The
Chairman: Order. We are in danger of straying from the
theme of the amendments, which is about the discontinuance of special
schools, rather than what happens when they
continue.
Mrs.
Dorries: I shall shorten my account, then, and merely say
that it takes huge effort by parents to have a child statemented and to
have their special needs met, as MPs of all parties know, I am sure.
However, there are areas where special needs schools have closed. The
Select Committee heard in evidence that Newbury no longer has any
special needs schools—it states that all
its children will be educated in inclusive programmes in maintained
schools. However, the statistics show that that is not true, and most
of the children with special needs in Newbury are being sent out of the
borough. Many special
schools now take children from far afield. I have no special school in
my constituency and children from there attend special schools as far
away as Cheltenham; they must board away from home. If there are
children with special needs in a school it will not be a simple matter
to secure additional provision for them. Not many maintained schools
will willingly take on a huge number of children with statements of
special needs. It is not correct to assume that on the closure of a
school children who have special needs can be placed in alternative
education in the same way as children without special needs.
In light of the difficulty for
parents in securing specialist provision for their children in
maintained or special schools, how does the Minister think parents will
cope on the closure of a school when there is no additional provision?
How, given that most special schools now have long waiting lists and
reduced numbers, would the required provision be
supplied? Mr.
Rob Wilson (Reading, East) (Con): I want to speak briefly
in support of amendments Nos. 32 and 255. There has for some time been
concern about special educational needs—hence the recent Warnock
report and the Ofsted and Audit Commission reports. It is widely
recognised by those who work in special educational needs that there
are significant problems. It is my view that the Government are failing
to take a strong strategic lead in the matter. I am not sure now
whether they back their 1997 policy of inclusion. Some Ministers have,
certainly, suggested that it is now up to local authorities to decide
their own framework. Wide variation in quality of and access to
provision will continue while that happens.
Amendment No. 32 would provide a
belt-and-braces approach so that any future closures could be
thoroughly questioned, at least by the Secretary of State and her civil
servants. Some special schools can and should be closed, but others are
closed in the teeth of local opposition. Amendment No. 255 would ensure
that alternative provision was made. Sometimes that has not been
thought through when left to LEAs. Those two important amendments would
offer parents support in accessing a quality service, which sometimes
they do not receive at the
moment. 4.30
pm
Jacqui
Smith: It might be worth while my beginning by explaining
what clause 16, to which most of the amendments in the group relate, is
designed to achieve, as no one seems particularly clear about that. The
hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) at least
had the honesty to ask what it is
about. The clause gives
the Secretary of State the power to direct an LEA to close a maintained
special school on a specified date when it is considered that that is
inthe interests of the health, safety or welfare of the
children. It re-enacts provisions in existing legislation and
complements other provisions whereby the Secretary of State can
withdraw approval from an
independent or non-maintained special school, which would lead to the
school’s closure. In other words, the clause ensures that the
Secretary of State’s power in this case is equivalent to the
Secretary of State’s power in respect of independent or
non-maintained schools. It is a reserve power, intended to be used only
when pupils are considered to be at risk. The clause provides the power
to take emergency action to protect pupils in special schools, some of
whom, as hon. Members know, are among the most vulnerable members of
our society. Amendment
No. 32 does not relate to the health, safety or welfare of pupils,
which is the subject of clause 16. The amendment would require the
Secretary of State to authorise, by issuing a direction, the
discontinuance of any maintained special school that catered for pupils
with moderate or severe learning difficulties. I will go into more
detail about how the system works now in relation to other amendments
in the group, particularly the amendment to clause 18, but let me say
that we believe that the current system provides an objective and
independent balance between proposals made by local authorities and the
needs of the local
community. The hon.
Member for Reading, East (Mr. Wilson) said that the amendment would
provide a belt-and-braces approach. That is an interesting approach to
decision making in government. Unlike the many people who argue that
government should be slimmed down, the hon. Gentleman wants
belt-and-braces government. The amendment would introduce an
unnecessary additional layer to the decision-making
process. No member of
the Committee is unaware of the emotive issues and difficult decisions
that surround the closure of some special schools, but we should also
acknowledge that there have been other closures on which there was
local agreement—for example, where one or more special schools
have closed to move to a more modern facility. I do not think that
there would be any very good reason why such decisions should be
referred to the Secretary of State, so I hope that the amendment will
not be
pressed. Amendment No.
33 relates to the requirement to consult parents. As I said, clause 16
provides a reserve power for specific circumstances, which are likely
to be emergency circumstances. It already allows for consultation
of “such other persons as
the Secretary of State considers
appropriate”, and
I think that that provides sufficient safeguards. We expect
“such other persons” to include parents
ofchildren attending the school, but we should take note that
the clause provides the power to take emergency action to protect
pupils. We are talking not about a process whereby statutory proposals
are published fora school’s closure, but about a
situation in whichemergency action may need to take place
very quickly and the normal length and scope of consultation may not be
appropriate. I hope that hon. Members recognise that increasing the
number of specific statutory steps that need to be taken in such
exceptional circumstances might act against the welfare of the children
and young people being considered.
I turn now to amendment No. 34.
The clause requires the Secretary of State to give notice in writing of
a direction to a school’s governing body and head teacher.
Before the direction is issued, there is consultation with interested
parties, and the reasons for considering the direction will be well
known. We would clearly expect a letter giving a direction to give the
reasons for that
direction. Amendment
No. 255 would require the Secretary of State to be satisfied that
acceptable alternative provision had been made for children before a
school was closed by direction. The clause specifies that a direction
must give a date for discontinuance. One factor to be considered in
setting that date will be the alternative placement of the children at
the school, but we are clear that it should not be the determining
factor. As I suggested, pupils’ welfare must take priority in
the grave situation where the Secretary of State is considering closing
a whole school because of concerns about the pupils’ health,
safety or welfare.
There is, of course, an
important safeguard. Children attending a special school will have a
statement of special educational needs setting out the provision and
placement that apply to them. Local authorities are under a duty to
amend a statement if changes are proposed to that provision or
placement, and that will involve consulting parents,
otherschools and possibly local authorities with which the
child might be placed. Local authorities would automatically have to
amend the provision in a statement where a school was under threat of
closure. I hope that that gives some reassurance on the alternative
provision. In the exceptional circumstances in which the reserve power
would be used, we would not necessarily want to delay a decision to
ensure that alternative provision was in place at that particular
moment, but the statementing process is an important way of ensuring
that provision is made.
We take the aims of promoting
and safeguarding pupils’ welfare extremely seriously. It is
important that the Secretary of State has power to act when emergency
circumstances arise. That is the correct step to take, and that is what
the clause achieves. I suspect that hon. Members will be relieved to
know that it has not been necessary to use that power since the School
Standards and Framework Act 1998 introduced it. However, they will
agree that were it necessary to use that power, it would be important
to use it not only appropriately, but in a way that safeguarded the
children in a school as quickly as possible. For the reasons that I
have given, therefore, I hope that hon. Members will not press their
amendments to clause 16.
Amendment No. 35
relates to clause 18, which is a more general clause about prescribed
alterations and in many ways the more appropriate place to discuss the
process of alterations to particular schools, although it does not
relate to the emergency proposals covered in clause 16. As has always
been the case, changes will continue to be made to individual
schools—both special and mainstream—in the light of local
needs and demands. The
hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) referred to
the research that he had done over his breakfast, but perhaps he should
have spent slightly longer over his breakfast. The figures that he gave
for maintained special schools and
the number of pupils are correct, but consideration must be given to the
number of pupils in non-maintained special schools and independent
special schools, where the number of pupils with statements is
increasing. The key point, however, is that although the numbers have
decreased, there has also been an overall decrease in the pupil
population. In fact, whereas the proportion of children in maintained
special schools in 1997 was 1.1 per cent., remaining at that level up
to 2003, and in 2005 the figure was 1 per cent. The proportion of
children placed in maintained special schools has been stable for the
past eight years, which gives the lie to the proposition that there has
been a radical change and that a large proportion of children cannot
now access and take advantage of those special schools. The hon. Gentleman suggested
that we should use today as a celebration of the contribution of
special schools. I am more than happy to celebrate and praise the
contribution that special schools make both to the children with places
in them, and increasingly—this is a key element of Government
policy—through their work with mainstream schools, sharing that
expertise and ensuring that children get the best facilities, support,
teaching and provision, whatever school they attend. That is at the
heart of what we mean by inclusion: looking at the needs of each child
and ensuring that they receive the best provision and support, wherever
they are educated. When
it comes to making decisions about the organisation and structure of
special needs provision, local authorities and schools themselves are
best placed to respond to the needs of pupils in their areas. That is
why amendment No. 35 is unnecessary and undesirable. In terms of its
intention, it is an example of a centralising amendment. While certain
values remain paramount in dealing with children with special needs,
those needs and the demography of children with special needs will
change over time. Local authorities that reorganise their special
educational needs provision quite often do so because they recognise
that special schools need to cater for the growing population of
children with severe and complex needs, and mainstream schools need to
have the capacity to teach children with moderate learning difficulties
who in many circumstances would not be appropriately placed in special
schools. As I suggested, that close collaboration between special and
mainstream schools is also being
promoted. Local
authorities are also developing resourced provision within or attached
to schools as another way of providing specialist help to pupils who
need it and of including them in mainstream activities. That would be
prevented by any moratorium or if local authorities could not examine
how they organised their provision. That is what some hon. Members
opposite want, but it is not what we want, which is a continuum of
provision to meet the range of needs.
Of course the hon. Member for
Mid-Bedfordshire (Mrs. Dorries) is right that parents feel passionately
about ensuring that their children receive the best provision, which is
at the heart of the Government’s approach to developing special
educational needs provision. However, let me correct a couple of her
other comments—perhaps she would like to listen to this. She
said that most parents of children with special
educational needs have to go to SENDIST, but that is just wrong. Not
only does the number not constitute most parents, but the number of
appeals to SENDIST has fallen markedly, by 9 per
cent. Mrs.
Dorries: Could that be because most parents cannot afford
to go to a
tribunal?
Jacqui
Smith: No, it could not. Of course the statementing
process is important, but the proportion of statements written within
the required 18 weeks now stands at 92 per cent., up from 82 per cent.
five years ago. Of course the system is not perfect, but to suggest
that the vast majority of parents and children are not receiving
important support is to misjudge and misrepresent it in a way that does
not help mature
debate. 4.45
pm The amendment
would remove one of the key flexibilities in the continuum of provision
that we want to achieve. Clause 18 is not about the opening or closure
of schools, but about the alteration of existing schools and the
circumstances in which proposals need to be published. Sometimes in
order to alter or establish a certain type of special needs provision,
often in new and improved facilities, other provision in unsuitable
accommodation needs to close. We do not want to impose from the centre
a planning blight on local authorities so that they cannot develop
provision to meet changing patterns of need in their areas. How local
authorities publish proposals for appropriate provision must be up to
them. It is not for
the Government to say, for example, “You’ve got to have
five special schools, two pupil referral units, or so many special
needs units attached to mainstream schools.” Those are rightly
matters for local decision based on local needs. I hope, for the
reasons that I have given, that amendment No. 35 will not be
pressed. The
provisions that we have made are the right approach, and I hope that
hon. Members who have tabled amendments in the group—whether to
clause 16, which relates to a reserve power in specific emergency
circumstances, or to clause 18—will not press
them.
| 
