Lord Addington:

Moved by Lord Addington

461: After Clause 62, insert the following new Clause—“Establishment of a national body for SEND(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, establish a national body for special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) in relation to children.(2) The functions of the national body for SEND will include, but not be limited to—(a) national coordination of SEND provision for children,(b) supporting the delivery of SEND support for children with very high needs, and(c) advising on funding needed by local authorities for SEND provision for children.(3) Any mechanism used by the national body for SEND in advising on funding under subsection (2)(c) should be based on current need and may disregard historic spend.”Member's explanatory statementThis Amendment requires the Secretary of State to establish a national body for special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) in relation to children.

Hear, hear!

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, for that compliment. We go back to special educational needs here, with a series of amendments in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Holmes and Lord Carlile, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson. My Amendment is the most general of them, on a general duty to have a look at special educational needs. Some of the specifics in the other amendments probably should be included in that general duty.

On teacher training, unless you have teachers who are increasingly better equipped to spot conditions and deal with them in the classroom, you are always going to fail because you will have late diagnosis—or no diagnosis for many conditions—or the wrong practice. I am trying to convince people here that getting extra help for special educational needs may be a bad thing if that help is from the system by which you have already failed. If you do not know what is required and are being told “You’ve already failed to do this”—English would be a classic one—you will just not pass. My experience with dyslexia, which I have mentioned once today, is of being given an extra 15 spelling tests, one every week. You fail them all; you carry on doing it, but you just will not pass.

This is because having special educational needs usually means that you process information differently. There can be extreme cases. I have already referred to the noble Lord, Lord Holmes—nobody expects somebody who is blind to copy off a blackboard. You would describe what it is. You have got to have a different system of working and different structures that go with it.

I could expand upon this for ages, but the hour is late and other noble Lords with more detailed amendments are waiting to speak. I beg leave to move my amendment and look forward to the rest of this debate.

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and I congratulate him on all the work that he continues to do in this area. I thank my friends, the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and the noble Lord, Lord Watson, for cosigning my Amendments 491 and 498. I will take them in reverse order, with Amendment 498 first.

Quite simply, it addresses the issue we discussed in the previous group: current SEND provision is not working. It is not working for the SENCOs, who try their utmost; it is not working for the teachers, who strain every sinew to educate all in their classrooms; it is not working for the parents; and, most importantly, it is not working for children with special educational needs or a disability. Yet it can, if we start from the provision of inclusive by design and set out an approach where the funding is identified and ascribed to that SEND provision. The department should and must reach out beyond its budgetary constraints, because the reality is that this is far more than an issue of education. For example, there is a clear causal relationship between the education attainment gap and the subsequent employment attainment gap for those with disabilities.

Other departments must also pull their weight in addressing this issue of special educational needs and disability provision. This is why in Amendment 491 I suggest a practical, reasonable and achievable measure to make a difference across government: to introduce a mentorship scheme for those young people with special educational needs or disabilities.

Before the question arises of distracting departmental officials from their incredibly important work, or of putting more pressure on already overstretched resources, I suggest to the Minister that this would be an ideal situation for an effective, practical and achievable public-private partnership. Imagine how local, regional, national and international businesses could get involved to help support and be part of the delivery of such a mentorship scheme for children with special educational needs and disabilities. Imagine the empowerment for those young people in hearing from adults in successful careers, professions, jobs, activities and third-sector work, across the piece, who have lived experience of being a disabled person and have come through, succeeded and achieved. That is not just mentorship; that is leadership and empowerment, enabling all those young people.

The scheme could be brought in with minimal, if any, disruption or resource pressures put on the department. The difference it would make for those children with special educational needs and disabilities could be profound, impacting their educational experience, setting them up for life and enabling them not only to positively be part of closing that education attainment gap but subsequently closing the employment attainment gap. Any Government should have this as one of their core provisions. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 491 and 498, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, to which I have attached my name, and Amendments 502U and 502V in my name.

With regard to Amendment 491, we have already spoken about how disabled children are being left behind. I worry that we are wrapping some disabled children in cotton wool. The noble Baroness, Lady Verma, talked in an earlier group about resilience. We have to do more to ensure that our disabled children in schools can build resilience. This is one way in which they can do that.

This amendment is not about physical activity, but disabled children are routinely excluded from physical activity in schools and physical activity is one way that they can build this resilience. There are myriad excuses—“Well, they are sent to the library”—which are often wrapped up in health and safety. It sometimes feels that we are writing off disabled children before they have been given a chance. Often their world is smaller: there is less opportunity and a lack of ambition that is placed upon them.

This is something that I would like all children to be offered. It is probably dependent on what His Majesty’s Government are thinking of on enrichment around the school day. I declare an interest here as chair of the Duke of Edinburgh’s Award, and we are talking to the Government about what this enrichment would look like. I believe that providing mentoring will help. It is about not just grades but building skills for life.

Amendment 498 simply seeks a view of SEND provision and how it is funded. Amendment 502U links to amendments that I have in other groups, but this one sits better in this group. I do not think that we have got right the support that disabled children are getting in school, and we must think about what more we can do.

The organisation Contact a Family and the Independent Provider of Special Education Advice surveyed 2,000 families with children and young people who have SEND but do not have an EHCP to see how the process was working. The survey concluded that there was not enough SEND support in schools, which leads many families to seek an EHCP to secure support for their child’s needs. This does not feel like the right way that the system should be supporting disabled children. It leads to school avoidance, absenteeism, pupils being put on part-time timetables and exclusion, and therefore an ever decreasing circle of support and ambition. This amendment seeks to ensure better support.

I am keen that access to the curriculum for disabled children is not reliant on a single member of staff. I do not, in this group of amendments, seek to debate the role of TAs. It is about how we get the right support beyond that so that we do not limit children’s opportunities. I know that there will probably be some discussion of whether, under this amendment, their role should sit under the supervision of a qualified teacher.

Finally, on Amendment 502V, we need to know how much we spend on SEND provision. In a previous group, the noble Lord, Lord Agnew of Oulton—admittedly not talking about this—said how important it was to identify how every penny is spent in schools. We must have a better understanding of how SEND money is spent. I do not mean to place a lot of additional work on schools, but we need to know that we are getting value for money and, ultimately, that we have the right provision for disabled children to thrive.

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 502Q, 502R, 502S, 502T and 502W in my name. Amendment 502R is supported strongly by my noble friend Lady Bull, who has expressed sincere regrets at not being able to be with us tonight because of a long-standing engagement.

These amendments seek to achieve co-ordination between criminal justice services and schools in relation to children with special educational needs. The amendments are the product of a review carried out by the Michael Sieff Foundation, chaired by Professor Cheryl Thomas KC of University College London, of which the membership included Sir Robert Buckland, the former Lord Chancellor. And I had a part in it too.

The statistics about special educational needs children who fall into the criminal justice system are shocking, with 58,889 children being arrested in the last year for which there were statistics. In the same year, 103,135 children had confrontations with the police in which they might have been accused of a crime. Of those children cautioned or sentenced, 80% have special educational needs and neurodivergence. It is found when reports are written about them for the courts that that 80% have a cocktail of different problems, which will include school exclusion, custody at an earlier age, longer sentences, reoffending and that their crimes often involve violence.

It is a matter for real concern that these children are appearing so often in police stations with very little understanding of what is happening to them, for the process of dealing with children in police stations, though it is much more sensitive than it used to be, is not child-friendly in the sense of enabling the child to understand what is happening to them.

Of course, when children are arrested—a very high percentage of those who are charged remain in custody until tried, although many of those who are tried and convicted are not sentenced to custody—the fact of their being in custody leads to them becoming dissociated from their families and, above all, from their education. Education in young offender institutions can be absolutely excellent—sometimes extraordinary and inspired—but sometimes it is pretty dreadful. But what are those educational institutions within child custody centres dealing with, even if they are very good?

Some years ago, I visited a young offender institution when I was doing a report for the Howard League on the use of physical restraints on children in custody. A young lad, aged about 16, beckoned me into his cell saying that he wanted to show me something. I went into the cell with a prison officer, and he pointed to his grade A* GCSE maths certificate on the wall and said to me that he hoped he could be a maths teacher when he was an adult. I hope he is, as it was some years ago. I asked him a silly question to begin with: “Do you like maths?”. Then I asked whether he was very good at maths when he was at school. He said, “I never went to school, sir”. I said, “What do you mean, never?”, and he said, “I haven’t been to school since I was 11 years old”. There you have a child who was diverse, immature for his age, who came from a terrible and difficult background, and who had been convicted of a serious crime—he was serving quite a long sentence—but he had a talent that had never been properly harnessed. To be fair, it was harnessed in the young offender institution, but I do not know what happened to him when he was released a few months after I spoke to him.

The Michael Sieff Foundation in its report sought to tackle the relationship between the education system and the criminal justice system, particularly for the cohort of children I have been talking about already. These amendments are only part of the Michael Sieff Foundation report; they are the ones I could get in scope for this Bill—though heaven knows the scope for the Bill has been pretty large, given, as one can observe, these amendments go from Amendment 502 onwards.

Amendment 502Q is an attempt to ensure that, when a child is subject to police involvement, an educational plan is created that means that they are not kept in custody or removed from school.

Amendment 502R, which was signed by my noble friend Lady Bull, would require

“Mandatory training in SEND and neurodivergence”, for all teaching staff to support children with SEND and neurodivergence. I know that a lot of schools provide such training, but it does not happen uniformly everywhere. I agree with everything that the noble Lord, Lord Addington, has said. It is absolutely essential that the educational difficulties that that group of children have are catered for in all schools. It is pointless making them all try to write essays based on a difficult book that they have read in their English class or the difficult algebra that many of us enjoyed as a pleasure while at school.

Amendment 502S would place an important

“Duty on schools to work with youth courts to provide assessment of special educational needs and neurodivergence”.

How can somebody be sentenced—how can a judge or magistrate make a decision as to a disposal—if the court does not have in front of it the evidence required to give a proper disposal. I know of one case in which one child was released without a caution by the police to their loving parents, who were telling him off in the police station while he was being interviewed for whatever he had done, and the other child, who was with him on the expedition that had led to their arrest, was kept in custody because he was a looked-after child. That sort of discrimination occurs in the system too, and it is just not acceptable. I am afraid that it is the Government’s responsibility to provide the proper care and results for these children to allow them to become responsible adults. The Government have to make the rules. It is not good enough to leave it to individual schools, police forces and police stations to make the provisions and the adaptations necessary to deal with this cohort.

Amendment 502T would place a

“Duty on schools to support reintegration and rehabilitation for children” before they leave custody, even when they have been dealt with by the police. You would have thought that that would be something obvious that one would not have to provide for, but it is not provided for.

Finally, Amendment 502W would provide for a proper collection of data, and reporting of that data, so that those who have to deal with this difficult and large cohort of children are able to draw conclusions from the data that has been collected so that they can better deal with those children in the future.

I urge upon the Minister who replies to the debate that all I have been proposing is common sense but is not properly provided for at the present time. The Michael Sieff Foundation made a calculation of the savings that would be made over a five-year period if the sorts of measures in these amendments were taken. It runs to over £100 million because, if we can help those children not to end up in custody and when they get into trouble with the police to be disposed of by the court in a way that does not lock them up and take them out of education and their families, we have a far better chance of making them into responsible citizens who might even pay their taxes.

My Lords, this group of amendments is important because I think we have a crisis in SEND provision. I am particularly attracted to Amendment 498, on the SEND provision review, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Holmes of Richmond and Lord Watson of Invergowrie, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson. Also, on Amendment 502V in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, on the need for more transparency and reporting on SEND funding in state-funded schools, that seems a key and obvious demand, because the SEND issue is having a huge financial impact on schools and education in general.

But for me, as well as that, the issue of SEND provision is important because it potentially shapes how young people see themselves, and in some instances they are being encouraged to develop a habit of dependence and pathologising their own everyday experiences. One in five children in the UK are now identified as having SEND needs, and the number of education, health and care plans for those with the most severe needs has increased by 83% from 2015-16 to 2023-24. The number of 11 to 15 year-olds receiving Disability Living Allowance for which the main condition determining eligibility is a learning disability such as ADHD increased by 70% between 2018 and 2024. So something peculiar seems to be going on and, as part of explaining what is happening here, we need to acknowledge that there is a widening social definition of mental health and neurodiversity—an issue I will raise briefly again in the next group.

Informally, if you go into any school and talk to pupils of all ages, as I do—obviously, as teachers do and those who are familiar with young people—young people regularly describe themselves these days through the prism of a range of mental health acronyms or their particular divergence from the neurotypical norm. They use the language of medical textbooks and psychiatry with ease. Meanwhile, teachers too think in terms of these labels—I am sure that we are all watching “Educating Yorkshire” on Channel 4; it is great viewing—and, almost inevitably, if there is a behavioural issue, staff suggest testing the pupil for ADHD as both an explanation and a solution. So investigating what is going on here is essential, and that is why I am interested in the review.

In that context, I hope that the tablers of the amendment and the Minister get the opportunity to read—if they have not read it already—a new Policy Exchange report entitled Out of Control: Addressing the Rise in Psychiatric and Neurodevelopmental Disorders amongst Children and Young People. I do not always agree with Policy Exchange, but I found this report fascinating. One issue it identifies is a bug in the system of support. It argues that it is

“designed to meet the needs of a small number of specialised cases, rather than the sizeable” numbers that it is now expected to support. Even more troublingly, it says:

“These systems of support can also incentivise diagnosis-seeking behaviour … which has squeezed support for those with the most severe needs”.

Those kinds of issues were touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Gove, in an earlier group.

So, to return to spending, spending on EHCPs for those with SEND has ballooned, but funding per head has fallen by nearly a third since 2015-16. So I hope that the tablers of the amendments and the Minister will consider the risks of overdiagnosis in relation to SEND but also how current support may inadvertently encourage an escalation in perceived need, rather than target the support where it is absolutely needed the most, as has been vividly described by some of the speakers on this group.

My Lords, in contrast to the previous Speaker, I would say the following. I do not know how many noble Lords attended the rally held in Parliament Square yesterday by parents and children about the SEND review, on getting it right, or how many noble Lords attended the drop-in held in our committee room upstairs, which was full of joy and optimism, with lots of Members of Parliament from across the political spectrum—including our new Schools Minister, Georgia Gould—who called in to listen to parents and children. It gives me hope and optimism that, if those listening exercises are taking place as this review goes on, we will end up with something that is worth having and that has involved listening to the people who are at the sharp end of this.

I am actually encouraged by the fact that our new Minister in the Commons has been the leader of a council, has been the Local Government Minister and has hands-on experience of what it is like dealing with the SEND system. I say to my noble friend the Minister that I am encouraged that the Government are listening to parents and children with that direct experience, and that gives me hope that this review is going to produce the right outcome.

My Lords, no one stands to speak here or anywhere else about SEND without preparing for a social media barrage from one direction or another. But unless we can discuss the underlying problems and tensions openly and honestly, there can be little hope of getting to a better place than we are in at the moment.

From the parents’ point of view, some are happy, but others say that theoretical entitlements do not translate into the support they believe their child needs. From the schools’ perspective, they are loaded with enormous expectations and have inadequate resources to meet them. From the funders’ perspective, eye-watering amounts of money are already being spent on SEND.

If you do the sums, the average household in England already contributes £450 a year just for the cost of the high needs funding block, on top of the other money it contributes for education. Yet local authorities, and behind them the taxpayer, must meet almost unlimited demand from this large but finite resource, with few levers to direct that resource to the activities where it will make the most difference.

As my noble friend Lord Gove said in a previous group, the SEND category has expanded and diversified to an extraordinary degree in recent years. Among other things, I think we are mixing up the children who have conditions that will always affect their lives with those who really only need some catch-up teaching or some extra encouragement, and who should be able to lead unimpaired adult lives. They are really quite different things.

Clearly, this situation cannot go on, and that explains the raft of amendments relating to SEND proposed for insertion after Clause 62, as the Bill does not contain any direct proposals for SEND. In aggregate, what I take from these proposed amendments is a hope that if only we can find a few more ways to extend and push harder, everything will be better.

There are certainly ideas that deserve attention within these amendments. We do need a national body for SEND, but what we need is the SEND equivalent of NICE: a body that collates and, where necessary, commissions evidence of the effectiveness of and value for money of SEND interventions, and that determines which treatments can be paid for out of the public purse and which cannot be justified. Someone needs to set and hold that line.

We need better join-up between schools and youth justice services. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, has an alternative educational plan for children involved with youth justice that parallels my noble friend Lord Nash’s Amendment discussed in a previous group. We have already pushed identification and labelling to the point where they may be doing more harm than good to some children at the margins. Even though a label may feel reassuring, it can also do real harm if it lowers the child’s own expectations of what they can achieve, or their teacher’s expectations of them.

Neurodivergence is a term that has no clinical definition. In essence, it invites people who do not meet clinical criteria and thresholds to self-identify into services and funding streams intended for those who do meet those criteria. The definitions that float around for neurodivergence often sound like most young people’s adolescent experience. I suspect there are few of us who did not feel awkward, socially inept, and often just out of things in that period of life.

Good schools understand the adolescent experience and work to make a culture and framework in which teenagers have the structure and encouragement they need for most to succeed and emerge into adulthood without ever needing to be labelled as abnormal, and reserving specialist support for those who really need it.

The Government must take great care not to create incentives to segregate children within schools into SEND and non-SEND categories. With very few exceptions, children with rare physical needs need to learn the same things, and cognitive science shows us that they learn in the same way, though some may need the learning broken down into smaller steps with more repetition and reinforcement along the way. Most children with SEND will do the vast Majority of their learning in their mainstream classrooms. Concentrating on getting that core classroom experience right for all children, with a strong, coherent, well-sequenced curriculum taught effectively, must come first, because doing this well minimises the number of children who come adrift, which is never a pleasant experience for the child, and it enables the expert SEND practitioners to concentrate on those who will always need their help. If, for example, we expect SEND funding to be spent on things that are specific to children with SEND, those mainstream classrooms will be neglected and starved of resource.

I look forward to the Government bringing forward their reform proposals for SEND and to proposing amendments in this vein in due course.

My Lords, I very much support Amendment 502W from the noble Lord, Lord Carlile. We need a much better standard and a much better quantity of data in this area. We need to start with some clear understanding and definitions of the terms we are using. There seems to have been a lot of drift and expansion in definitions, and we need to get back to something that is clear, commonly defined and commonly understood.

Then we really need to understand what works for these children. We need to track what we are doing and when and why it works. This is a really complex area, so we will not get the answer out of small studies and small amounts of data. We need to track every child who has been fingered as SEND, and then we will get enough data to start seeing some patterns. Perhaps we can add other categories, such as young carers and those who are in care, where there are known difficulties with their education that are not associated with SEND but which may well share some common characteristics. If we get better at data, we will really start to understand how to do better by the children and work the cost down at the same time, and that is important.

I am with the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, in the spirit of some of the other things that he is doing but I hope that, if this amendment ever came to be enacted, there would be alongside it a recognition of the interests of the other children in class.

My Lords, we have heard some thoughtful speeches on the issues facing pupils with special educational needs and disabilities in general and neurodivergence in particular. There is no doubt that this is a pressing issue for parents, pupils, staff and of course local authorities, whose budgets are being severely impacted by the costs associated with education, health and care plans, or EHCPs. As all noble Lords are aware, the Government have committed to publishing a new white paper on SEND and have been working with an expert group ably led by Tom Rees, the CEO of Ormiston Academies Trust. That is an incredibly important task, and we on these Benches hope very much that the Government can show a positive way forward that addresses some of the problems that beset the current system. I think the plans for that report mean that Amendment 498 is not needed.

I understand the criticism of the Children and Families Act 2014, which introduced the current system. However, all who were involved with that legislation, including some noble Lords who have been in the House today, had the best interests of children with special educational needs and disabilities at the forefront of their minds. Whatever the Government propose, I hope that they will take the time to pilot it and avoid the problems of implementation and the unintended consequences that the current approach has found.

I hope also that we can move away from blanket terms such as “SEND” or “neurodivergent”, as they cover such an incredibly wide spectrum. With that in mind, I am cautious about some of the amendments in this group, including Amendment 491 in the name of my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond, which would include mentors for all children with SEND, and the implications of Amendment 502S.

Given my earlier amendments on exclusions, it will not surprise the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, that I do not agree with subsection (2) in his Amendment 502Q, which would make a presumption against permanent exclusion or fixed-term exclusion, for the reasons that I set out earlier. Similarly, I disagree with Amendment 502T in the noble Lord’s name, which would put a duty on schools to support reintegration for pupils who had been in custody without any balancing consideration about the impact on the other pupils in the classroom.

Again, I am not convinced that Amendment 502R, in the name of the noble Lord Carlile, or Amendment 502U, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, are needed. There is already extensive content in the early years and core initial teacher training curricula following updates undertaken by the previous Government in relation to these issues. When I talk to experts on inclusive teaching, they are clear that for pupils who are able to attend mainstream school, the same approaches of very high-quality teaching apply to them too. I agree absolutely with my noble friend Lady Spielman when she says that the core way that we all learn is much bigger than many of us appreciate.

The SEND review of 2022 put it very clearly that:

“High-quality teaching, differentiated for individual pupils, is the first step in responding to children who have or may have SEN”.

I think there is a big gap in our understanding of the impact of different interventions. Some commentators have called for the creation of something a bit like NICE, which we have for pharmaceuticals, for SEND interventions. I have been sent examples of the kinds of requirements that are put on schools for children with education, health and care plans. Those I saw ranged between nine and 44 separate requirements, many of them not based on any academic evidence of their effectiveness, but all of them creating a great workload for schools. That is something that I hope the Government are going to grip in this review and address.

I have a lot of sympathy for Amendment 502V, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, as I spent a lot of time trying to understand the flows of funding for EHCPs, as have many much more august organisations such as the IFS and the National Audit Office. It remains very difficult to get clarity on how the system works from a financial point of view. Given the sums of money involved, it surely would make sense to be able to do this.

Amendment 502W in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, builds on Amendment 502V and aims for cross-sector reporting. I hope that with the new single unique identifier some of that will become much more possible. It will certainly reveal some valuable data. I look forward to the Minister’s comments on these amendments.

My Lords, a common theme of the debate this evening has been that noble Lords from across this House have recognised the pressures facing our special educational needs and disabilities system. It is a system that many families find frustrating to navigate, where too often the outcomes for children fall short of what they deserve, and where, as we have heard from noble Lords—I think including the noble Baroness, Lady Spielman—a considerable amount of money is being spent with insufficient evidence of effective outcomes. It is certainly a system which has lost the trust of parents. For all those reasons, I can assure the House that the Government remain absolutely committed to reforming the SEND system. Our ambition is clear. We want all children to receive the support they need to succeed in their education and to lead happy, healthy and productive lives.

The amendments in this group raise important questions about the support available to children and young people with SEND. First, Amendment 498, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, concerns a review of SEND provision in England. Although I thank the noble Lord for both his amendment and his obvious commitment and concern to improve the situation, we do not need another review at this point. I think we know, and in fact we have heard in this debate this evening, many of the failings of the SEND system, and there have been many reviews by the previous Government, by Parliament and by the National Audit Office. The Government inherited a system with significant failings, and we know that too many children and young people with SEND are not getting the support that they need. That is why we are determined to take action, and we are committed to bringing about a more inclusive education system.

This is a difficult and complex task. We are working with parents, teachers and experts that we have appointed. We are fortunate, as the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, said, to have the leadership of practitioners such as Tom Rees in this job, and, of course, particularly to be able to listen to those with lived experience to make sure that we get it right.

I thank my noble friend Lady Thornton for her recognition of both the day of action and what that identified, and the attendance and the listening approach of my new ministerial colleague, Georgia Gould—absolutely at the beginning of her time in the role—who has been making sure that she is listening to the people who were most impacted as she takes forward the work that we are doing in this area. The details of our intended approach to SEND reform will be set out later this autumn.

Amendment 461, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, proposes the establishment of a national body for SEND. Once again, this is an important issue. As others have said, there is a range of ways in which we might want to bring national consistency into the approach being taken. The NICE idea is a nice idea. However, the important point being made there is the need to ensure evidence-based practice in what is proposed. I can assure noble Lords that that will be and is a very important element of the approach that the Government are considering. I do not believe another body would necessarily contribute to that at the moment. Our focus is on making the system less bureaucratic in getting support to children and young people who need it quickly and efficiently.

Amendments 502R and 502U were tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, respectively. I appreciate them raising important issues around the quality and training of our staff, particularly mandatory training in SEND for school teaching staff and inclusive education standards for teachers. Inclusion lies at the heart of our work in the department, and our approach is vital in meeting the needs of children and young people with SEND.

All teachers are, to an extent, teachers of special educational needs and disabilities, and we need to approach their training in that spirit. In specific cases, teachers in special schools, for example, are already required to have qualified teacher status, unless they are working under an exemption. In compliance with the teachers’ standards, all teachers with QTS must be able to adapt their teaching to understand the needs of all pupils, including those with SEND. In October 2024, the Government also introduced the national professional qualification for SENCOs, a mandatory qualification supporting participants to develop the essential knowledge and skills needed to set the strategic direction on SEN policy.

From this month, initial teacher training will include significantly more content on supporting pupils with SEND and adaptive teaching. As others have said, all teachers need to know how to adapt their teaching for the range of students in their classes and to recognise special educational needs and disabilities in those classes. This is being delivered through the mandatory initial teacher training and early career framework. In addition, my Right Honourable Friend the Secretary of State has agreed to provide more training for teachers on SEND, the details of which are currently being worked through.

Amendment 491, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, concerns the establishment of a school mentorship scheme for children with SEND. The SEND code of practice is clear that all children and young people with SEND should be prepared for adulthood, and that schools and colleges should use a wide range of imaginative approaches, such as taster opportunities, work experience, mentoring, exploring entrepreneurial options, role models and inspiring speakers. In addition, schools and colleges are expected to provide careers guidance to all children and young people, including at least one meaningful interaction with employers per pupil per year.

We are also funding employer engagement activities, and we will consider the feedback and experiences of previous mentoring activity. This includes the mentoring pilot for apprentices with learning difficulties and disabilities, which was delivered in 2024 and explored what additional support young people with additional needs may require from mentors.

Amendment 502V, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, concerns transparency and the reporting of SEND funding in state-funded schools. As I said, one of the things we are clear about, aside from the question of additional transparency measures, is that the considerable amount of money currently being spent on the provision of SEND education is not delivering the outcomes for children that we would all want it to deliver. That was the clear message of the National Audit Office report. Nevertheless, I understand the point that the noble Baroness is making about how we can achieve more transparency in schools on how funding is allocated to SEND and delivered.

Ofsted’s inspection of schools of course covers how schools support pupils with SEND, but it is important that schools have autonomy over how they spend their core funding allocations, and we trust school leaders to make decisions that best serve their pupils. We would be concerned if asking schools to produce detailed annual reports of the kind proposed placed a burden on them. For example, asking teachers to work out precisely how much time they spent supporting children with SEND could result in increased paperwork and less time spent teaching. In this area, the call for transparency and clarity about the value for money and effectiveness and the outcomes that we are receiving from the money spent is very legitimate, but we need to be careful that we do not set up structures that actually increase burdens without increasing either real transparency or the ability to drive the most effective practice.

I turn to Amendments 502Q, 502S, 502T and 502W, all tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile. They are aimed at preventing children and young people with SEND from unnecessarily entering the justice system. I thank him for raising this issue and for the important work that he has done on this. I noted his point about the Michael Seiff report. I shall certainly make sure, if it has not already happened, that it is brought to the attention of those people in the department working hard on this area.

In relation to Amendment 502Q, the Government recognise the importance of improving safeguarding and co-ordination regarding exclusions. However, the changes that the amendment would make to the statutory school exclusion review process may also cause unintended burdens, particularly on youth justice practitioners. In all cases, as we talked about in the earlier group, when thinking about exclusion, school leaders should consider early Intervention to address misbehaviour before excluding. Any decision to exclude must also be lawful, reasonable and fair, including when there is police involvement or parallel criminal proceedings against a pupil.

Amendments 502S and 502T propose duties on schools to work with youth courts to provide assessments of SEND and support reintegration and rehabilitation for children post custody. We support the spirit of both amendments but believe that the existing statutory framework already provides mechanisms to deliver those outcomes. Local authorities have a statutory duty to establish a multi-agency youth offending team, with members from police, social services, probation, health and education. They are equipped to work with schools and other relevant partners to compile assessments and reports for youth courts, ensuring that children’s diverse needs are appropriately identified and responded to. In addition, youth offending teams also play a central role in supporting reintegration post custody. Their work is designed to provide continuity and consistency across services, and they are well placed to draw in education partners, including schools, where needed. Placing a direct duty on schools would therefore risk duplicating or confusing existing multi-agency working.

Amendment 502W proposes a cross-sector data management system. I welcome the intention to strengthen co-ordination across services and ensure that no child is left unseen or overlooked. However, we already have the means to understand the interplay between exclusions, social care involvement and special educational needs through nationally collected official statistics. These datasets provide a valuable foundation for joined-up working. On a unique reference number, I can reassure the Committee that this Bill already makes provision for a consistent identifier. We had important discussions about that earlier in this Committee. We have initiated a series of test and learn pilots to explore how best to expand its use across safeguarding and welfare datasets. These pilots will inform a careful and incremental approach to implementation.

The amendments in this group understandably identify the need for the considerable amount of work currently going on within the department—as I said at the beginning, alongside parents and other experts—in ensuring that we can improve our SEND system. For those reasons, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment, in the certainty that noble Lords’ contributions will be adding to this really important work and helping us to deliver the system that our children deserve.

My Lords, I am reassured by the amount of attention paid to this subject, and that we are getting through and into the Government’s head. We do not know yet whether the results we have will be delivered. Just to sum up some of the arguments, the noble Baroness, Lady Spielman, said that there are problems but there is overidentification or something, if I may paraphrase her. The fact of the matter is that we know that, for many of these hidden needs, these diverse educational problems—call them what you like—we do not identify most of them, and this means that you have somebody in an environment where the learning process is not one that they enjoy. It might be something such as delivering and receiving information, which is usually where the basic blocks are, but there are identified ways to deal with that now, most of which are quite cheap.

There is technology—I declare my interest as chairman of Microlink plc. Most of the technology you have is not specialist any more: a lot of it is on every computer already; it is about structuring how you get at it. It is also about identifying the structure and way in which you learn and making it acceptable in a mainstream classroom to be using it. Headphones are not regarded as a good thing in most classrooms, until you realise that they might be the way you are taking in information. Attitudes to technology will colour this. There is this great thing about no smartphones in school, but there is a wonderful platform to hold assistive technology going through them. Some suggest that these computers, screens and structures are bad things—no, they are not, if used correctly. The noble Earl shakes his head; they are not. We are going through this thing about how we use them, and how we go forward is the important bit here.

The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, talked about the criminal justice system and special educational needs. He is right to draw attention to it, for this very simple reason: if you want to find what happens to somebody who does not address these needs, go into any prison and talk to them—any prison, for any of the groups. You will find a huge overrepresentation. Autism is greatly overrepresented in there: people who are manipulated or who react badly, with violence. There are so many complications here, but most of the solutions are comparatively simple, flexible, and made more easily available now than they were. I hope that, when we get this review, the Government will accept that they will probably save a great deal of money if they get this right.

The noble Baroness, Lady Barran, was quite right about one thing: when we implemented the last system—and I was on that Bill—I think I managed to convince the noble Lord, Lord Nash, to save one tree in a burning forest. We managed to get a concession on dyslexic youngsters taking apprenticeships, where they did not have to do the exam in that way going forward. That was all, though. We have the rest of it coming through. It is very easy to make mistakes by making assumptions.

Yet again, I hope that the Minister takes back to her department the fact that we are dealing with a problem, which we have identified but are struggling to deal with because the structures are just wrong. Considerations outside special educational needs will bear an incredible weight. I refer back to fact that if you have to pass English and maths to get on to any course, and you are dyslexic, dyscalculic or dyspraxic, so you cannot write quickly, you have a problem. That is the sort of balance I will be looking for from this. It is not just about help; it is about structure. Having said all that, the hour is late, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment 461 withdrawn.