Draft Special Educational Needs
(Direct Payments) (Pilot Scheme) (Extension and Amendment) Order 2014
The Committee consisted of the following Members:
† Afriyie, Adam (Windsor) (Con)
† Barwell, Gavin (Croydon Central) (Con)
† Blackman, Bob (Harrow East) (Con)
† Burns, Conor (Bournemouth West) (Con)
† Burt, Lorely (Solihull) (LD)
† Cunningham, Mr Jim (Coventry South) (Lab)
† Dakin, Nic (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
† McCabe, Steve (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
Moon, Mrs Madeleine (Bridgend) (Lab)
† Morris, Anne Marie (Newton Abbot) (Con)
† Morris, James (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)
† Sharma, Mr Virendra (Ealing, Southall) (Lab)
Simpson, David (Upper Bann) (DUP)
† Sutcliffe, Mr Gerry (Bradford South) (Lab)
† Timpson, Mr Edward (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education)
† Wright, Simon (Norwich South) (LD)
Nick Beech, Committee Clerk
† attended the Committee
Third Delegated Legislation Committee
Monday 27 January 2014
[Mrs Anne Main in the Chair]
Draft Special Educational Needs (Direct Payments) (Pilot Scheme) (Extension and Amendment) Order 2014
4.30 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Mr Edward Timpson): I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Special Educational Needs (Direct Payments) (Pilot Scheme) (Extension and Amendment) Order 2014.
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Main. The order will enable the Secretary of State to extend and amend the pilot scheme made under the Special Educational Needs (Direct Payments) (Pilot Scheme) Order 2012, which allows the testing of direct payments for SEN provision in the SEN pathfinder areas. The use of direct payments, as tested by the pilot, is being taken forward by provisions in the Children and Families Bill and has been subject to considerable debate in both this House and the other place. With that legislation reaching the end of its journey through Parliament, it is important to take a few moments to set out the two key reasons why it is also necessary to amend and extend the pilot schemes.
First, extension is necessary to allow the arrangements already established with families under the pilots to continue until the provisions in the Children and Families Bill commence. Extension will also provide a transitional period up until the end of September 2015 to move those families from statements on to the new system of education, health and care plans and the associated offer of a personal budget. The families that have taken advantage of the scheme have seen real benefits, with parents citing these as “life-changing” in what they have enabled for their families. I will illustrate that with quotation from two families who have used direct payments. One told the evaluation report that the scheme
“has made an enormous difference to our family’s life, it has changed the way we view and manage our son’s care from being reactive and often crisis led to being pro-active and much more in control.”
Another parent said that the flexibility that direct payments bring
“is essential…and means we can reflect changing circumstances and…needs. Compared to this time last year our son is a happier, less anxious, more settled and communicative child and as a consequence we as a family are able to function better and look forward more optimistically.”
Secondly, the extension will allow the authorities named in the order to continue to work with new families and refine how best to operate SEN direct payments right up to the reform programme’s expected point of implementation. That will help to inform both the work of the personal budget champions and the thematic evaluation of personal budgets, including direct
payments, being undertaken as part of the evaluation of the pathfinder programme due to be published in the summer.The removal of the right to request a direct payment under paragraph (3) of the schedule to the 2012 order after 31 August 2014 will provide for the formal closure of the pilot to new entrants from 1 September 2014. I should stress, however, that all other articles in the pilot scheme remain unaltered.
To conclude, this is a simple, transitional provision that bridges the gap between the end of the pilot scheme as set out in the 2012 order and the introduction of the Children and Families Bill. As such, I hope hon. Members will give it their support.
4.33 pm
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab): I wanted to begin by saying how nice it is to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Main, but it would be more appropriate if I apologised both to you and to members of the Committee for being late for the start of the sitting. I am afraid that I was enjoying the privilege of trying to use one of the House of Commons lifts.
In the explanatory note, the Department says that it decided against a full impact assessment for the order, as it saw no significant impact on the public, private or voluntary sectors. Will the Minister say whether he is certain, from the testing done so far, that there will be no impact on local authorities that operate block contracts? Is he certain that advice offered by organisations such as the Independent Parental Special Education Advice service is not affected as a result of the experience of the pilots to date? Perhaps I can set his and the Committee’s minds at rest by saying that we have no intention of opposing the motion. As he rightly said, it gives a continuation, so we are happy to support it, but I am interested in what the pilots have delivered to date.
One purpose of the pilots, as well as the continuation and transfer, is to test how the system works. How were the pilots selected? There are 36, but not all engage in direct payments for SEN provision. If I am right, there is only one in the entire west midlands. How was the decision arrived at? Can direct payments be used to meet the cost of provision at a school? Could that extend to a contribution to fees at an independent school? I am particularly interested to know from the pilot evaluations so far how many home-educating parents currently participate in the scheme in each of the 36 authorities. Such participation was cited in the 2012 order as a potential benefit of the approach.
I want briefly to ask the Minister about one of the participating local authorities, Solihull metropolitan borough council. It received a freedom of information request in July 2013 from the Measure Up! group, asking for a copy of the policy on SEN direct payments. Apparently Solihull did not have one at that stage, and when it was asked again on 2 August, it still did not have one, so I am curious to know how that particular pilot is being evaluated. Solihull was also asked whether it had informed all the parents issued with a new or amended statement since January 2012 about their right to apply for direct payments—that is a central part of the measure and it is being tested. Solihull had not been able to do so, but it revealed that it had selected pathfinder families. Did it do so on departmental guidance about how the scheme should operate?
As of 8 July, only two families in Solihull were receiving direct payments. I do not know whether the Minister is in a position to tell us that there are several more families now. He cited two who said that they had found the changes beneficial. I have every reason to believe that they might be beneficial, but how can anything be evaluated in Solihull on the basis of two families participating? At the time it answered the freedom of information request, Solihull did not have a process for reviewing appeals against decisions on direct payments, which is a right that parents and those aged 16-plus are supposed to have. How is it possible to evaluate that aspect of the scheme if there is no process in one of the pilot boroughs? In September, the Minister said in response to a parliamentary question, quite reasonably, that he could not say how many parents across the country were participating in the scheme, because the Department did not know. Is he in a position to tell us now?
4.39 pm
Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con): I wholeheartedly welcome this statutory instrument. It plugs the gap and extends the pilot, so that the scheme is available to families and local authorities until the Children and Families Bill comes into force, hopefully later this year. I hope the Bill will carry through the principles in the order, particularly direct payments, which are helpful to local authorities and families dealing with SEN. I am cognisant that the scheme has had to be extended, so can the Minister assure us that if a further order is needed to make an extension beyond August and September 2014, it would be perfectly possible in the current context?
4.40 pm
Mr Timpson: It has been helpful to hear the contributions from hon. Members, in trying to tease out the progress that the pilots have made to date. I will do my utmost to answer as many of the questions as I can, particularly those from the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak. He asked about the progress made on the pilots. They have shown—I gave two examples when I read out quotations from families who took part in the pilot—the opportunities offered by direct payments. The evaluation found that SEN direct payments had driven the development of greater personalisation in education, which otherwise would not have taken place.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about the impact assessment. The impact is clearly as we have set out. It is also a consideration, under paragraph 11(c) to schedule 1 of the 2012 order, that there must be satisfaction that there is no impact on other services, so this is something that we will follow through into regulation.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether school fees were within the scope of direct payments. They are not. However, we have seen examples of home education being included in the pilot. I do not have the figures to
hand, but I am happy to write to him with any details that we have that would make that clearer.The hon. Gentleman asked a number of questions about the Solihull SEN pathfinder. My hon. Friend the Member for Solihull happens to be serving on this Committee and is also one of the champions for the west midlands. I will obviously give the hon. Gentleman details in writing for each individual question, but I can tell him that Solihull is offering a personal budget to all families within the education, health and care plan process. Currently, more than 40 personal budgets have been aligned to finalise EHC plans. A further 28 are in progress and will be in place by March this year. Of these, approximately 40% receive a direct payment for education, social care and/or other services.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab): I probably should know this, but has that pilot been extended to Coventry?
Mr Timpson: The hon. Gentleman will know, I hope, that Coventry is one of the pilot sites. It is also a former individual budgets pilot site, so it is well positioned to understand the benefits of personal budgets. I hope that after today’s debate he will take some time to talk to the leaders of his local pathfinder and understand what progress they are making in the work they are doing.
To answer the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor, it is possible, by a further order, to extend the pilot up to November 2015. However, what we are seeking to do with this order is amend the scheme so that it aligns with the changes as they begin to be implemented from September 2014. We are taking a measured approach to ensure that we proceed at a pace that means that we learn from the pilots as much as possible and that all those families who already benefit will continue to do so as we go forward.
As I have said, this order implements a straightforward extension of the current pilot. It has already demonstrated that it can bring new and additional benefits to families who in the past found it difficult to access support. They feel more in control and have more choice over how money that is being spent on behalf of their child and their family has an impact. We are clear that the evaluation that has taken place has enabled us to evolve not only the pilot, but some of the provisions in the Children and Families Bill, which will only help parents more in the future. On that basis, and with the proviso that I have undertaken to write to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak with some of the details that he requested, I commend the order to the Committee.