John Hayes (Shadow Minister (Vocational Education), Education; South Holland & The Deepings, Conservative)

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.'.

Christopher Chope (Christchurch, Conservative)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:

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'.

John Hayes (Shadow Minister (Vocational Education), Education; South Holland & The Deepings, Conservative)

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 cafÃ(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.

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 (Children & the Family, Cross-Portfolio and Non-Portfolio Responsibilities; Mid Dorset & North Poole, Liberal Democrat)

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.

Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire, Conservative)

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.

Angela Smith (PPS (Yvette Cooper, Minister of State), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Sheffield, Hillsborough, Labour)

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?

Christopher Chope (Christchurch, Conservative)

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.

Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire, Conservative)

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?

Robert Wilson (Reading East, Conservative)

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.

Jacqui Smith (Minister of State (Schools and 14-19 Learners), Department for Education and Skills; Redditch, Labour)

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.

Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire, Conservative)

Could that be because most parents cannot afford to go to a tribunal?

Jacqui Smith (Minister of State (Schools and 14-19 Learners), Department for Education and Skills; Redditch, Labour)

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.

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.

John Hayes (Shadow Minister (Vocational Education), Education; South Holland & The Deepings, Conservative)

The Minister has comprehensively assessed the clause and the amendments. I shall deal with each in turn.

I take the right hon. Lady’s point about amendment No. 34, which was that in the case of the closure of a special school in the emergency circumstances that she described, the reasons for such a direction would be given in writing as a matter of course. Furthermore, I accept her advice that those consulted would include all appropriate people, which would by necessity include parents of children attending the school. On that basis, it seems to me to be entirely unreasonable to press either amendment No. 34 or amendment No. 33. I also take her advice that the clause provides a reserve power to be used in exceptional circumstances andwill, in effect, give life once again to the power in the  1998 Act, which has not been used because such emergencies have not occurred. On that basis, it would be inappropriate to press amendment No. 32.

However, the right hon. Lady made one or two points about alternative provision that were less convincing. I accept that the circumstances in which the clause would be used would necessarily be exceptional. However, it would be odd if acceptable alternative provision for children affected was not a critical part of the process. She said that the statement would be amended if necessary and that proper consideration would have to be given by force of law, because there is a statutory duty to provide an education in line with the statement that would remain regardless of the closure of the school concerned. None the less, it would be useful to accept amendment No. 255 as it is highly desirable in such emergency, albeit rare, circumstances that alternative provision is a central element of what the law expects. The right hon. Lady was less convincing on that topic.

I was pleased that the Minister took up my challenge to celebrate the work of special schools. I am concerned that The Times Educational Supplement survey suggests that 90 per cent. of head teachers thought that their schools did not receive enough support to ensure the success of inclusion and that two thirds of teachers have received less than one day’s training on how to teach children with special needs. Those are matters of profound concern.

If we are going to include children in the mainstream—there are many children for whom that is the right course—we must ensure that those who are responsible for educating them are equipped to do so, as the Minister said. I do not in any way deride the good work of schools or the good intentions of the Minister, but I am not sure that the evidence suggests that that is always the case. I want to re-amplify those worries here today. Notwithstanding the Minister’s assurances, I am inclined to press amendment No. 255 to a Division. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.