Clause
65
Assessments
relating to learning
difficulties
Mr.
Gibb:
I beg to move amendment No. 44, in
clause 65, page 35, line 7, after
‘person’, insert
‘or the person
was participating in School Action or School Action Plus
programmes,’.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to discuss
amendment No. 45, in clause 65, page 35,
line 16, after ‘age’, insert
‘or the person was participating in School Action or
School Action Plus
programmes,’.
Mr.
Gibb:
Clause 65 which inserts new sections into the
Learning and Skills Act 2000, the effect of which, as the explanatory
note states,
“is to
transfer to local education authorities, and to expand, the existing
duty of the Secretary of State to arrange for assessments of a
person’s educational and training needs in certain
circumstances, and his power to arrange such
assessments.”
The notes
go on to state that the
clause
“places a duty on
a local education authority to arrange for an assessment of a person in
respect of whom they maintain a statement of special educational needs,
who is either in his last year of compulsory schooling or over
compulsory school age but still at school, at some time during the
person’s last year of
schooling.”
We will
return to the matter of someone who is in the last year of schooling
later. My concern is about the phrase used in the notes, which suggests
that the assessment applies only to someone with a statement of special
educational needs.
The
National Autistic Society has taken a close interest in the Bill and is
concerned about the narrowness of that requirement. In its brief to the
Committee, it
says:
“The
references to learning difficulty and special educational needs are
welcome but not sufficient. In particular, the duty to assess education
and training needs (clause 65) should not be restricted to those young
people who have a
statement.”
Inspired by
those concerns, which we share, we tabled the amendment, which would
include children who are subject to school action and school action
plus
programmes and therefore fall short of qualifying for a full statement
of special educational needs under the provisions of the
clause. The National
Autistic Society
says:
“The
requirement upon local authorities to assess the education and training
needs of certain young people is welcome and this information should be
used to inform the development of support services for young
people.”
It emphasises
the point:
“If
this requirement is considered important and worthwhile it should be on
offer to a much broader range of young people than those with
statements of special educational
needs.”
It goes on to
say:
“Government
policy is to encourage local authorities to reduce reliance on the use
of statements, and there is considerable variation in access to the
statementing system across the
country.”
I am
sure that many hon. Members, both in Committee and in the House, could
give examples of constituents who have had enormous difficulty
obtaining a statement of special educational needs for their child.
Obtaining even an assessment can be very difficult and may require
legal action. That is why the National Autistic Society go on to
say:
“The use
of statements as a passport to an assessment of education and training
needs will therefore further exacerbate uneven access to support for
many young people with special educational
needs.”
It cites the
example of young people with Asperger’s syndrome who
“may be less likely to have a
statement of SEN than those with autism but would still benefit greatly
from an assessment at 16. Although these young people are able
academically, without the right support they are likely to struggle or
even fail.”
The purpose
of the two amendments is to ensure that those children who do not
qualify for an SEN assessment will nevertheless be given an assessment
under the
clause.
Mr.
David Laws (Yeovil) (LD): Good afternoon, Mr.
Bayley. I rise not only to support the amendments, but to prove to you
and the Minister that I have not taken any Trappist vows since our
proceedings ended on Thursday. I hope that you are reassured by
that.
The amendments
are important and link with amendment No. 160, which we will discuss
later. They are necessary to ensure that the increasing focus of
statements on a small minority of pupils does not mean that we miss out
on diagnosing the needs of other young people who are covered by School
Action and School Action Plus and who may well need support to continue
in education and training
post-16.
The briefing
that the Local Government Association provided to the Committee
comments very briefly on the clause. All it says
is:
“It is
conceivable comments may be passed on the adequacy or otherwise of
local authority SEN provision/assessments under existing
regulations.”
For many
people across the country, I suspect that that is something of an
understatement. Much concern has been voiced in the past year and
further back about the inconsistency of statementing across the
country. Frankly, there is a concern that statementing is rationed in
many parts of the country, particularly in smaller authorities with
very limited budgets, where
providing a larger budget for statementing would mean taking money away
from other areas. Therefore, as the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and
Littlehampton set out very clearly, there is concern about some young
people in parts of the country where there are greater budget pressures
and more rationing who may have very similar needs and characteristics
to other young people in parts of the country where there is a more
generous approach. We do not want to have a local lottery where some
young people simply do not have their needs properly captured and so
are not well provided for beyond the age of
16. 12.45
pm
Many of the
outside lobby groups have drawn our attention to the fact that the
Government have a policy for all youngsters in school of trying not to
statement excessively. They want to use School Action and School Action
Plus more frequently than in the past and, on the whole, that is quite
sensible. We do not want to create a vast bureaucracy around many young
people. We want a lot of their needs to be dealt with as flexibly as
possible, both at school level and by enabling local authorities to
cascade additional resources down that do not require the same level of
bureaucracy and intervention as is inevitable when statementing is
involved.
Because of
that trend in Government policy, there is an even greater risk that
some of the youngsters on School Action Plus in particular, but School
Action as well, could have quite high needs that require support beyond
the age of 16. As well as the concern about rationing and
inconsistencies across the country, there is the concern that if the
Government’s policy is to reduce statementing, we could have
quite a few youngsters who are not statemented but who, because of
their School Action Plus or School Action status, have high needs. Many
times in Committee, we have commented on the difficulties that will be
encountered in keeping young people with high needs in education beyond
the age of 16. It is therefore important that the Bill ensures that
there is a proper assessment and appropriate support leading from that
assessment for young people beyond the age of 16. I hope that in
responding to these amendments and to amendment No. 160, the Minister
can reassure us about the way that this will be
handled.
The
Chairman:
We shall deal with amendment No. 160
later. We are currently considering amendments Nos. 44 and
45.
Sir
Peter Soulsby (Leicester, South) (Lab): I am sympathetic
to the amendments. The Government are rightly seeking to encourage
local authorities not to rely too heavily on statements of special
educational need and to move increasingly towards School Action and
School Action Plus. Clearly that leaves open the risk that were the
provision to be specified only in terms of those with statements of
special educational need, those on the autistic spectrum and others
might lose out. I hope that if the Government cannot support the
amendment, my hon. Friend the Minister can at least reassure the
Committee that there will be other
ways in which the needs of those in the relevant age group who do not
qualify for a statement of educational needs can none the less be
met.
Jim
Knight:
Under the clause as it stands, a local education
authority is under a duty to arrange for a learning difficulty
assessment for young people with a statement of special educational
needs during their last year of compulsory schooling. The duty also
covers statemented young people who stay on at school after the end of
compulsory schooling. The duty applies where the authority believes
that the person will leave school at the end of that year to receive
post-16 education or training.
The amendment would extend the
duty to include young people who are being supported through School
Action and School Action Plus. Let me explain what these terms mean.
Under the SEN code of practice, if a child’s needs are not
severe or complex enough to justify a statement, their special
educational needs are met at School Action or School Action Plus. At
School Action, the child’s special educational needs are met
entirely out of the school’s resources. At School Action Plus,
the child’s needs will mainly be met out of the school’s
own resources, but the school will also receive some outside help, for
example advice from the local authority’s educational
psychologists.
Even
though young people who receive support though School Action, or School
Action Plus are not covered by local authorities’ duty to
arrange an assessment, the local authority has the power to arrange
one. There will be many instances where it will be appropriate for
young people who have been supported by School Action or School Action
Plus to receive an assessment. Where a young person would clearly
benefit from an assessment, the local authority will be expected to
arrange one. This will be monitored through performance management
systems, and if it is clear that a local authority is not exercising
its power appropriately, it could be legally challenged. In line with
our expectation, we will confirm in statutory guidance that every young
person who would benefit from a learning difficulty assessment should
receive one.
That is
true whether the young person has a statement of SEN or so forth and
falls into the group to which the duty to provide an assessment
applies, or whether they are supported through School Action or School
Action Plus and so fall into the group to which the power to provide an
assessment applies. We therefore expect young people with severe or
complex needs to receive an assessment whether they have a statement of
SEN or
not.
Mr.
Gibb:
Why is one a duty and one simply an
expectation?
Jim
Knight:
I am just about to address that very point, about
which I thought the hon. Gentleman, being an intelligent and
perspicacious individual, would ask me.
I do not
believe it is the right course of action to compel local authorities to
arrange learning difficulty assessments for every young person
supported through School Action or School Action Plus. Special
educational
needs cover a wide span of difficulties; those needs may be specific to
the demands of a school environment, and be no longer directly relevant
when a young person moves into further education, training or higher
education.
Angela
Watkinson:
The Minister will acknowledge that there is an
inevitable link between the budgetary constraints on local authorities
and the provision of services for children with special needs. Sixteen
or 17-year-olds who are on the autistic disorder spectrum, who may face
moving on from their familiar school environment to a new, college
environment, may not respond well to change. They will need a lot of
support, but there may be cases where the local education authority
simply does not have the funding to give that support. Will additional
funding for local education authorities accompany the requirement, so
that they can fulfil their duties toward 16 and 17-year-olds with needs
of particular
support?
Jim
Knight:
As the hon. Lady says, it is important that
vulnerable young people have the support they need, particularly those
on the autism spectrum, for whom that transition may be difficult. On
the question of resources, I cannot give her a specific answer in terms
of how much, but local authorities have delegated special educational
needs funds in some areas, so they would carry out assessments. We
believe that local authorities are and should be properly resourced to
do this. The fact that we are going to specify in guidance that they
must carry out an assessment, if it is appropriate on a case-by-case
basis, reflects how important we think it is that local authorities
find the resources
needed.
It is not in
the best interests of a young person or a good use of an
authority’s resources to compel the authority to arrange an
assessment when one is not necessary. Instead, the decision should be
made on a case-by-case basis, with the local authority making the
decision in partnership with the young person. In particular, the young
person’s personal adviser from Connexions should hold the ring
of deciding, with the young person, their parents and their school,
whether an assessment is required and whether not to carry out the
assessment would be in contravention of the statutory guidance that we
will have issued to the local
authority.
Mr.
Laws:
The Minister is surely right to say that there may
be some youngsters who will not need support post-16. However, as the
amendment focuses on assessment, can he explain why, in his view, there
is no need to make the assessment itself, which could conclude that
support is not then required?
Jim
Knight:
Assessments are ongoing. There is the compulsory
assessment at the end of the compulsory schooling set out in the clause
and the extension beyond, so that there would be considerable
understanding of what needs there are on the part of the young person,
their parents, the school or other learning institution and the
Connexions personal adviser. Assessments continue to be carried out for
young people. The power is discretionary but it is a discretion that we
would expect to be exercised in favour of those who would benefit. Not
all may
benefit, so it is right that, where an assessment is considered
unnecessary, a local authority will not be compelled to do
one.
In many ways I
do not think there is much difference between us. The hon. Member for
Bognor Regis and Littlehampton has said we should proceed on a
case-by-case basis. There is considerable understanding of the needs of
the young people who are on School Action or School Action Plus; and,
as I have said, if a young person would benefit from an assessment we
will be saying to local authorities through the statutory guidance
route that they should carry one out. I do not think there is a
difference between us and I hope, on that basis, the hon. Gentleman
will withdraw his amendment.
Mr.
Gibb:
I remain unconvinced by the explanation of the
difference between the needs of a child who does qualify for a
statement of special educational needs and one who is subject to the
School Action and School Action Plus programmes. As my hon. Friend the
Member for Upminster said, given the current budgetary constraints on
many local authorities, there is a deep reluctance in some authorities
to award many statements. In the past, children who are now on School
Action or School Action Plus would probably have been issued with a
statement of special educational needs. The Minister says not all
children who are on School Action or School Action Plus would benefit
from assessment, but how do we know that unless an assessment is
carried out? I believe the amendment is important and I would like to
test the opinion of the Committee and press it to a
Division.
Question
put, That the amendment be
made:—
The
Committee divided: Ayes 3, Noes
8.
Division
No.
27
]
Foster,
Mr. Michael
(Worcester)
Question
accordingly negatived.
Mr.
Gibb:
I beg to move amendment No. 57, in
clause 65, page 35, line 13, at
end insert—
‘(2A) If a local
education authority in England maintains a statement of special
educational needs for a person and if, during the year, the person
leaves school to pursue alternative post-16 education, the authority
must arrange for an assessment to be conducted early in the first year
of the new
course.’.
The
amendment deals with people who leave school unexpectedly, perhaps
after disappointing GCSE results, to pursue an alternative option, or
who carry on into the sixth form for a very short period before
leaving, having found out that it is not for them. Those people will
not have had the assessment that the clause
requires them to have had in the last year of education, as it is
assumed that they will be continuing with their education. The purpose
of the amendment, therefore, is to add a new subsection (2A) to
proposed new section 139A of the Learning and Skills Act 2000 providing
that an assessment should be arranged for
them. That is an appropriate amendment to ensure that those children who
do leave unexpectedly do not slip through the net.
It being One
o’clock
The Chairman
adjourned the
Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing
Order.
Adjourned
till this day at Four
o’clock.
| 
