§
Lords amendment: No. 30, in page 17, line 22, leave out
in implementation of the authority's duty".
§ Madam Deputy SpeakerWith this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 31 to 36.
§ Mr. LangI am pleased that these amendments have come before us today. They are concerned with technicalities of the financial arrangements for self-governing schools which provide for children with records of needs. But beyond that, they give the House the opportunity to take stock of the totality of the benefits and safeguards which the Bill contains to ensure that no child with special educational needs will be worse off when a school, be it a special school, a mainstream primary school or a secondary school, achieves self-governing status.
It is true that the Bill as originally presented did not provide specifically for special schools to elect to become self-governing. The problems of doing so, although not insurmountable, appeared difficult and, at that time, it was thought best to defer tackling them immediately. In Committee, however, Back-Bench Members argued persuasively that parents of children at special schools should not be denied opportunities given to others by the Bill—so persuasively, in fact, that my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) voted for the amendment to include special schools and agreed to introduce further amendments which would support it. Let it not be forgotten that this amendment was tabled by various members of the Committee, and originally by the Opposition, not by the Government. The Government bowed to the wishes of the Committee.
In making arrangements for recurrent grant for special schools, the changes that we made to the Bill also deal specifically with the provision for children with records of needs who are accommodated in mainstream schools. Mainstream placement of these children is becoming increasingly common and most schools which become self-governing are likely at some time to have such a child on their role.
The Bill now ensures full funding for the education of recorded children attending self-governing schools. It provides for discussion and exchange of information between the board of a school and the authority so that agreement can be reached on the level of provision to be made and the cost of that provision.
I have heard it said by the Opposition that when a special school ceases to be under education authority control it will mean that the authority's strategy for special educational needs will be destroyed. But that will not happen. The purpose of the dialogue to which I have referred is precisely to ensure that the self-governing school will continue to play its full part in that strategy. We made it clear that the range of provision for special educational needs is a characteristic of a school which may not be changed except by a ballot of parents and with the consent of the Secretary of State. I assure the House that, save in very exceptional circumstances, I do not envisage that consent being given when the existing level of provision needs to be maintained as an essential element in -the arrangements for special educational needs in the area of the education authority in which the self-governing school is located.
229 6 pm
We do not stop there; we wish schools to be progressive in this area. Schools are therefore given a positive duty to consider improvements in provision for special educational needs. To help that, the Bill provides that an extension of such provision is not to be regarded as a change in the characteristics of the school, and the balloting procedures and so on need not be operated.
Perhaps the most important aspect of our approach, as set out in clause 27, is the reassurance that it will give to parents of children with learning difficulties. They have been concerned that self-governing schools might be tempted to marginalise special educational needs and divert the resources so urgently needed by their children to other purposes. That cannot happen. The agreement between the authorities and the schools will earmark the resources needed and will guarantee that the identified provision will be made by the school. In essence, priorities for special educational needs will be agreed and implemented.
Although the Bill will protect this area of expenditure, we have taken steps to ensure that the arrangements are not inflexible. Much has been made by those who do not want special schools to be given the same rights as others of the difficulty that schools and authorities might have when predicting needs. I readily accept that that will not be easy and that a school believed likely to be the most appropriate placement for a recorded child may not ultimately be found to be so. Variations may increase or decrease the level of need at a particular self-governing school.
We have therefore provided in clause 27(6) for agreements to be varied at any time during the financial year. Once a variation is agreed, the recurrent grant will be altered accordingly. Thus, on a change of plan involving a recorded child, the resources that it was proposed to use at the intended school could be transferred to the school that the child is attending. I hope that the House will agree that the outcome for children with special educational needs has been satisfactory.
I believe that the provisions now in the Bill show that we should have taken the bull by the horns and included special schools from the outset. Moreover, we have at all stages had a great regard for the special needs of children with learning difficulties, and I am bound to record that in part III of the Bill, as well as in part I, this concern has transcended party barriers. The humane and sensitive—not to mention long—debates that we have had on this issue at all stages of the Bill's progress have shown the work of the House and that of another place in the best of lights.
§ Mr. Tony Worthington (Clydebank and Milngavie)These procedures have been outrageous, and this manner of dealing with important Scottish business will be short-lived when vision returns to the Chamber—we cannot wait.
When I read the report of the Committee's proceedings I was reminded of the way in which my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) dealt with hecklers at a meeting who were giving him a bad time. He responded to rent-a-mob by telling them that they had made a grave error by underestimating his insensitivity. That is what has happened with this Bill.
230 It never occurred to anyone that the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) could possible consider that special schools could appropriately be included in the opting-out procedures. The Opposition will never again underestimate his nastiness. We shall never, for instance, table an amendment stating that we should privatise the air that we breathe, because the hon. Member for Stirling would accept it.
However, even the hon. Gentleman realised eventually that there was something special about special schools and that it was inappropriate for them to opt out, but he became persuaded in Committee that special schools should be included. This is a valuable service—it is not generally criticised—for a vulnerable group of people and, of necessity, it must be provided over a wide area. I can think of no sort of institution more prone to being taken over by a small group.
I am sure that all hon. Members have shared my distressing experiences at constituency surgery whenever a new theory of special education comes along. It might come from the Centre for Human Achievement; it might have to do with conductive education; it might be almost anything. The parents of these children have been dealt a raw deal by life and they hanker after any solution that is offered.
For example, the hon. Member for Stirling paid a single visit to Hungary and came back enthusing about conductive education. I make no comment on the virtues or otherwise of such education; it should be considered, but it is disturbing that, because of a passing fad, a relatively small group of parents might be able to change the nature of a school and impose on it a theory that might turn out to be wrong, with all the consequential difficulties.
The other reason why the proposal for the opting out of special educational schools is so offensive is that the greatest virtue of special schools lies in their links with the services provided by the local authority and the health board. Needlessly to introduce difficulties into these links might make it difficult to obtain services of occupational therapy, psychology, speech therapy, social work, nursing and transport. The Minister has admitted that this is going to cause greater complexity, and it is a foolish and regrettable step.
We need to examine the admission criteria of special schools. When there is a parental influence over a school, the parents tend to believe that the school is for children like their own, thereby excluding those who do not fit in. I have heard of schools rejecting wheelchair cases because of the problems that that would present for the other children. Local authorities with strategic responsibility for an area must take a position on this. It is offensive that tiny schools providing services to a large geographical area should be able to distort the services that are available to others in that area. That will destroy the coherence of the services for special educational needs.
We welcome many of the improvements in the Lords amendments, but I and my hon. Friends want to register our sense of outrage at the way in which this matter has been dealt with and at the sheer insensitivity of the Minister. We shall come to regret the day when this Bill was passed, and we shall have a sense of shame that this clause is part of a Scottish Act.
§ Mrs. Margaret EwingI am pleased to be able to speak on this group of amendments. As those hon. Members 231 who served on the Standing Committee will know, because of my background a great deal of my time in Committee was concentrated on special schools and special needs.
It was with great sadness in Committee that I saw people with special needs become a political football. Whatever the Labour party's faults in picking up an amendment that was originally submitted by the Scottish Parent Teachers Council, The hon. Members for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) and for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh), who are not present, were more despicable in picking up the amendment and not speaking about special needs, special schools or handicapped children, but playing a neat party political point and ignoring a key issue.
It is interesting that the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) did not follow the example of the Conservative party chairman in England and Wales and ensure that special schools were exempted from the Bill. The Minister was foolhardy to allow himself to be manipulated by his acolytes on the Back Benches into going down that road, which was far in excess of what we have seen from the Department of Education and Science.
We are dealing with one of the most vulnerable sections of our society. Parents with handicapped children are deeply concerned about their children's education, whether there will be a facility for them within the local community or whether their children will have to be transported elsewhere.
Children in my constituency have to travel from Elgin to Aberdeen, where they stay for the week and then return home at weekends. To turn this into a party political issue is despicable. It is one of the lowest levels of behaviour that I have ever witnessed in Committee in all the years that I have served in the House.
The Lords amendments improve the Bill, but they go nowhere near recognising the real concerns of parents. It is unfortunate that we did not have the opportunity to discuss records of need, a matter which was dealt with in amendments Nos. 65 and 72. For the benefit of those organisations which will be reading our deliberations, if they have not heard them, it is worth putting it on the record that those amendments came after about 17 others and were followed by another 30, yet we had all of 10 minutes to discuss the group. Amendments Nos. 65 and 72 were important, but they were not even given an airing in the farcical situation of the guillotine being imposed.
The Minister should remember that schools establishing units dealing with children with special needs, or trying to involve them in the day-to-day life of the school, will face major expenditure, whether it be for access for the physically handicapped or for the purchase of equipment to deal with a child's handicap. The Minister should read some of the articles produced by the Royal National Institute for the Blind or the Royal National Institute for the Deaf on the type of equipment that is needed and how expensive it is. Will additional capital grants be made available to self-governing schools which provide continuing access for handicapped or disabled youngsters? Capital requirements are important.
If a school becomes self-governing, the danger is that the board of management will decide that it is not worth buying a piece of equipment for a child with a specific handicap and will suggest that the child goes to another 232 school. Such a child may then be removed from the family, yet the family is vital to any child with special needs. They, more than any other child, need to return to the love and warmth of their home within the community.
I am deeply concerned that, whatever reassurances may be mouthed at the Dispatch Box, the guarantee that currently exists that specific handicaps will be provided for, either through special schools or through special capital grants, will no longer be available. I hope that the Minister will comment on that when he replies.
The Minister said that a great deal of consultation has taken place on how best to cope with various comments made in Committee and on Report. Will he tell us exactly what consultation has taken place with those organisations with specialist knowledge of handicapped children? He will recall that, on Report, my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) referred to a letter dated 2 June from Mr. Cunliffe, responding to points that I had raised in Committee. That was a Friday, so I presume that it reached the various organisations, most of them voluntary, on Monday 5 June. That letter asked them to reply no later than Tuesday 13 June. Is the Minister talking about a similar pathetic attempt at consultation? I would have much more respect for the Minister if he would list the organisations to whom he spoke.
What assessment was made of the needs of children in Scotland and of the provision for the training of teachers in what is a highly skilled area? Those teachers have been the most deprived of in-service facilities. There have been cuts throughout the history of remedial education and further cuts in learning support. Fewer and fewer people are being trained in those areas. What consultation did the Minister have with the colleges of education on the provision of teacher training in those areas?
6.15 pm
I could raise many other aspects on this group of amendments. I am genuinely angry at the way in which the Government treated the issue in Committee, on Report and in the other place. There has been no genuine commitment to even understand the extent of the problem that exists. I doubt whether the Minister has even read the survey published by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys pointing out the number of disabled people who exist in Scotland. I doubt whether real cognisance has been taken of the extent and depth of the problem. He has not given the most vulnerable in our society the real assurance they need, that, under this legislation, facilities for any handicapped child will be available, where possible within their community and, where that is not possible, that at least grants will be made available to help parents when residential education is needed.
I am not convinced that the Government have taken those points on board to any great extent. I shall support the amendments, but with much concern and reticence, because they do not go anywhere near meeting the needs that exist.
§ Mr. McAllionI share the anxieties expressed by the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) about the way in which the matter was dealt with in Committee. The consideration of special education should not descend into petty party-political point-scoring as it did in Committee. It is regrettable that, in introducing the amendments, the Minister continued the tradition set by the hon. Member 233 for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) of trying to turn this into inter-party political bickering. The matter deserves much more serious consideration.
Sometimes the Minister and his hon. Friends give the impression that they have decided to allow special schools to opt out of education authority control, not because that would be best for the children who attend such schools but simply as a means of embarrassing the Labour party over the way in which some amendments were tabled in Committee. That is reprehensible. It is something that we might have expected from the hon. Member for Stirling, but I did not expect it from the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Lang). I hope that when he replies he will apologise for giving the impression that he is continuing to play party politics with special education.
Will the Minister deal with the important strategy that is pursued by education authorities in making provision for special education? When I was first elected to Tayside regional council, its policy was to send all blind children to the Royal Blind school in Edinburgh. That posed serious problems for parents: from the age of five, their children were expected to leave their homes in Dundee and stay in Edinburgh between Monday and Friday, returning only at weekends. The parents therefore formed a campaign group called Sight. Having lobbied local councillors and the education authority, they gradually succeeded in obtaining provision for their children. Now a special unit provides primary education for blind children in a Dundee school; a similar unit provides them with secondary education.
If the Minister's interpretation of the amendments is correct, I assume that it will be possible for such a special unit to opt out and to set up its own provision, parallel with that offered by the education authority. If that is so, it should be resisted: owing to the number of blind children attending the Dundee units, it would be extremely wasteful to duplicate such provision.
The Minister said that the Secretary of State for Scotland will intervene to ensure that such provision as I have described will remain. I trust that it will not be possible for those units to opt out, and that the needs of all children requiring special education in my area will continue to be met by the education authority. I hope that all the resources that the authority requires will be provided and integrated to ensure that the needs of children come before those of any political prejudice about opting out.
§ Mrs. Ray Michie (Argyll and Bute)Although I believe that it is vital to cater for children with special educational needs, it is entirely inappropriate to deal with special schools in the context of self-governing status. The Government should not have included clause 27 in the Bill. There is no basic demand for self-governing status in the special schools, and it is significant that fewer parents have been taking up positions on school boards. That reflects not a lack of interest on their part, but the close and intimate links that already exist between parents and staff in special schools. Parents, on the whole, have overwhelming confidence in the management and administration of such schools. The Government have placed an unacceptable burden on parents who already spend many hours caring for their children. The uncertainty created by the Bill will make it extremely 234 difficult for a local authority to provide special education on the basis of a planned system, and to allocate funding where it is required.
As for conductive education, although I welcomed the Health Minister's support for the sending of children to the Peto institute in Hungary, many physiotherapists and speech therapists—who had tried for years to obtain resources to give those children intensive therapy—are astonished and dismayed. They are deeply hurt, and feel that the Government have dismissed their years of effort.
Will the special schools have to buy in services from the NHS? I fear that what has been built up as an integrated team service is likely to become fragmented and destabilised, as have so many other services—particularly the NHS—following the Government's actions.
§ Mr. LangThere is relatively little time for me to reply, but I shall try to cover at least some of the points that have been made.
Following what has been said by some Opposition Members, I think it appropriate to put into perspective the circumstances in which the Bill came to be amended. The hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) put something of a gloss on the Opposition's behaviour. In England, there is no provision for special schools to opt out, and the Scottish Bill originally provided for an option for regulation to allow it at a later date. However, the Opposition simultaneously tabled two sets of amendments, one designed to bring the Scottish position into line with the Education Reform Act 1988, and the other—sponsored, I understand, by the Scottish Parent Teacher Council—to include special schools in the entitlement to opt out from the outset.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) added his name to those amendments—which strikes me as entirely proper, as he supported them. That led to the debate, as a result of which the view of the Committee prevailed, and it was decided to make the change. Surely that is far from being a reprehensible or party-political approach to what is indeed a serious issue. In my view, the issues concerning special educational needs—which are difficult and sensitive, and to which Conservative Members attach great importance—have been debated not only sensitively, but thoroughly and well.
§ It being two and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order this day, to put forthwith the Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.
§ Lords amendment agreed to.
§ MR. SPEAKER then designated Lords amendments Nos. 35 and 36 as appearing to him to involve questions of privilege.
§ Lords amendments Nos. 35 and 36 agreed to. [Special Entry.]
§ Lords amendments Nos. 31 to 34 agreed to.