HC Deb 10 June 1981 vol 6 cc440-54
Mr. Alfred Morris

I beg to move amendment No. 2, page 1, leave out lines 13 to 17.

I am naturally very grateful to Mr. Speaker for having now selected the amendment for debate. In moving what is a profoundly important amendment I speak on behalf of all my right hon. and hon. Friends, and, I believe, of many other hon. Members, in expressing warm appreciation of Mr. Speaker's prompt and helpful response to our request that the amendment should be considered.

Like those of the Secretary of State, my interventions today are my first on the Bill since Second Reading. I join the right hon. and learned Gentleman in his tribute to members of the Standing Committee, whose work, as we have already seen today, has had some effect on the Government's thinking about the Bill. They have won no money, but it was always clear that they were unlikely to do so. Nevertheless, they have won some respect.

The Bill provides that a child will be deemed to have a learning difficulty if he suffers from a disability which either prevents or hinders him from making use of educational facilities". What are "educational facilities" and what is meant by making use of educational facilities"? The Bill appears to allow a disabled child to be deemed to have a "learning difficulty" if a school is inaccessible, or if certain of its facilities, such as toilets, are inaccessible,or if a child needs help in going to the toilet. That is to confuse learning difficulties with the problems of access to buildings.

Clause 1 will allow a local education authority to send a child to a special school, away from his friends and non-disabled peers, sometimes even away from home, merely because the bricks and mortar of the local school are unsuitable to his needs. Rather than widen a lavatory door or provide an occasional helper for a child, the Bill provides for a child to be excluded from his local school and to be sent away to a special school with children who have a wide variety of real learning difficulties. That is not educationally sound, and that is why the amendment is so important.

There has been much too little effort since 1970 to make schools accessible to disabled children. If clause 1 is not amended, the Bill will allow children to be excluded from ordinary schools and to be segregated from other local children merely because the school is inaccessible. Rather than taking special action to make the school accessible, the Bill classifies the child as having special learning difficulties. The child is to be made to fit the buildings when, clearly, the reverse would be the more humane procedure. We in the House must look to a future where the child's interests come first.

6 pm

It is often thought that adaptations to buildings that improve access for disabled people are not much good unless they are both comprehensive and costly. There will undoubtedly occasionally be considerable cost, but existing buildings can often be adapted at minor cost. I was recently at a church service in the Manchester area where the congregation had adapted the entrance to the church building so as to accept into their midst severely disabled people in wheelchairs who would otherwise have been excluded. They did so, not at modest cost, but at no cost at all except that of their own time and effort. As I said, there can be substantial costs in adapting some buildings, but disabled people are sometimes the victims of grandiose thinking. The proprietors of buildings should, if necessary, ask themselves whether minor adaptations to existing buildings might make all the difference between accepting or rejecting a disabled person.

Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman (Lancaster)

I accept that this is an important argument, but how could any adaptation to a public building be made at nil cost?

Mr. Morris

I would be ready to introduce the hon. Lady to the Rev. Chris Ford, the vicar of the church that I was visiting, whose congregation used some of the props of their theatrical group to make a moveable ramp for the front of the church and to enable disabled people to enter. They were thus using existing resources to adapt the building. They would not claim that it was a very impressive adaptation.

My argument is that even a very minor adaptation can often make all the difference between accepting and rejecting a disabled person into the life of the community. That is a profoundly important consideration. Nevertheless, as I said, there can be quite substantial costs in adapting many existing buildings.

Mr. Carter-Jones

A substantial ramp was installed at the new central library in Eccles, not for disabled people, but to assist the library staff to load and unload books. It so happens, however, that the ramp has turned out to be an extremely good access point for wheelchair users. If a school is in such a difficult situation that access is difficult, a ramp could ease the delivery of goods and services and the servicing of the building by the caretaker while providing easier access, incidentally, for disabled people. This happens frequently. Two simple ramps installed in the House have been a great success.

Mr. Morris

From his considerable experience in these matters, my hon. Friend makes an important point. In helping disabled people we often help other groups. My hon. Friend instances library staff being assisted in their duties by the adaptation of the library in a way that has also helped disabled people. Often, by helping disabled people in wheelchairs we help young mothers with babies in prams. I must emphasise again, however, that many buildings require considerable expenditure to adapt and that the question of resources is important to this amendment.

It is not, however, true that the Government lack the resources to do what the amendment seeks. In fact, in a single day the Government crammed £1,400 million into the pockets of the richest 5 per cent. of taxpayers. Even while consulting their White Paper on Warnock, they found extra money for the assisted places scheme. Mary Warnock herself, in an article in The Times Educational Supplement on 13 March, found that as regrettable as I do. The assisted places scheme was a much higher spending priority for the Government than the Bill, and in her article Mary Warnock wrote: If the present Government is prepared to say that £3 million (what is being spent on the Assisted Places Scheme) is chickenfeed, then they can find as much chickenfeed again for a different lot of chickens. Three million would come in extremely handy for funding a limited short-term pilot project of inservice training in schools, for the teaching of children with special needs … It would also be extremely handy for adapting school buildings to make them more accessible to disabled children.

In addressing you, Mr. Speaker, on my point of order earlier today I referred to the amendment moved for the Government in another place by the Earl of Mansfield on 2 June. The amendment strengthens the access provisions of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 as they affect Scottish law, including section 8 of the Act, which covers schools and other educational buildings. That amendment is clearly of considerable importance to this debate. It is a development that should be taken fully into account here today. In particular, the Secretary of State now has an opportunity to let us know how the Government initiative in another place affects their thinking on access to schools and clause 1.

The hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) is promoting the Disabled Persons (No. 2) Bill in the present Session. I understand that the Government will be amending that Bill, too, in order to strengthen the access provisions of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act as they apply to England and Wales. We should not ignore in this debate the effect of the initiatives being taken by the Government in another place.

Access to the built environment is essential if disabled people are to participate in the normal activities of life. Such access is as crucial to the enjoyment of a full and fulfilling life as all the aids and practical help with which disabled people can be provided by a caring society. Our concern must be to win for disabled people the opportunities that everyone else takes for granted. I mean opportunities to work and to enjoy every kind of leisure pursuit.

In breaking down architectural barriers we help the disabled to decide things for themselves, instead of always having decisions made for them. My experience is that there is nothing that more upsets the disabled than the condescension of the able-bodied towards them. I am frequently told that the biggest handicap that the disabled have to bear is the view taken of them by others.

The amendment aims to ensure that disabled children are a part of and not apart from society and that, like other children, they can participate fully in the life of their local communities. That is a profoundly important objective, which I hope the House will endorse by approving the amendment.

Dr. Boyson

I have too much respect for the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), as another Lancastrian, to chase every statement that he made, such as that referring to the assisted places scheme. However, I must say that the average cost of comprehensive schools in Manchester is more than the average cost of its direct grant schools. Manchester would save money if it sent all its children to direct grant schools. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman and I could discuss that matter later and issue a joint statement.

I agree with everything that the right hon. Gentleman said. I am glad to be able to say that. However, his amendment has nothing to do with the clause. His remarks refer more to the efficient use of resources. That would be the limiting factor. Clause 1 deals with the definition of "special educational needs". There is nothing that the right hon. Gentleman says with which I do not agree. I respect his work in this area. Indeed, many hon. Members have done a tremendous service to the disabled, and he is one of them.

Any list of categories must exclude certain people. Previously, there was a list of 10 categories. The whole purpose of the Bill, following the Warnock report, is to examine the question of those with special educational needs. If children have a special educational need, what do we do about it? They are categorised in three ways in the Bill. Subsection (1) states: For the purposes of this Act a child has special educational needs if he has a learning difficulty which calls for special educational provision to be made for him. As I am not a lawyer I have to depend on advice about these matters. I am told that that provision includes children with mental difficulties who are unable to keep up with others. We wanted to include those with physical handicaps in the provisions in the Bill. It is not a question of saving money. Physically handicapped persons must come within the scope of the Bill, because they would otherwise be disadvantaged, which would create further special educational needs. The blind, the deaf and the physically handicapped all come within the provisions of subsection (2) (b). The right hon. Member knows that such disabilities affect one-sixth of our society at any one time, and one-fifth during a lifetime. That is the philosophy of Warnock.

The Bill helps us to examine the needs of handicapped persons, not with the aim of putting them into special schools—90 per cent. of them would not need special schools—but with the aim of discovering whether they can be accommodated within the normal system. If we removed subsection (2) (b) such people would not come within the remaining provisions. We would be left with paragraphs (a) and (c), which deal with the under-fives—whom we have already discussed—and those with mental disabilities. The right hon. Member for Wythenshawe spoke impressively about the under-fives. All other handicapped persons who cannot easily be accommodated in normal schools—perhaps even children with partial hearing who need to sit at the front of the class—come within the provisions of subsection (2) (b). I accept that the wording could have been clearer, but I did not draft the Bill.

6.15 pm
Mr. Alfred Morris

Our concern is that learning difficulties are being confused with access problems. When I tabled the amendment I consulted many experts in that area—they included people from organisations that have the Minister's respect and hon. Members from both sides of the House. If there is any defect in the wording that can be improved by expert draftsmanship, we shall be glad to hear how that can be done. It is not our wish today to infuse animus into the debate. We want to make meaningful progress. If we could agree on some other form of wording, that would cause great delight on the Labour side of the House and also in the country.

Dr. Boyson

I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's helpful intervention. It is a question of listing those who come within the categorisation. If we are wrong we shall consider the matter again. However, that is our legal advice. What the right hon. Member and I have said this afternoon will be noted. We shall check the wording of the clause. Our information is that that is the only way in which to include the right categories of disabled people. It has nothing to do with buildings.

I shall check the advice that I have given and ensure that it is right. There is time before the Bill goes to another place to put matters right. I know that when drafting the clause great difficulty was experienced in finding a way of including people without listing categories. It is not a simple Bill. I have spent a great deal of time working on it, as have many others. We have to look several times at an interpretation. It is not a question of excluding children from schools. I must put that fact on the record.

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising the matter. Obviously others will gain the same impression as he did. If some believe that the Bill categorises them with the intention of putting them in special schools, I can only say that that is not the intention of the clause. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State said earlier, we have great respect for those working in special schools. There are two such schools in my constituency—the Kingsbury day school and the Grove Park school. I have visited both. As my right hon. and learned Friend said, one leaves such schools feeling very humble and full of respect for the staff, parents and children, and for the work that they are doing. At the same time, the whole point of the Bill—I know that the right hon. Gentleman agrees with me—is that, wherever possible, handicapped children should be integrated into ordinary schools.

If, by virtue of this short debate, we have made the Bill's aim clear to the country—and we shall continue to make it clear—it has fulfilled a useful purpose. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that there is no point in continuing with the debate. We shall check the interpretation and ensure that people in the country understand it.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett

I am not prepared to accept the Minister's assurances that the matter has nothing to do with resources. I can think of one or two children in my constituency with handicaps that make it difficult for them to attend normal schools. As I understand the clause, they would be categorised as needing special education, but if they lived in another area where the schools are constructed in a different way they would not be so categorised.

Dr. Boyson

If such children cannot be accommodated in a normal school, it becomes a special educational need. It is not a question of shutting children away. Such needs should be covered by the local authority. They have a special educational need and we must consider how we can meet it. If we can accommodate them in normal schools we shall try to do so. However, if they cannot attend a normal school, that is the very definition of a special need.

Mr. Bennett

My point is that the physical building should not cause them to be categorised as needing special education. In many circumstances it is the physical conditions that cause the problems. If the physical conditions of the schools were created in such a way that they were easy of access and allowed for easy movement, there would be no need to categorise children.

If the building is all on one level and is easy of access, there is no need to treat any differently those suffering, for example, from certain heart conditions and the other children who attend the school. Of course the teacher will be aware that there is a slight medical background. As soon as stairs and problems of access are introduced into a school, the school becomes unsuitable for certain categories of children and it begins to be said that those children cannot be educated within the normal education system.

Mr. Harry Greenway (Ealing, North)

This is an interesting discussion. We are trying to find a way to give all children equal access to the curriculum. If we are to do that we must overcome certain physical problems of access to buildings. We are talking about a situation in which some children will be seen to be less than normal. They will be seen to be less than normal if other access facilities have to be provided. That is something that we must accept. Is it not sensible to say that the world is imperfect and that we should merely adhere to the principle of equal access to the curriculum? That does not and cannot necessarily mean equal access to all buildings.

Mr. Bennett

I am being led away from my argument. I accept that there are many difficulties in adapting existing buildings to provide equality of access. I plead with the Minister to examine new school building extremely carefully.

On Monday I visited the Avondale school, in my constituency, which is one of the schools that serve the local community extremely well. It is a caring and concerned school. The school consists of two buildings. One of the buildings was constructed in the 1930s. I suspect that for many handicapped children it is fairly easy to get round the old building.

The other part of the school was constructed within the past five years. There are repeated changes of level. That is a feature that makes it a nightmare for a child with even a small handicap. I accept that the design of the building was approved when a Labour Government were in office and that account was not taken of the difficulties that the design would create. I plead with the Minister to make it clear that no more schools should be designed that have pitfalls for the handicapped and make it less easy for them to be incorporated into the general education system.

Mr. Alfred Morris

I listened very carefully to the Minister's reply. It seemed quite clear that he wanted to meet the point that we are making in the amendment. He said that there was difficulty about drafting. He is prepared to look at the question again and, I assume, to propose a suitable amendment in another place.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) makes a very important point about new buildings. We cannot right the wrongs of centuries in a moment of time, but what we ought to be very concerned about is making sure that the wrong of excluding disabled people does not happen again. In the advice that we give to all educational authorities we should be quite clear that in future our educational buildings should, wherever possible, be as available to disabled children and young people as they are to other children and young people.

With the assurance given by the Minister, I do not wish to press the amendment. I thank him for agreeing to look very carefully at the points that we have made and to respond later as helpfully as he can.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Phillip Whitehead (Derby, North)

I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 2, leave out lines 7 to 10 and insert: '(4) In the event that a child is assessed as having a learning difficulty partly or solely because the language (or form of the language) in which he is, or will be, taught is different from a language (or form of a language) which has at any time been spoken in his home, his parents shall have the right to be consulted.'.

Mr. Speaker

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

No. 4, in page 2, line 8, leave out 'solely'.

No. 13, in clause 5, page 4, line 28, after 'parent' , insert: 'in a form and language known by the local education authority to be understood by the parent'. No. 17, in page 5, line 6, at end insert: '(c) Where the first language, or form of language, of the child is not recognised as standard English, arrangements are to be made to make any assessment in a language known by the local education authority to be understood by the child.'

Mr. Whitehead

The amendments deal with a series of representations that have been made to hon. Members on the position of children whose second language is English and whose parents in many instances feel, as do those who teach them, that the children have not been sufficiently, adequately, or fairly assessed within the education system. I attach no blame and I cast no aspersions. In the nature of things it has taken the education establishment some time to adjust to the fact that we now have many children who sometimes need assessment because of their special problems or handicaps. The fact that their culture as well as their primary language is not in the English tradition is a significant factor.

We have had a number of representations from the National Association for Multiracial Education, which has stressed that, as the Bill stands, there is a major problem for the child whose second language is English. It argues that, although learning difficulties ascribed in any way to language difficulties are excluded in clause 1, in all probability there will be a category of children for whom the approach and assessment of their teachers will be conditioned in the first instance by the children's inability properly to communicate in English, which will exacerbate other difficulties that they may have. We feel that it would be better to insert in clause 1 a new subsection (4) that would read as follows: In the event that a child is assessed as having a learning difficulty partly or solely because the language (or form of the language) in which he is, or will be, taught is different from a language (or form of a language) which has at any time been spoken in his home, his parents shall have the right to be consulted. The amendment proposes that lines 7 to 10 should be removed.

I accept that this is moving back slightly from the definition that we agreed in Committee in respect of clause 1(4). However, it has been argued strongly by NAME that many children in what it would call the Rampton category rather than the Warnock category—I suppose that we cannot refer to the Rampton category now and that we should use the term Swann category, and these are swans who often become geese—are sent to centres for the disturbed or to ESN schools because of an inability to recognise that their problems come from the failure of their teachers and assessors to grasp that the problem is one of communication, especially if they are speaking in the West Indian patois or they come from the Indian sub-continent or from parts of Africa. In the circumstances we feel that it should be possible to include in the Bill the specific right of parents to be consulted if there is to be an assessment of the child under the conditions of clause 1.

The right to be consulted should therefore be in the Bill, with the agreement that at some stage there may be a definition of "learning difficulty", which includes the concept of language. It has been excluded from the Bill as drafted and from our debates in Committee. On the whole, although there were differences in Committee, we went along with that at the time. We now believe that it should be acknowledged that the element of language is sometimes part of the problem. It has sometimes been a factor in the premature and wrongful definition of a child's problems, and has sometimes led to the child being consigned to an unsuitable destination.

6.30 pm

The learning difficulty linked to language, where the child's second language—not first language—is English, should be included in the Bill. The child's parents should have the right to be consulted when the difficulty is identified and communicated to them.

The question then arises how it would be communicated to them. That brings me to amendments Nos. 13 and 17. The Bill as drafted gives parents the right of consultation—a right to discuss the matter with those who propose to make the assessment. As I read the Bill, it does not give them a right to make an objection to stop the assessment. It allows them to object to the result of the assessment. The particular problem here—it was underlined by the national association—is that there might be cases where the parents, for good or bad reasons, did not wish the assessment to be made. The good reason would be if they distrusted the basis on which it was done, the tests that were used, and so on. Amendment No. 25 relates to that matter. The bad reason would be that they could not understand why the assessment was required or demanded.

In those circumstances it would be the worst possible start to proceedings if the parents could not understand why an assessment was required for their child, why their child was being asked to do various tests, being considered for assessment, and being taken to a special school from which, as far as they knew, he or she could not thereafter be removed, and where they might have fewer rights than most parents have under the 1980 Act.

We propose in the provision in clause 5 relating to information for parents to include the words: in a form and language known by the local education authority to be understood by the parent", and subsequently, in amendment No. 17: Where the first language, or form of language, of the child is not recognised as standard English, arrangements are to be made to make any assessment in a language known by the local education authority to be understood by the child". I hope that the intention is obvious, and I believe that the Government should accept the amendment. It is to make clear beyond peradventure that the parents of the child are absolutely clear about why the assessment is being demanded. They should know their rights of consultation and objection, and it should all be done in their language—the language in which they communicate with each other and with the child. That information and the form of testing used should also be conveyed to the child in the language with which the child is perfectly familiar—in other words, the child's first language. When the child's second language is English—perhaps even the child's third language—this could not be carried out without an undertaking in the Bill, or at least an undertaking from the Under-Secretary, that it will be possible to make allowance for this in the regulations.

I hope that the Under-Secretary will view the matter sympathetically. I know that he probably has more children of new Commonwealth origin in his constituency than do most other Conservative Members. He will therefore be aware of the particular difficulties that I and many others have in our constituencies. We must make allowances in this regard and do so in a manner that will be absolutely clear to the many parents whose first language is not English and who are deeply suspicious of the kind of educational assessment that their children receive in our schools.

Mr. D. E. Thomas (Merioneth)

I speak not only as the Member for Merioneth, but as a resident of Brent, South. I do so because many of the problems that were faced—no longer, fortunately—by speakers of Welsh, as a language other than English, are still faced by members of the black and other minority communities in inner cities who have sought to obtain a just education for themselves and for their children. It is ironic that in all our debates on an Education Bill, the medium of education—language—has not been a major feature, although I understand the reasons for it.

In a brief intervention in Committee the Under-Secretary said that the language issue was a "non-Warnock problem". He said: Just because somebody speaks another language or a patois of another language, that is not a special educational need in the Warnock sense whereby he would be removed from the school". Later he said: Indeed, if it were dealt with as a Warnock problem it would worsen the whole situation. If this were to be linked with mental and physical handicap, it would create greater problems in our society, and the only reason this provision is put in is to stop that happening". Then he said that he was sure that we would handle the problem better in the future than it had been handled in the past".—[Official Report, Special Standing Committee, 10 March 1981; c. 239.] I wish that I shared the Under-Secretary's optimism. It would have been easier to discuss the amendments in the context of the interim report of the committee of inquiry into the education of children from ethnic minority groups. Perhaps the Minister will say when we can expect to have that report, so that we can use it in discussing these issues.

I was not satisfied with the Minister's response. Representations have been made to me personally by the Commission for Racial Equality on behalf of other organisations. Other CRCs and organisations, particularly those representing West Indian communities, have made strong representations on the matter. Profound concern exists, particularly within that community, about the large number of black children—the problem has not appeared suddenly—who over the years have been deprived under our education system.

I shall call it the under-achievement of the schools in teaching West Indian children, as compared with what is called the under-achieving child. It is the under-achievement of the system that caters for them as British citizens. I deliberately avoid using the word "immigrants", which is too often used in this context.

Black citizens of Britain suffer a disadvantage by being admitted to special schools. I shall not go through the whole history, because it was documented by ILEA in 1966. It was shown that the percentage of black children in ILEA ESN day schools was then 23.3 per cent., compared with 13.2 per cent. in the authority's primary and secondary schools. The majority of those were of West Indian origin. By 1967 the proportion had risen to 28.4 per cent. Gradually, during the 1960s and 1970s, it became a major campaign issue.

It is important to remind the House, in the absence of any black Members, that the black community in Britain of 4 per cent. is severely under-represented in our political system, unlike the Welsh, who are over-represented. So we should remember that this matter has been a major campaigning issue on the part of West Indians.

I refer only to the celebrated paper on the subject How the West Indian Child is made Educationally Sub-normal in the British School System", produced by Bernard Coard in 1971. The whole debate then on the nature of IQ tests and the cultural and class bias in those tests is still with us and is behind the concern which will no doubt be discussed in the interim report when it is published.

Concern over the placement of West Indian children continued to be voiced during the 1970s in Race Today and other journals. The formation of a black parents' movement, and the pressure that was exerted, led to the study by the Select Committee on Race and Immigration in its report on education. As a result of that study, the Rampton committee was established.

Evidence was given by 16 official bodies about the ESN classification to the Committee which produced the 1973 report. That shows the concern that exists about this issue. The 1973 report produced figures for the number of West Indian children who were then in special schools. When will those statistics be updated? The fact that we do not have ethnically based statistics now, and the fact that there was an apparent decision by the Department to suspend making those statistics available, has meant that it is impossible adequately to update this discussion.

However, in 1972, 3,850 West Indian children were in special schools. From the evidence presented to the Rampton committee it is clear that there is substantial concern about this issue. The statistics ought to be available to the House. They ought to be published and regularly monitored. That point was made by the Select Committee in 1976–77.

The West Indian community feels deeply about this issue. The ESN(M) classification has come to symbolise the under-achieving school system for West Indian kids. For that reason, the Government ought to take careful note of what has been said by the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead). My concern is that, although the Warnock report did not deal specifically with language, it neglected that issue at its cost. It led to further serious misgivings within the West Indian community, particularly about the likely result of the classification arising from Warnock. Part of the problem is the nature of the classification, and that has featured in all our debates.

The fact that the report touches only briefly on this issue in one paragraph in 416 pages shows a failure to grapple with the problem. If the statistics for the 1970s still apply, and if West Indian children continue to be over-represented in special education—as they now are in ESN(M) schooling—it appears that one in two will require some special educational provision. That is now the position under ESN(M), and presumably that will be the position under Warnock.

A more realistic calculation may be that a third of children of West Indian origin may in future be considered to be in need of some special educational provision. Whether it is one in two or one in three, it still represents a major proportion of the West Indian community population. It is therefore essential for the Minister to look at this aspect of the Bill again, and particularly at clause 4. He should consider taking on board the amendments that have been proposed—perhaps in the regulations—so that this whole issue can be made clear in the light of the recommendations that will emerge from the Rampton committee.

The concern is that the pattern of placing of West Indian children in ESN(M) categories will be continued under the Warnock recommendations as implemented in the Bill. Indeed, the way in which the school system does not provide for those children will still remain a basic issue.

6.45 pm

That concern has been put to me forcefully by the chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality. In a letter that I received at the end of last month he said: Our concern over clause 1 from a race relations perspective relates to how definitions of special educational needs might be applied to minority group children, particularly those of West Indian origin. It is our contention that many teachers hold stereotyped perceptions which, unintentionally, label black children as problems per se and that under the terms of this Bill they are disproportionately more likely to be so defined. We are not arguing that the Warnock Report or the Bill in any way intend to apply unfortunate stereotypes to black children. What we are suggesting is that given teachers' assumptions and the all embracing categories of SEN in the Bill this may well happen. If it does, the well known anxieties of black parents under the former ESN system will continue to be justified with the SEN concepts of the new Bill. It is in that context that the issue of language being excluded from learning difficulties becomes crucial.

On that matter, David Lane said: The Commission is very concerned about the general situation regarding mother tongue teaching and the continued failure of mainstream education to recognise the extent of linguistic diversity and the reality of bilingualism in many British schools. In fact we would welcome separate legislation on this issue.

However, we would support clause 1(4) on the grounds that it should prevent non-English speakers from being regarded as remedial or SEN. This has certainly happened in the past, and since this Bill is specifically concerned with educational handicap our primary interest is that non-English speakers do not fall within a framework of educational disability; on the contrary bilingualism should be seen as a positive advantage that should be developed and encouraged by our schools. I quote that letter at some length, because it is right that the views of the commission should be referred.

Dr. Boyson

I take it that that letter supported clause 1(4).

Mr. Thomas

Yes, but we are arguing for an extension of the provision in clause 1(4), and that is the intention of the amendments.

We are also trying to ensure that, within the regulations, the points that have been made by the commission and the West Indian community, which we have repeated today, are taken on board by the Government. By addressing the language issue in the negative way in which they have done in the clause the Government have failed to face the basic concern of the West Indian community. For that reason, through guidance from the hon. Gentleman's Department to LEAs, it should be made clear that in identifying pupils who require special educational treatment in any form, and in assessing special educational needs, they must take account of cultural differences, the effects of discrimination and the institutional racism that is still found in many parts of the British educational system.

If we are to believe the press leaks, and certainly judging from my experience of the school system in inner city areas and other parts of Britain, these factors, especially the institutional racism that is part of our school system and which is too often reproduced through that system—particularly with the incursion of extreme Right-wing elements into schools—all have a bearing on the educational progress of blacks Britain, particularly West Indian children.

Within the regulations under the linguistic aspects of the Bill, it is essential that LEAs take account of the cultural bias in tests and assessments. That is another problem that has not been faced. We have had many discussion about culture bias, the cultural fair test and the way in which the IQ test tends to be ethnocentric in a Western way, but these matters must be taken on board by the Government.

It does net help those of us who argue for multi-culturalism in Britain to find that these aspects of policy are always lumped together in the DES under "educational disadvantage". The sooner that they are looked upon as aspects of policy in their own right rather than as a form of educational disadvantage, the sooner they will be more clearly recognised as a legitimate part of the British cultural system and education policy. The Secretary of State knows that I have made this criticism before.

LEAs should also ensure that the new procedures for assessment are fully explained and that parents are informed of their rights. I should like to go further than the amendment of the official Opposition. Not only should parents be consulted, but when the West Indian child is being assessed as having special educational needs, at least one person—other than the parents—who is West Indian or knowledgeable about the difficulties faced by the child should be involved in the assessment.

That recommendation is likely to feature in the Rampton report and it should appear in any regulations that the Government produce. We should also ensure that more educational psychologists who are themselves members of this minority community carry out the assessments.

Finally, I repeat the point on statistics. So long as the DES does not produce statistics on the ethnic mix in all ESN(M) schools and under the new category, it will not be able to monitor the structure which has been discriminatory in the past. Young West Indians have been deliberately shunted off in a non-representative way into special forms of education, because they are over-represented in that part of the system. The statistics tell us more about the system than about these young people.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett

When we look back at this debate we may find that it has been unsatisfactory. The debate in Committee was unsatisfactory. The response from the Minister then was disappointing. The response this evening may be disappointing because the amendment is not satisfactory. In a sense, I would prefer to retain the Government's definition, but to add the amendment as well. The clause with subsection (4) is almost a non-discrimination clause. It is saying that people should not be discriminated against because of their ethnic background.

We have to face the fact that there are some children who have a language problem. There is a major need for consultation between education authorities and the parents, a point made by the amendment. I hope that the Minister will say that he will have another look at it and perhaps get it right in the House of Lords, rather than either accept or completely reject the amendment now.

A child who has not acquired a language base to start the thinking process is handicapped. On the other hand, many children manage to cope although the languages they hear around them may be confusing. They hear different languages, yet fairly quickly they manage to pick up sufficient of the two, or sometimes three, to be able to communicate in them. At the same time, other children are so confused by the different languages around them that they fail to achieve a language base.

The Bill should retain the clear statement that it is not intended to classify anyone purely because of language problems. We are anxious that there should be consultation with parents. Where a child has failed to achieve any language base, there is a recognition that he is handicapped and there must be full discussion with the parents about the best way to proceed.

Dr. Boyson

I do not disagree with the sentiments expressed by hon. Members. The only point of discussion is the best way of achieving what they want. I represent a multi-racial constituency, as the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) said. I am sorry that he is not a constituent of mine in Brent, North. If he were, I would take greater care of him. The last two schools of which I was head also had many different coloured British citizens.

What we have tried to do in clause 1 is to specify those who have special educational needs within the Warnock sense. These needs are fairly permanent. They are not necessarily all permanent, but there are medical reasons, physical reasons and reasons of mental incapacity. Sometimes the local authority knows that the problems will be solved, but sometimes they will remain with the individual, like partial hearing or partial sight, for the rest of his life.

It is not just the Government's view, but my personal view, that it was right to include subsection (4). This is why I questioned the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Thomas) about the view of David Lane. The grumble for years by hon. Members has been that West Indians who medically and physically should be able to cope in school and who have not coped because of a language difficulty have often ended up in a subnormal school. This provision was put in to prevent that.

This was recognised as a special factor. That does not mean that the local authority may ignore it. Under section 8(1) of the 1944 Act there is a specific responsibility on local authorities to cope with that situation. I do not think that there is any doubt among Opposition Members that this was put in to make sure that people were regarded as having special educational needs just because they had a language defect that should be met within the schools. I agree entirely with hon. Members about that.

The hon. Member for Derby, North said that basically this was a Rampton problem. During the debate we have made inquiries about Rampton. The first report is being published next week, so there is no question of delay upon it. It would be wrong to bring this matter into the context of a Warnock Bill. It would be resented in the long run by the minority communities if they found themselves linked with people with other defects as having special educational needs purely and simply because their language ability was not up to the proper standard. It was with the best of intentions that the subsection was included.

It is important to include the word "solely". It is more difficult if there are various mixed-up reasons why people are not coping. If one can define that people have not easy fluency, it is a special problem that must be dealt with, but it is wrong to deal with it within the Warnock context.

It is important that when parents do not speak English contact about special educational needs is made by someone who can communicate with them and in whom they have trust. That is a sensible suggestion. I do not think that we need to put it in the Bill. We can cover it in the guidance that will go out. More and more local authorities are doing this. The hon. Member for Derby, North asked whether we would cover it by guidance. I give an assurance that we shall give guidance to local education authorities that when they are dealing with children whose parents do not speak reasonable English the special educational needs of the children must be pointed out to the parents by somebody who can communicate with them in their own language and in whom they have trust.

As a result of inquiries made last week I have found that about half the local education authorities have instances involving difficulties in communication and that three-quarters of them have now established ways of coping. In many instances the best guidance is what catches up with good practice and makes it general.

We cannot accept these amendments. Clause 1(4) is right as it is. On the other matters of communication with the parents and giving information wherever possible, I agree with the request of the hon. Member for Derby, North that we issue guidance so that people who are handicapped can be integrated into the community.

7 pm

Mr. Whitehead

I am grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for what he said. I wish to return to the amendments, but in no churlish spirit. We had a long debate on clause 1(4) in Committee. The hon. Gentleman will recollect that I went along with the majority of the Committee in saying that clause 1(4) had been misunderstood by a section of the immigrant community. It was not intended as an anti-immigrant measure—quite the reverse—and to that extent it had been misunderstood. Secondly, I said that something like it should be included in the Bill.

There are two reasons why I changed my mind in part, and they have been touched on by the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Thomas). The first reason is that we had at that stage, and not before, a large number of representations that this was not enough, and that even if we accepted the spirit of clause 1(4) there were circumstances in which additional rights and safeguards were needed for parents and child alike where the child's learning difficulties were partly and consequentially the result of not having English as his first language.

I accept, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) said, that the amendment, which we do not wish to press to a Division, does not meet the whole case. We wish the Government, by way of instruction or fiat, not necessarily by amendment to the phraseology of the subsection, to make certain that, where a child's learning difficulties derive in part from linguistic problems, the parents must be told if this is an element in the assessment that is being made, because of the great difficulties that have been encountered in some areas.

The second reason why I had reservations about clause 1(4) as we accepted it was the curious proceedings in connection with the Rampton committee. This is not the time and place to go into the fate of Mr. Anthony Rampton and the resignation of three members of the committee. It appeared to us that the Government were dragging their feet, that it was at least possible to say that Rampton had been removed and the others had gone with him because the Government did not wish to widen the remit of the committee to look more carefully at the research being undertaken into the education of the ethnic minorities in the way that the committee perhaps would have wished.

It might be that the Government wished to speed up the process and get the report out next week and that they wanted a wide and comprehensive view of the prospect for multi-racial education, but, given that local difficulty over the Rampton report, we thought it right to come back to this matter this afternoon.

Although the Under-Secretary of State met me fully on the spirit of amendment No. 13, he did not mention our feelings about amendment No. 17, which is designed to ensure that the local education authority, when making its assessment of a child, does so in a language with which the child is fully conversant. I shall come back to that on the subject of the right of access of parents to information about the testing modes that are used in the assessment of a child, but I should like to hear something from the Under-Secretary of State on the point I have raised before leaving this group of amendments.

Dr. Boyson

The guidance to which I have already referred would also cover that point.

Mr. Whitehead

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Back to
Forward to