are services
which the 2020 Group provide to us which are worthwhile, otherwise
the Government would not be funding them, but I will happily come
back to you on the detail of that.
Q924 Mrs Dorries: You said that spending
on special needs has gone from £2.8 billion to £4.1
billion. Could that be because the majority of children who now
go to special schools have to go through the SENDIST tribunal
process which costs the parents up to £10,000 and that when
those parents are successful at their tribunal those places are
awarded in independent schools? Could that be the reason why the
spending has gone up?
Lord Adonis: Spending on special
schools has also risen very substantially. I have the figures
here and can give them all to you. The spending on maintained
special schools has risen by 6.7% on average for each of the last
three years. Last year it rose by 7.23%. It is not the case that
special schools are being under-funded. There have been big increases
in funding for mainstream schools in respect of special educational
needs but there have also been very big increases for special
schools, too.
Q925 Mrs Dorries: What percentage
is that of the total increase in spending?
Lord Adonis: I could come back
to you with those figures, but we are now looking at the cost
of maintained special schools in this financial year 2005-06 of
£1.243 billion as against £4.1 billion, which is LEA
budgeted expenditure on special educational needs, so you can
see that there is a very substantial sum expended by special needs.
Q926 Mrs Dorries: What percentage
has gone into the independent sector?
Lord Adonis: The latest figures
are that our spending this year on non-maintained independent
special schools, which is what you are talking about, is £481
million, which is 9% up in one year, and compares with £309
million in 2002, so there has been a very substantial increase
in spending on non-maintained and independent special schools,
alongside increases in spending on maintained special schools,
alongside investments in mainstream schools to provide for special
educational needs.
Q927 Mrs Dorries: What safeguards
does the Government put in place other than the safeguards you
have explained this morning? You have said that the regional co-ordinaters
report back to you and you talked about a letter you have written
to Buckinghamshire telling them they would be acting illegally
if they did what they were going to do. Is the official safeguard
a letter from you because, as we know, although you spoke about
two schools, Newham gave us evidence that they were all closed
down. I would just like to ask you if those two schools were independent.
However—
Lord Adonis: No, they are maintained.
Mrs Dorries: What safeguards did you
do in Newham because we know that most of those children are educated
out—
Q928 Chairman: Can I interject and
say I have checked, the people who told us that Newham had no
special schools were the parent representative organisation from
Newham called SPINN!
Lord Adonis: I leave it to the
Committee to make a judgment then!
Q929 Mrs Dorries: I will condense
my question. What safeguards do you put in place? Is it a letter
from the Minister? Is it something more substantial than that?
Did you write to Newham and say to them, "You are going to
be offering parents no choice within your county, therefore it
is illegal"?
Lord Adonis: It is not illegal.
Q930 Mrs Dorries: It is illegal to
deny parents a choice.
Lord Adonis: That is absolutely
so but Newham has not been denying parents choice. Newham has
two special schools. Let me give it to you since you asked me
the question. It has 17 specially resourced mainstream schools
in addition to its two special schools, and I have a list of them
here, and the units and resourced provision that they have attached.
I am not here to defend a particular local authority but I think
it is very important, Chairman—and you I know would agree
with this—that we allow our debate on this issue to be conducted
by the facts and not by assertions about what is happening in
individual local authorities that bear no resemblance at all to
the reality on the ground. It was also claimed, for example, in
earlier evidence sessions that it is only in richer authorities
that you have large numbers of appeals to SENDIST, which is completely
untrue when you look at the evidence. It was claimed that there
must be large numbers of out-of-borough placements in respect
of Newham because it only has two special schools. Untrue, when
you look at the facts. I will happily write to you with the facts
on this. I do not believe that we should be in the business of
attacking or stigmatising local authorities which are seeking
to do their absolute best to provide for special educational needs
on the basis of incomplete or simply erroneous information.
Q931 Mrs Dorries: One of the reasons
why Newham is in the position it is is because the vast majority
of parents of children with special educational needs in Newham
come from the lowest socio-economic groups and do not know how
to access SENDIST. Could you tell me who has the final say on
SEN provision in this country, you or the elected Secretary of
State?
Lord Adonis: I simply do not accept
that opening assertion that that is the case. There are other
local authorities near Newham which have not that dissimilar socio-economic
profiles which have very high levels of reference to SENDIST.
Q932 Mrs Dorries: We are talking
about Newham.
Lord Adonis: In the case of Newham
it is smaller but in the case of Hackney it is 15.6% which is
five times the national average. I could go down the list of authorities.
Lewisham is the highest at 21.8%.
Q933 Mrs Dorries: Which just proves
it is a postcode lottery and it depends what authority you are
in.
Lord Adonis: Not at all. These
are a whole set of assertions, Chairman.
Q934 Chairman: Let the Minister reply.
Lord Adonis: It is not the case
at all that this demonstrates a postcode lottery. Some of those
authorities which have low levels of appeals to SENDIST also have
high numbers in special schools and very low numbers of statements
so it is not the case that having low numbers of appeals to SENDIST
goes hand-in-hand with the refusal of authorities to assess and
with having lower socio-economic backgrounds of the pupils. That
simply is not the case. I have looked at this in detail because
this came up in your evidence session. I will send you the list
which I have had prepared for me of all local authorities in England,
the number of pupils per 10,000 in respect of which there are
appeals to SENDIST, the number in special schools, and the number
statemented, and I think that any reasonable person looking at
this would not be able to draw the inference that it is simply
because Newham is poor that it has a lower number of appeals to
SENDIST and that there is a lesser capacity for parents to complain
about inadequate provision.
Q935 Mrs Dorries: You have not answered
two of my questions.
Lord Adonis: Sorry, I was trying
to deal with the first. I will come to the second and third.
Q936 Mrs Dorries: What are the minimum
safeguards or standards which ensure that provision is available?
Is it a letter from the Minister as you have described so far?
Who has the final say in this country on SEN provision, you or
the elected Secretary of State?
Lord Adonis: Of course it is the
Secretary of State in terms of powers to direct. The Secretary
of State exercises all these functions and other Ministers only
exercise functions in the name of the Secretary of State and with
the authority of the Secretary of State, but of course in terms
of individuals where does the final say lie; it lies with SENDIST.
When it comes to individuals who are seeking to access special
educational needs and they believe that their needs are not being
met, they have a proper legal route through which to go and of
course, as we know, 3,000 parents a year do do that and they can
appeal to SENDIST on refusal to—
Q937 Mrs Dorries: But it costs £10,000.
Lord Adonis: It does not cost
£10,000. That is again another—
Q938 Chairman: If I hear any more
remarks from people in the public gallery, I will exclude them.
Lord Adonis: It may be the case
that some parents do choose to spend that sum but there is no
cost whatever for going to SENDIST. Let that be very clearly understood.
There is no cost for going to SENDIST. Also legal assistance can
be provided for those from lower income backgrounds. It is not
the case that there is a cost to go to SENDIST. 3,000 parents
a year do. They have a right to go to SENDIST because of the refusal
to assess; they have a right to go to SENDIST because of the definition
of their special educational needs; and they have a right to go
to SENDIST on part four of the statement, which is the naming
of the school. In terms of the safeguarding of their rights, that
is a very powerful set of rights and SENDIST has the last say.
It is not the local authority and it is not the Secretary of State
and it is not me.
Q939 Mrs Dorries: How many of the
parents who access the SENDIST tribunal do so at no cost to themselves?
Lord Adonis: I do not have those
figures and I have asked SENDIST and they do not have those figures
either because they do not have that data.
| 
