---

Special Educational Needs

: I am grateful for that intervention. The other telling statistic is that 20 per cent. of children in the mainstream will have some requirement for special needs provision. That is very important. The Government policy of early intervention is crucial, yet there remains considerable concern that the resources and the capacity still are not in place. That financial point was made effectively by the hon. Member for Northampton, South. My professional experience leaves me in no doubt that in the mainstream a huge number of children are working at school action and action-plus levels of the special needs register when they should be further up the register and should have access statements. Whether or not that is the position on children with moderate learning difficulties, it is, as we heard, certainly the case for those with severe learning difficulties. There is no stark choice and there should not be one. We need the mainstream option, special schools attachment units and residential homes. We could go down the line of a moratorium, which I know is being proposed by other Opposition Members, but I would caution that. I empathise and I am against closure, but I am concerned about whether such an option could damage some of the sensible reorganisations that local authorities are undertaking. Inclusion, of course, makes sense, but it cannot be the universal option. Nevertheless, a policy of inclusion without teacher training and dedicated funding will encounter, and has encountered, considerable problems. Teacher training must improve if teachers are to be able to cope with the unique demands of special needs education. I remember one of my first few days in a particular school. I was summoned to the head teacher's office and told that in a few minutes' time I would acquire a little boy who was profoundly deaf. I had no background in sign language—I have catalogued the inadequacies of teacher training, particularly post-graduate courses. I had had no training, and nor was it forthcoming. In time, I was blessed with a special needs assistant and incredibly supportive parents who fought hard to ensure that the terms of the statement were adhered to. There were times when we muddled through, but muddling through was not good enough for that little boy. By rights, he should have had more, and the system let him down. That was borne out by the Ofsted report on special needs and disabilities, which talked of schools being committed to the needs of pupils but their not having the experience, the skills and the resources to make the provision that they wanted. What work has been undertaken to ensure that newly qualified teachers and teachers in colleges are receiving the professional development and training that they initially need? That subject was catalogued in ““Removing Barriers to Achievement””. I support the expansion of the numbers of SEN centres of excellence. The hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire quoted the example of the special school in the north. I hope that it will not be turned into a centre of excellence; such work should not militate against existing special schools where they are working. I agree with the comments of the hon. Member for Luton, North about a review into whether the whole statementing process should be managed by an independent organisation. Such an organisation would never be free from the shackles of financial control, but it would be far stronger than local education authorities. Such a measure would also help us to get rid of the conflict of interest that LEAs face and, in particular, it would allow speedy decisions to be made. The big thing that emerges in my dealings with parents and LEAs is frustration. We could jazz this debate up in technical jargon, but at the end of the day it is all about the children.