---

Special Educational Needs

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke), who spoke with passion and conviction. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) for the Select Committee’s excellent report, which was also timely. We are grateful to the Committee for its work in preparing the report; as the hon. Gentleman said, it is clear that the Committee has been listening. It is also clear that the Government need to assess their response to the report—all hon. Members have criticised it—and other recent Select Committee reports such as last week’s Public Accounts Committee report on underperforming schools. The Government’s dismissal of that report was quite astonishing. My hon. Friend the Member for Reading, East (Mr. Wilson) was right, in his characteristically reasonable speech, to be so critical of the Department for Education and Skills in that regard. Even schools that have read the report are commenting on it. I have here a letter from the Royal School for Deaf Children in Margate, which was passed to me by my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale), who is chairing a Standing Committee and cannot be here. In the letter, the school says that it is disappointed by the Government’s response, and that despite continuing to promote a continuing role for special schools, they do nothing to make sure that that becomes a reality. The way in which the system of special needs provision should operate has been called into question by the Select Committee report; by Baroness Warnock, in recent contributions; and by the university of Cambridge report, ““The Costs of Inclusion””. In its hard-hitting report, the Select Committee said that"““the SEN system is demonstrably no longer fit for purpose and there is a need for the Government to develop a new system that puts the needs of the child at the centre of provision.””" It found"““significant problems with the current system of SEN provision and high levels of dissatisfaction amongst parents and teachers””" and urged the Government to consider"““a completely fresh look to SEN””." When I saw those words and compared them with the Government’s response, I thought that the Government really must address how they respond to such reports. Even the Government recognise the shortcomings in the system. Lord Adonis told the Select Committee:"““I would be the last person to claim that all is well in the system. Almost every day I deal with correspondence from members of the House about difficult individual cases, including complaints about both the quality of provision and the action of local authorities in assessing the needs of individual children.””" In spite of that, the Government refuse to hold a review; I agree with the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole that they should have a review. They base their view largely on the opinion of Ofsted, which told the Committee that"““if we had a…big review at this time the danger is that it would diversify work and resources and developments in such a way that it could send us back to the point of slow progress that we were having prior to 2004.””" That is the position that the Government are trying to hold, but it is difficult to justify, particularly when it comes to the unwieldy statementing process. The Committee rightly stated:"““Despite the Audit Commission specifically calling for a review of the statementing process in 2002…the Government still says it has no plans to review the statementing process. This is unacceptable.””" That was echoed in this debate by the hon. Member for City of Durham (Dr. Blackman-Woods). That Audit Commission report said:"““Statutory assessment is a slow and unresponsive process…Most parents said they ‘had to fight’ to have their child’s needs formally assessed. This was often linked to a perception that the local authority was trying to control its expenditure.””" It recommended that"““Government should establish a high-level independent review to consider options for future reform—engaging all key stakeholders.””" The university of Cambridge came to similar conclusions. I have heard at first hand, as have many hon. Members, the truly awful process many parents have to go through—the nightmare of it all—not to mention the expense, such as the cost of commissioning their own psychology reports, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (John Bercow) in an intervention. There is also the worry of having to deal with the process while at the same time coming to terms with realising that they have a child with special needs who requires extra help at home. My hon. Friend also cited a constituent who went through a 10-year statementing process. The hon. Member for Chesterfield (Paul Holmes) quoted a constituent who said that they were ““bone tired”” of the system, which had ““sucked our family dry””. I am sure that many families could echo those comments. My hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Newmark) cited Josh Metcalf, aged eight, who despite being diagnosed with Asperger’s in April is only now beginning the process. I hope to goodness that that does not take as long as it has for some. In another place, Lord Adonis said:"““We considered very carefully whether there was a case for the wholesale replacement of the process, but we decided that that would not be appropriate at present as no proposals have come forward””.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 19 October 2006; Vol. 685, c. 901.]" I can tell the noble Lord that there are proposals. One of my hon. Friends cited the fact that my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron), when he was shadow spokesman on education, set up a commission on special educational needs under Sir Robert Balchin. The resulting interim report last November made a number of suggestions, including the replacement of statements with special needs profiles drawn up by independent profile assessors, with funding provided by a national funding agency. That addresses the very real conflict of interest to which my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham referred in his passionate and excellent speech. I have no doubt that other people and organisations could come up with suggestions that the Government could consider. The Opposition have been calling for a review of the SEN system for some time. Last week, my colleagues in another place voted for amendments to the Education and Inspections Bill that would have provided for a review, accompanied by a separate amendment on a moratorium on the closure of special schools while the review was taking place. Regrettably, that amendment was defeated, and I shall not embarrass the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole by reminding her of which way her party voted on those amendments. It is also obvious that there is no clear framework surrounding SEN provision. The Select Committee recommended"““a statutory requirement placed on local authorities to maintain, or have access to, a wide range of provision, including a range of special schools, specialist units, and services for low incidence special educational needs.””" My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Mr. Carswell) needs to consider that point when he is finding a local solution to the problem, as well as the point that the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole made about how the low-incidence cases can be dealt with on a local basis and how expensive provision can be dealt with in a small local authority area. The charity I Can has said that it believes that the Government cannot devolve SEN responsibility to local authorities without the setting of an integrated national standards framework and a clear implementation and auditing strategy. It is also clear that existing Government publications such as the SEN strategy have severe shortcomings, in particular a lack of clarity on fundamental issues such as inclusion. The Committee noted ““considerable confusion”” over the meaning of ““inclusion”” and felt that the Government needed to work"““harder to define exactly what it means””." That explains the different attitudes of different local education authorities towards the closure of special schools throughout this country, to which the hon. Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough (Jeff Ennis), who is a member of the Select Committee, referred. The Government response is again worrying as it simply means no change. Paragraph 28 of section 3 states:"““The present statutory framework provides for children with statements of SEN to be taught in mainstream schools where this is what their parents want and it is compatible with the efficient education of other children. It provides for parents to seek a special school and to have their preference considered according to the same criteria as a preference for a maintained school.””" However, that is not what is happening on the ground. Baroness Warnock stated in her report:"““Government thinking is set on immovable tracks. Special schools are a place of last resort, only, we are told, for children with severe and complex disabilities. But for other children we must keep them out of special schools by hook or by crook to educate them in mainstream schools.””" So, it is not surprising that the Select Committee found that"““it is reasonable for those involved in SEN to assume that the Government holds a policy of inclusion from which it has given guidance to local authorities to reduce both the proportion of pupils in special schools and to reduce reliance on statements.””" The university of Cambridge found:"““The evidence demonstrates unequivocally that the needs, interest and potential of many children with special needs are not being met””." It is impossible to reconcile those two views. Although the Government claim to have a neutral policy with regard to special needs provision, many outside Government perceive a one-sided policy that undermines provision in special schools. I strongly believe that it is wrong to imply that mainstream education can cope with all special educational needs. Some children do need teachers with specialist training and expertise if they are to fulfil their potential.