---

Special Educational Needs

I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mrs. Dorries) for securing the debate. This is the first occasion on which I have spoken officially for my party. I am therefore lucky that there is a huge amount of consensus across the Chamber—although that consensus is a result of the merits of the case that the hon. Lady made. We have heard about Members' experiences as parents and on local authorities, particularly Northamptonshire. Before I was elected, I was a teacher for 12 years, so I have some front-line experience of these matters. My experiences do not lead me to deviate from any of the messages that we have heard, but they are useful. I reiterate our thanks to the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire. I find it difficult to disagree with much of what she said. The hon. Member for Luton, North (Kelvin Hopkins) summed up the issue of special needs when he said that it is governed by ideology and money. Like many others, I consider myself a proponent of inclusivity in the mainstream, tempered by the reality of the situation. The hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Binley) spoke about his frustration as a county councillor who wants to deliver what needs to be delivered but is unable to do so. The hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) spoke about his frustration with the statementing and tribunal processes, and many people's inability to access those. I shall focus on the failures of the statementing system, which all too often does not have the confidence of parents and, ultimately, does not benefit pupils. I shall also focus on the need for increased capacity and training for teachers to deliver special needs education. The hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire spoke about the vagaries and inadequacies of teacher training, to which I can relate. Before I embarked on a career in the classroom, I had two hours' special needs training. Many issues that we have discussed did not cross the lecturer's lips. It is as stark as that. I have read in ““Removing Barriers to Achievement”” what the Government intend to do, but the proof of the pudding is in the eating, and it is clear that the statementing system is not working in the way that it should. If it is not working in the mainstream, it is not working in special schools. The Government rightly talk about early intervention. That phrase conjures up the right motives from the Government. Early intervention is essential, yet parents still experience delays of months and even years in getting initial assessments. There are increasingly problems with the text of statements. Local education authorities often word statements imprecisely, with the result that statements do not provide the entitlement to provision that parents expect. Campaigners also point to the huge volume of paperwork that is involved in getting statements. All those factors present a parent of a child with special educational needs with huge hurdles. I want the statementing system to be reformed. In particular, we must counter the adversarial relationship that it creates between parents and local authorities—parents somehow blame local authorities when funding is at stake—between schools and local authorities and between parents and schools. The teachers are left in the middle. They know the direction in which those children should go, but they are denied the support and the means to achieve that. That was very much the evidence of a recent report in The Times Educational Supplement, in which teachers spoke of the need for special schools. Statements provide a right for children. Local authorities all too often become involved in battles with parents in tribunals. The money argument that the hon. Member for Luton, North raised is all too often the governing motivation. Those scenarios are not as extreme as we might think. We are talking about 3 per cent. of the children of this country potentially being involved in such situations. The Government have to make parents clear on all their rights. We need to consider making the process simpler.