 House of Commons |
Session 2005 - 06 Publications on the internet Standing Committee Debates Education and Inspections Bill |
Education and Inspections Bill |
The Committee consisted of the following Members:Alan Sandall, Committee
Clerk † attended the
Committee Standing Committee ETuesday 25 April 2006(Afternoon)[Mr. Christopher Chope in the Chair]Education and Inspections BillClause 14Proposals
for discontinuance of schools maintained by local education
authority Amendment
proposed [this day]: No. 100, in clause 14, page 10, line 25, at
end insert— ‘(aa) the effect
of the discontinuance of the school upon the ability of the local
education authority, and upon the governing bodies of other schools
maintained by that authority, to continue to perform and carry out the
duties and functions in relation to education imposed upon them by this
or any other enactment,'.—[Mr.
Chaytor.] 4
pm Question
again proposed, That the amendment be
made.
The
Chairman: I remind the Committee that with this we are
discussing amendment No. 31, in clause 14, page 10, line 26, leave
out ‘to the local education
authority'.
The
Minister for Schools (Jacqui Smith): Welcome back to the
Chair, Mr. Chope. I hope that you have noted the splendid progress we
made this morning. We worked jolly hard and had just got to
amendmentNo. 100, which was moved by my hon. Friend the
Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor). He rightly made the argument that
the impact of a school’s closure will be felt beyond that
school. The amendment
concerns the effect of the closure of a rural primary school, and the
ability of other local schools and authorities to continue to perform
their duties in relation to education. That goes to the heart of the
new role for local authorities as commissioners of education services.
I agree with my hon. Friend that local authorities will need to
consider the impact on other schools, parents, pupils and the community
as part of their important strategic role in planning education
provision. That will inform their decisions in planning how many
schools their area needs, where and how big they should be, what kind
of schools would serve their area best, and who the schools should
serve. Local
authorities will draw up strategic plans for the pattern of schools in
their area as part of their children and young people’s plans.
To do that, they willmap what is needed in their area
according to demographics, diversity and demand for high standards.
They will ensure that there is a sufficient supply of places by letting
popular schools expand or federate, closing schools that are poor or
failing to
improve, and inviting proposals to open new schools in some of the ways
that we have discussed. We expect local authorities to work with
schools in a spirit of partnership as they manage their schools. The
best local authorities already do that, and the new role for local
authorities as commissioners of education services will extend that
throughout the country.
I hope that that reassures my
hon. Friend regarding the strategic context for local authorities
within which individual closure proposals will be made, and that he
will therefore withdraw his
amendment. I turn to
amendment No. 31, to which the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and
Littlehampton(Mr. Gibb) spoke. I understand the difficulties
of closure decisions for some parents. Any decision to close a school
is often worrying for parents, and the subject of considerable concern
and argument. However, as I said when I talked about the factors that
need to be considered, transport considerations must already be
considered when the final decisions on proposals are made.
If a rural primary school
closes, the transport costs for displaced pupils will, in many cases,
have to be met by the local authority, which has a duty to provide
transport for children who attend their nearest suitable school if it
is beyond the statutory walking distance of 2 miles for primary-aged
pupils under eight, and3 miles for children aged eight and
over. Local authorities also have to make arrangements to transport
children who live within walking distance but for whom there is no
route to walk in reasonablesafety. Provisions elsewhere in
the Bill will extend rights to transport to children from low-income
groups, including, for this age group, an entitlement to transport
where the school is more than 2 miles from the child’s home.
Therefore, when a rural primary school closes, parents who live nearby
and drive their children to school might gain an entitlement to free
travel for their children under the arrangements outlined
above. Given the
potential economies of scale of a local authority organising transport
instead of parents driving their children to school, the amendment
could, by requiring a consideration of overall transport costs, have
the perverse effect of shifting the balance of the argument towards
closure. Mr.
Nick Gibb (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con): I wonder
whether the Minister has taken into account the provisions of the Bill
that could give local authorities the right to charge some categories
of parents for school transport? That, in essence, is a cost to the
community, albeit not to the local authority. It is a cost to somebody,
and it will have to be met, but the clause does not allow that fact to
be taken into account.
Jacqui
Smith: The provisions that the hon. Gentleman refers to
relate to the suggested pathfinder proposals, under which local
authorities will be able to develop better school transport for
everyone within their area. Although that is an important development,
it is not a fundamental change in the charging regime. In fact, the
balance is likely to be as I suggested. Although I am sympathetic to
the implications for
individual parents—and they should of course be borne in mind
when making decisions about school closures, particularly of rural
primary schools—I am not convinced that the amendment would
achieve the objectives that the hon. Gentleman set out. Indeed, it
could potentially have a perverse effect on the decision. I therefore
hope that he will not press the amendment.
Mr.
David Chaytor (Bury, North) (Lab): I am grateful to my
right hon. Friend the Minister for that clarification. However, the
clause remains unsatisfactory inasmuch as it gives specific attention
to rural primary schools. It lists a number of the criteria that should
apply to rural primary schools but does not list them all because, as
my right hon. Friend pointed out, the question of standards, parental
preference and diversity are also factors in closure decisions.
However, the criteria that apply to rural primary schools could apply
equally to urban primary schools or secondary schools.
A powerful argument can be made
for including in the Bill the criteria that apply to all school
closures, primary and secondary, rural and urban. It would help the
process. It would assist with the plans of local authorities and
governing bodies, with the publication of closure notices, and in a
public understanding of the reasons for schools closing. Generally, the
process would be more efficient as a result. However, in light of my
right hon. Friend’s clarification, I beg to ask leave to
withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave,
withdrawn.
Clause 14 ordered to stand
part of the Bill.
Clause 15 ordered to stand
part of the Bill.
Clause 16Direction
requiring discontinuance of community or foundation special
school Mr.
John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con): I beg
to move amendment No. 32, in clause 16, page 11, line 34, at end
insert— ‘(1A) No special
school which caters
for— (a) children with
moderate learning difficulties,
or (b) children with severe
learning difficulties, shall be
discontinued by a local authority without a direction from the
Secretary of
State.'.
No. 255, in clause 16, page 11,
line 34, at end
insert— ‘(1A) Before any
special school is closed by direction of the Secretary of State, the
Secretary of State must be satisfied that acceptable alternative
provision for the children in that special school has been
made.'. No.
33, in clause 16, page 11, line 43, after ‘governors,',
insert— ‘(ca) parents of
children attending the
school,'. No.
34, in clause 16, page 12, line 3, at end
insert ‘and shall give his reasons
for such direction'.
No. 35, in clause 18, page 13,
line 14, leave out ‘or
discontinuance'.
Mr.
Hayes: What a great pleasure it is, Mr. Chope, to serve
under your chairmanship. I shall rely on our intimate familiarity to
guide us through our proceedings.
The amendments give us the
opportunity to return to the subject of special educational needs.
Those tabled in the names of my hon. Friends and myself, and those
tabled in our names and those of Liberal Democrat Members, are relevant
to the capacity of the Secretary of State to alter special needs
provision, and to the proper consultation that should take place with
parents on his decision to alter such provision. The clause deals with
precisely those matters, but it needs to be seen in context. So, I make
no apology for re-amplifying our real doubts about the commitment to
special schools. I was
lucky enough last night to have dinner at the Athenaeum with a
distinguished group of experts in that field, including parents of
special needs children, head teachers at mainstream and special needs
schools, academics, educational psychologists and others. Over a
splendid meal, we had the opportunity to discuss those matters. The
conclusion that emerged from our discussions, which were wide-ranging,
was that educational need must be the key determinate in matching
provision and children. Yet that was not always taken as an a priori
assumption. During
discussion on the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001,
Baroness Blackstone said that
the “commitment to
inclusion has been strong and constant...The potential social,
moral and educational benefits are
significant.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 19
December 2000; Vol. 620, c.
635.] The order in which she put
those benefits is interesting. Of course, we are concerned about the
social, moral and cultural interests of people with learning
difficulties, but their educational needs will, at times, be more
significant than any cultural concerns that we might have.
It is critical that the effect
on the educational potential of individual children is the key factor
in assessing the adequacy of special needs provision. We are concerned
that this part of the Bill might facilitate the process by which the
number of special schools could be further reduced. I do not think that
that is the intention, and I do not claim that the
Governmentare malevolent in that respect, but without the
clear recommitment to special schools, which our amendments would
provide, that doubt will
remain. There was some
debate about that in earlier discussions, so I thought that it might be
useful to have a look at some Government figures, which I did over
breakfast—[Hon. Members: “Where
was that?”] In a small Italian cafĂ(c) on the junction of
Great Peter street and Great Smith street—it serves exemplary
scrambled eggs. The Government’s figures show that there were
approximately 93,000 children attending special schools in January
1999, but that by January of last year, that number had declined by
about 8 per cent. to 85,540. I think that the Government remain
committed to a policy of including as many children as possible in
mainstream schools. I shall wait to hear what the Minister says about
that. That policy has resulted in the closure, since 1997, of 93
special schools. I do not blame the Government alone for that—it
was the prevailing orthodox thinking after the Warnock report and the
following Act that was passed, of course, under a Conservative
Government. Baroness
Warnock, whose report in 1978, as I mentioned, started the bandwagon
for inclusion, said recently that the policy had backfired and left
“a disastrous legacy”. Of course, the survey, about which
we have talked, of teachers and head teachers, suggests that many of
them know that the legacy has indeed been disastrous. In that survey,
conducted by The Times Educational Supplement, they concluded
that as many as one in four children with special needs integrated into
the mainstream would have been served better by education in a special
school. It is therefore vital that in the Bill we reaffirm our
commitment to the continuance of special schools, and that we use this
debate as an opportunity to celebrate their work and their
excellence.
4.15
pm The Committee
will know that one such special school threatened with closure, which
might be protected by legislation that reaffirmed the role of schools
in the way that I describe, is the Nuffield speech and language unit.
My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (John Bercow) has been a great
champion of that place. The unit was part of the Royal National Throat,
Nose and Ear hospital and, therefore, of the Royal Free Hampstead NHS
trust. It has been in existence since 1971 and provides intensive
teaching and therapy for children aged four to seven
withsevere speech and language disorders, for whom there is
no provision of comparable quality in mainstream schools. It is
recognised as a centre of excellence. Between 1998 and 2003, 41 per
cent. of the children leaving the unit returned directly to mainstream
education. My point
about that school is that it is evidence of the fluidity that can occur
when children spend time in special education and are then better
equipped to take advantage of opportunities in the mainstream. We do
not have to see the matter as static. It should be a dynamic process in
which children’s needs are catered for most appropriately at
each stage of their time in education. A child might well start off in
a special school and then move to a mainstream school, as those
Nuffield children have done—7 per cent. of children return to
local language units and 38 per cent. transfer to the Meath school, a
specialist school for children with specific speech and language
difficulties. The
total cost of running the unit is some £300,000, whereas the
expenditure of the trust is in the order of £300 million. The
trust gives as the main reasons for its decision to recommend closure
the Government’s inclusion policy and the preference of the
local education authority for inclusion. The Committeewill
understand, therefore, why we have tabled the amendment. Although we
accept that the Government are not malevolent, we fear that we are all
still suffering from the misassumptions about special educational
provision that prevailed following the Warnock report and the
legislation to which it gave rise. No such provision for children from
four onwards can be found anywhere else. The fact is that the children
with the most severe disorders need specialist intensive help, which
units such as Nuffield can provide.
The school is
critical, partly because the Government are keen to reduce the number
of statements and partly because many LEAs, for ideological or
financialreasons, are reluctant to issue statements before
the age of five, and even when they do so, they are loth to finance
out-of-area placements. I would go further: it is not enough simply to
defend existing special schools; where we identify good practice, we
should look to expand that kind of provision if the need warrants it. I
want to see a new generation of special schools if that is what
children need and parents want—that is the critical
determinant. That
brings me to the other amendments in the group. Parents of children
attending a community or foundation special school should be key
consulteesin the case of any direction that requires the
discontinuance of that school. Amendment No. 33 would, therefore, add
them to the list. Furthermore, we ask in amendment No. 34 that the
Secretary of State should give reasons for any such
directions. The first
purpose of the amendments is to make a bold case for schools that
provide excellent educational opportunities for disadvantaged children,
and there are few children more disadvantaged than those with stated
special educational needs. Units such as the Nuffield speech and
language unit deserve the support that the amendment would give them.
The second purpose is to ensure that the people most directly affected
are properly involved in the process.
I make no apology for speaking
to the amendments at some length, because the matter is important and
they would add quality to the Bill. They will undoubtedly be accepted
by the Minister in precisely that
spirit. Annette
Brooke (Mid-Dorset and North Poole) (LD): I welcome you to
the Committee this afternoon, Mr.
Chope. I shall refer to
clause 16(1), to which the Conservatives have proposed amendments. If
we are being logical, my hon. Friends and I should opposethe
provision. I should like to probe the Minister on the clause, which I
imagine would be used only in a most extreme case. I am slightly
puzzled—if a school was in such a dire state that the health,
safety or welfare of pupils was being affected, why on earth would the
local authority not close it down? Do we really have local authorities
that are so crass that they would not do that? Is there something
extreme that might come up in an Ofsted report that would require the
provision? I ask the Minister those questions with a view to supporting
the clause if I can be convinced that it is very
significant. I am
confused about the Conservatives’ amendments. We keep hearing
that they do not like the Government’s policy of closing special
schools, but here we have an amendment that actually asks the Secretary
of State to intervene. It is slightly strange that they ask for a
direction from the Secretary of State when they have argued all along
that she has been engineering closures.
I have a further question on
amendment No. 255. I recall that, the last time I was upset about the
closure by a Conservative Administration of a special school to which
some of my constituents went, there was a process whereby an
adjudicator was brought in. Does that make the amendment unnecessary?
The case was lost, but I recall a number of parts of the process. Will
the Minister comment on
that? The amendments to
which my hon. Friends and I have added our names are very sensible. If
the extreme measure under the clause is taken by the Secretary of State
because of health, social and welfare reasons, the parents of the
children should be involved and the reasons for the closure should be
stated. We support the amendments wholeheartedly, but I have asked
questions on the issue because I am not yet entirely sure of the
significance of the
clause. Mrs.
Nadine Dorries (Mid-Bedfordshire) (Con): In considering
the amendments, we should examine the work that parents have to do to
secure provision from a local education authority for a child with
special educational needs. As those of us who are parents know, a week
is a long time in the life of a child at school, and two or three years
is a very long time for a child to have special needs. The age at which
most special needs manifest themselves is about seven, and it can take
parents two to three years to secure the provision of specialist help
that their children need, in a maintained school, a non-maintained
school or a special
school. Nowadays most
parents who manage to secure the right provision for a child with
special needs must go to the special educational needs and disability
tribunal. The tribunal is free at the point of access for parents. I am
trying to illustrate what a parent must go through to get a child into
specialist provision and explain what the consequences would be, where
the child would go, and the process that would have to be undergone to
secure subsequent provision, should the provision secured for the child
then close. Although parents do not have to pay to go to a tribunal,
most local authorities nowadays employ a barrister and parents are
expected to present professional reports about their child’s
needs. We have heard about the cost of the tribunal to a
parent. Ms
Angela C. Smith (Sheffield, Hillsborough) (Lab): Are not
most authorities keen to settle a tribunal before it takes place? The
records prove that. Are not authorities also obliged to offer a free
advocacy service to all parents who want to go to a
tribunal?
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2006 | Prepared 26 April 2006 |