Clause 85
Education and Inspections Bill
7:30 pm

Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 575, in clause 85, page 65, line 15, at end insert

‘and

‘(c) the relevant body has taken full account of—

(i) any special educational needs the child may have, and

(ii) any disability the child may have.'.

Frank Cook (Stockton North, Labour)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 576, in clause 88, page 68, line 3, at end insert—

‘(3C) A local authority must make an assessment in accordance with section 323 of EA 1996 (assessment of educational needs) of any pupil permanently excluded.'.

No. 577, in clause 90, page 69, line 14, at end insert—

‘(6A) Parents of excluded children who are subject to a statement of special educational needs are exempt from this section, unless it has been demonstrated by the local authority that the parents have contributed to the child's exclusion.'.

No. 578, in clause 95, page 73, line 14, after ‘exclusion' insert—

‘(ca) the local education authority ensure that the provision provided meets the requirements to provide the child with, an appropriate education that his age, ability, special educational needs and disability calls for,'.

Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire, Conservative)

The amendment is similar to amendment No. 574 and raises similar concerns. If we are to support inclusion and ensure that children with SEN become part of the larger school community and are totally included, and if we are to support parents who want their SEN children to be part of mainstream education, we must give them due consideration and cover them specifically in the Bill.

The Minister mentioned earlier that an excluded child does not have to be excluded to their home, just to a safe place. I am sure that he is aware that many disabled or SEN children live in adapted surroundings with specialist equipment. A child in my constituency with cystic fibrosis attends a classroom and school that have been adapted, with ramps leading into the dining room and toilets. Her home has an oxygen supply, ramps, the specialist feeding and learning equipment that she needs and bolsters to support her.

The Minister said that a child need only be excluded to a safe place. I think that a lawyer would argue, with reference to article 8 of the European convention on human rights, that it is unreasonable for the Government to expect a parent to find an alternative safe place for their child to be excluded to, given the amount of detailed planning and work that goes towards making that child’s environment safe. A lawyer could also effectively argue that the Government have been made aware of the unreasonable nature of that provision by the debate in the Committee. Will the Minister re-examine article 8 of the convention and  consider whether it is reasonable for disabled children to be excluded at very short notice to an alternative safe place?

Amendment No. 576 would require local authorities to undertake an assessment in accordance with the Education Act 1996 of any pupil who is permanently excluded. Although one third of children excluded from schools are able, according to the Government’s statistics, the remaining two thirds have special educational needs. I refer to the Government’s response to the written question tabled by the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden) on26 March 2006, which illustrated that point. Perhaps we should consider the possibility that, by reducing statementing support for vulnerable pupils and increasing placement in mainstream schools without offering relevant training, support or resources to our hard-pressed teachers, we have increased exclusion rather than, as desired, increased inclusion.

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

My hon. Friend is making a compelling case, and I shall support it by pointing out that the fastest growth area in statementing is children with emotional and behavioural difficulties. Many statemented children who are excluded are EBD children. I suspect that, as my hon. Friend has suggested, had they been educated in special schools they would have progressed further and their exclusions might have been avoided.

Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire, Conservative)

I agree with my hon. Friend. Many children who are excluded from mainstream schools would not have been excluded from a special school. I have spoken to Labour Members who know of similar cases to those that I have mentioned. I have spoken in the Chamber on a number of occasions about the little boy named Jack who was the first person to walk into my first surgery after I became an MP. Within five minutes of arriving in my room, he had completely wrecked it: he had taken every book off the bookcase; he had turned the chairs upside down; he was buzzing the light switches; and his mother was distressed and could not speak. He took everything off my desk.

Jack had been excluded from mainstream school, which was where the local education authority had said that he should be placed. However, because of his particular problems, his mother had excluded him—he drove the children in that school mad. His behaviour in the classroom stopped them learning and playing. They were pulling the chair out when he sat down, if effect almost harming him, so his mother withdrew him from the mainstream school environment, which meant that Jack, who needed education more than most because of his particular problems, was excluded from school. That illustrates things perfectly. There are not just children excluded by the local authorities, but those excluded by families and parents for their own protection.

Before we put legal steps in place through parenting orders and voluntary contracts, and before we condemn a pupil to a referral unit, we explore whether a hidden disability or learning need—for example,  Asperger’s, a language impairment or severe specific learning difficulties—is present. Often, such children of average ability hide their disability from teachers, but it emerges in poor behaviour and wilful refusal to conform.

Let us not forget that 80 per cent. of young people in young offenders’ institutions have special educational needs. Most did not benefit from a statement, according to the Youth Justice Board. The number of adult prisoners who are illiterate is a national scandal. I am not saying that that is a problem of this Government’s making—it was ever thus that such a number of prisoners were illiterate—but those prisoners are at greatest risk of becoming involved in further crime. And who is at greatest risk of becoming involved in crime in our schools today? Those children who are excluded. They are perhaps being excluded because of underlying problems.

If we wish to re-include in society those of our children and young people who have been excluded, we must ensure that they are given the appropriate support to receive an appropriate education. When a child is permanently excluded is surely the time for us to look at that child and say, “Why is this child permanently excluded? Are there underlying problems that we do not know about? Maybe we should take a statutory assessment, just to see whether there are any particular problems that could be addressed.”

For too many disadvantaged young people, such help is often available only through the statement of special educational needs, but that should be informed by multi-agency professionals. When a child presents such behaviour—wilful refusal to conform or to obey the teacher, or do what the classroom requires—speech therapists or educational child psychologists might not be the only people who can identify the problem. A number of professionals might need to come together and work across agencies to be able to diagnose and decide what help that child needs.

Therefore, I urge that the amendment be adopted to stop the increasing numbers of our young people ending up in the criminal justice system or a pupil referral unit. They are often denied the opportunity of access to a good school, where they belong with statemented support. I am not saying that those permanently excluded children should go to a special school, which is often argued. I am saying that those permanently excluded children could be diagnosed, the appropriate support could be put in place and they could go back into mainstream school. They could become part of that school community, which is where they belong.

Amendment No. 577, which is an amendment of sorts to Amendment No. 576, is about the parents of excluded children who are subject to a statement of special educational needs having an exemption

“unless...the parents have contributed to that child’s exclusion”.

The responsibility to provide an appropriate education to a child with a statement of special educational needs rests with the local authority. Too often I have heard of cases—not just in my own constituency, but nationally—regarding children excluded from school whereby, despite interim reviews and annual reports, the authority has either been slow to act or failed to do so, which has led to the child’s exclusion. We know  some of the reasons—there may be cash limitations or the local authority might have overzealously interpreted what inclusion means.

A variety of reasons might be involved, but that happens frequently. As such, is it fair or just to penalise the parent of a statemented child who has been excluded from school because of the inaction of the local authority, implying that all exclusions are a result of poor parenting?

We have probably all witnessed degrees of bad parenting, but we should also consider the fact that the majority of parents of excluded special needs children are doing their best to meet their children’s needs, often in very difficult circumstances. Rather than introducing penalties that could effectively punish responsible as well as irresponsible parents, we must amend the legislation. Otherwise, we will tar every parent of an excluded child with the same brush, instead of looking at individual circumstances and needs, and making reasonable adjustments.

Amendment No. 578 is a general amendment. I believe that any requirement for a child to attend a specific school must include a duty on the education authority to ensure that it is appropriate to meet the child’s individual learning needs.

Nick Gibb (Shadow Minister (Schools), Education; Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, Conservative)

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend, who makes a compelling case for such exemptions and special provisions. Clause 85 relates to parenting orders, which are imposed by the magistrates court following a successful application by the local authority and are intended for parents unwilling to comply with voluntary measures. They can force parents to attend a parenting course, which may be residential. Breach of such an order is liable to a fine of £1,000.

Clause 85 will extend parenting orders so that they may be applied for before exclusion. That will account for schools that can manage behaviour without having to resort to exclusion. The clause will also allow schools, as well as local authorities, to apply for orders. That was recommended by the Steer group, which is why we support the clause fully.

Recommendation 3.73 said that

“the legal power to apply for a parenting order should be extended to schools accompanied by clear guidance and examples of good practice in applying parenting orders effectively.”

Recommendation 3.74 said that

“it should be possible to apply for a parenting order, following serious misbehaviour at school, in cases where the pupil has not been excluded.”

However, we have some concerns about the costs involved.

According to paragraph 1.51 of the guidance,

“the applicant for a parenting order is responsible for all costs associated with it including the cost of the parenting programme”.

That means that if a school wishes to seek an order forcing a parent to attend a parenting course, the cost will fall on the school. Has the Minister considered whether that will be a disincentive for a school to apply for such an order or is he confident that there will be sufficient resources to overcome that problem?

I am also reflecting on the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire. We need to consider the impact of the provisions on the parents of children with special educational needs. They feel very aggrieved. Because of the inclusion agenda, their child might well be attending what they regard as an inappropriate school. As a consequence, the child’s behaviour might have deteriorated, or the child might be regarded as somebody who simply does not fit in.

The Minister might correct me if I am wrong, but I understand that the Steer committee was asked not to consider problems related to special educational needs when it discussed disciplinary issues in our schools. My hon. Friend made important points about the proportion of excluded children with special educational needs. We are therefore inclined to support one of her amendments regarding a local authority’s requirement to assess the special educational needs of any child who is permanently excluded, so that we can be sure that future educational provision for that child is appropriate and sufficient for their needs. That is a compassionate way to help such children to deal with their problems by ensuring that they attend appropriate schools tailored to their special needs.

Jim Knight (Minister of State, Department for Education and Skills; South Dorset, Labour)

As we have heard, the amendments deal with the important issue of addressing properly any special educational needs or disabilities that a pupil might have. I acknowledge that children with special educational needs are almost four times as likely to be excluded than the rest of the school population. That has improved during the last few years. I believe that some nine or 10 years ago, the rate was twice that.

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

I am sorry to interrupt the Minister so early in his response, but perhaps, either now or in a letter, he will let the Committee know how that breaks down in terms of mainstream and special schools, and by type of special need. We need to know how many of those children have emotional and behavioural difficulties, and how many are attending special schools for the reasons that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire mentioned.

Jim Knight (Minister of State, Department for Education and Skills; South Dorset, Labour)

If I can reasonably and efficiently expedite that for the Committee, I shall be delighted to do so, but as I stand here I do not know how straightforward it is to get that information together.

We could have an interesting debate on inclusion, but it would not be about parenting orders and it might get us into some difficulty. Our policy is set out in the Education Act 1996, which provides for children to be taught in mainstream schools where that is consistent with the wishes of their parents, meets the child’s needs and is not incompatible with the efficient education of other children.

The hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton wanted to know whether the Steer review was asked to consider special educational needs pupils. The report said that further, more detailed work was needed to consider issues involving special educational needs pupils, which reflects the real difficulties and complications that the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire described so well.

Amendment No. 575 is simply unnecessary, as safeguards are already in place to ensure that pupils with disability or special educational needs are properly dealt with. Illustrative guidance sets out what will be expected of schools and local authorities when considering an application for a parenting order. If the hon. Lady wants to write to me with her thoughts on that guidance and how it can be improved, I shall read her letter with close interest.

In addition, the court may make a parenting order—this is crucial—only if it is satisfied that it is desirable in the interests of improving the behaviour of the pupil. In the case of a child’s behaviour that is a result of special educational needs or disability over which the parent has no control—or even, as the hon. Lady described, where the child has a profound physical disability, and there might be problems associated with their being kept at home or in the terms of the order—the court would have to bear that in mind when making its decision and consider carefully whether a parenting order would lead to improvements in the child’s behaviour. That is the test that it would need to apply.

There appears to be an assumption behind amendment No. 576 that the special educational needs of some children who are permanently excluded from school have not yet been identified. However, the 1996 Act, to which I referred earlier, and the special educational needs code of practice already provide a framework for schools and local authorities to identify, assess and make suitable provision for children with special educational needs. The code provides statutory guidance to schools and local authorities in meeting their special educational needs duties and recommends a graduated approach to meeting children’s special educational needs.

The statutory guidance on exclusion, to which schools and local authorities must have regard, states that school governing bodies must ensure that appropriate provision is made for any pupil with special educational needs. In cases where a pupil’s special educational needs are giving rise to disruptive behaviour, schools should already be taking action to address those needs.

Our guidance is that schools should try every practical means to maintain the pupil in school, seeking local authority and other professional advice. However, that does not mean that such pupils can never be excluded. The local authority might need to consider whether children with special educational needs, but without statements, require a statutory assessment following a permanent exclusion and whether permanently excluded children who have not been identified as having special educational needs might indeed have special educational needs. However, the amendment would mean local authorities having to carry out many unnecessary assessments with all the bureaucracy that that involves, as well as the cost, which in 2002 was estimated by the Audit Commission to be £2,500 per pupil.

On amendment No. 577, a key driver behind the new duty in clause 90 is our wish to ensure that the child is supervised and not free to wander the streets, causing trouble for themselves as well as others. Children with a statement of special educational needs are as much in need of such supervision and protection as any other—perhaps more so. It is also important that no child should consider exclusion a reward, in the form of “extra holidays”. All children should continue their education.

Clause 90 achieves that with a mixture of parentally-arranged supervision, homework set by the school and local authority-arranged provision; exempting special educational needs children from the clause would undermine it. No one would dispute that there should be safeguards for children with special educational needs, but those are already in place, as I have outlined, and the indicative guidance highlights how we should proceed.

We recognise that there might be circumstances in which a child or his parents have to be in a public place, such as a long-arranged medical or other appointment or a medical emergency. Such explanations are covered by the defence of reasonable justification and no children will be prevented from accessing the services that they need.

Amendment No. 578 is also unnecessary. It would place a duty on local authorities to provide a suitable education for excluded pupils. The Government agree that that is necessary. However, section 19 of the 1996 Act already requires local authorities to make arrangements for children who are not in school or are being educated otherwise to receive a suitable education. That section specifically includes excluded children. It also defines a suitable education as appropriate to the child’s age, ability, aptitude and any special educational need that he might have. In fact, that very requirement is the subject of re-enactment by clause 88(3). On the basis that the local authorities already have the duty to provide the appropriate education sought by the amendment, I ask for it to be withdrawn and for the other amendments not to be pressed.

Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire, Conservative)

I thank the Minister for his offer to write and to refer to the guidance. I am sure that I shall have the help of the many organisations with which I have been working in the past few months, and I shall take him up on that very kind offer. I am reassured by his reply on other issues, but I am not sure that he is right about the court order and the child being moved to a safe place. However, we shall see what happens in future legislation. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.