Special Needs Education (Croydon)

HC Deb 25 February 1998 vol 307 cc324-32 12.30 pm

Mr. Richard Ottaway (Croydon, South)

The House debated special educational needs as recently as December. The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Ms Morris)—who I am pleased to see is replying to today's debate—set out her proposals and priorities for special educational needs in the light of the Green Paper published in October 1997. She made it clear that the Government were not adopting a cost-cutting approach to SEN—a message that, regrettably, was not heard by Croydon council.

The Minister and others also acknowledged that life had not started on 1 May 1997, and we were grateful for the tribute that she paid to the last Government's work in developing what was a rather grey area. I myself pay tribute now to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), who, as Minister of State in the Department, did much to address the issue.

I broadly welcome the Government's six principles, enshrined in the Green Paper, and their detailed approach to the subject. We are talking about some of the most vulnerable people in society, whose needs go far beyond the imagination of those with healthy children. No political ideology is involved; we all owe it to under-privileged children to give them the best education that our nation can provide.

An important principle established in the Green Paper is the need to work with parents. The Green Paper rightly says that parents of children with special educational needs face exceptional pressures, and the Government rightly say that they want to help parents cope with those pressures and to give them real opportunities to influence and contribute to their children's education. During the December debate, the Minister reminded us that partnership between home and school is crucial for all children.

By and large, special needs education in Croydon is, in the words of the weather men, fair to good—with one notable exception. We have two schools, Redgates and Priory, helping those with severe learning difficulties. The main thrust of the borough's provision of services for those with moderate learning difficulties comes from two schools, St. Nicholas in my constituency and Bensham Manor. Each school originally provided for the five-to-16 age range. They are excellent schools, and they catered respectively for the north and the south of the borough.

In a fairly controversial move that upset many parents, the two schools were reorganised so that St. Nicholas provided for the five-to-11s and Bensham Manor for the 12-to-16s. Unfortunately, that means that, on reaching the age of 12, children in the south of the borough must make a long journey to the north.

This is a highly relevant factor in Croydon's education service. Croydon is a large, wedge-shaped borough with crowded roads, which makes travel from south to north and into the heart of London very difficult. Services must be provided in the south for all age groups. Having been educated at St. Nicholas, in the leafy glades of the suburbs, children are obliged to undertake the journey through those crowded streets to a strange part of town with which neither they nor their parents are familiar. The north-south divide in Croydon is the real cause of many of the borough's problems.

Last summer, St. Nicholas was found to contain asbestos, and it has been necessary to relocate the school temporarily at the Heath Clark adult education centre. I understand that it will return in September, and that the building will then have been fully refurbished. I congratulate the council on its prompt response to a particularly difficult problem.

St. Giles school in Pampisford road is an inspiration to all who visit it, showing them what can be achieved. It contains facilities not only for those with physical mobility problems, but for those who are deaf and blind. I pay tribute to the staff of St. Giles. If the Minister ever wants to see a good example within easy range of her office, that is where she should go.

There were four day care centres for the under-fives, one of which was the Hazelglen special educational needs school—the only one in the south of the borough. In September 1997, Croydon council published a document entitled "Policy for Pupils with Special Educational Needs". It is well drawn up, and its principles largely coincide with those in the Green Paper. It builds on the work of the last Government and the last administration in Croydon.

Regrettably, the words of that document contrast markedly with the actions of the politicians on Croydon's Labour council. It was produced after the outrageous closure of the Hazelglen special educational needs school for the under-fives. That closure was in blatant disregard of the principles in Croydon council's code of conduct, and the six principles in the Green Paper. Today, I want to know the real reason why the school was closed. If the Minister cannot give me the reason, I shall call for an inquiry into why the closure took place in breach of the Government's stated principles that this is not a cost-cutting area and that parents will be involved.

In the 1994 London borough elections, the Labour group, in its manifesto, issued a number of pledges on education and on special educational needs in particular. Under the heading "Nurseries and Child Care", it stated: Labour will provide more nursery facilities to enable parents to find jobs". Under "Nursery Education", it stated: An Education Officer will be given enhanced designated responsibility for the under-fives and will work with the Social Services Department, the Health Authority and the voluntary sector to develop an integrated borough approach to the needs of the very young". Under the heading "Special Educational Needs", it stated: We will provide clearer and more consistent funding for the special educational needs of pupils". Finally, under the heading "Services for people with learning disabilities", it stated: A Labour council will aim to provide a variety of day care centres". It is clear as a bell that Labour was committed to maintaining and improving the system, and on that basis people voted for it. It was a clear pledge, and people expected Labour to deliver.

The Hazelglen centre provided SEN facilities for children under five. Typical of the children who went there were the children of Sioban and Tom Foster, who have cystic fibrosis. They needed physiotherapy, a special high-fat diet and extra vitamins and drugs. In addition, one of the children has cerebral palsy and hydrocephalus. They depended on the centre for the support that they needed. Others—the Kellys, the Finlays, the Traffords—also depended on Hazelglen, and relied on Labour's commitment, which they were entitled to view with optimism. Accordingly, their lives were shattered when on 5 February parents received a letter stating that the school was to close. It said: The decision to close the Centre is a financial one and is not connected in any way to the quality of service provided by the staff. Offering parents a chance to meet the officials involved, the letter went on to say that, "for this reason", the officials will be at Hazelglen at 10.00 am on Thursday 6th February so that you can raise any issues directly. That was just 24 hours after the announcement of the closure.

The closure was the end of the principle of working with parents. It undermined parents in a cruel and uncaring way. It was an absolute bombshell for parents who, having had their lives shattered on learning of their children's problems, were now being completely undermined.

In addition to dismay about the broken promises and short notice, there is concern about the way in which the closure was carried out. It seems that the manager of the centre was told about it three months before it happened, and was asked to keep his mouth shut. Accordingly, it was no surprise when the staff of the social services department wrote to members of the council's social services committee stating: As a caring Team committed to our work, we feel that the council's meetings and the length of time it has taken to inform us of proposals devalued the professional manner in which we work and operate the centre. I could not have put it better myself. It is already apparent that not only the school's merits but educational needs were ignored, and that the matter was completely financial.

The Labour councillors behaved no better, slipping figures into a social services budget report. There was no statement or explanation, no debate, and not even social service minutes on the closure. Only the Conservative councillors are recorded as voting against the budget when the first inkling of the decision was revealed.

The parents of the children at Hazelglen could not understand that, while the school was being closed, £1 million was being spent on decorating Croydon's pavements with red bricks; £750,000 was being spent on producing a glossy magazine; £350,000 was being spent on a pavilion in South Norwood; and £61,000 was being spent on lasers to light up Croydon. Thousands of pounds were spent to buy mobile phones for Labour councillors. Against that, a mere £24,000 was saved by closing the Hazelglen day centre.

The illogicality becomes apparent when we note that some of the children are now being placed in private care that is paid for by the council. That makes a mockery of Labour's pledge in opposition and in government.

All was revealed when Mr. Tony Foster wrote to the Croydon Advertiser, a newspaper that has done much to disclose the scandal of Hazelglen. His letter states: My response comes in the context of being both a campaigner against this closure and as a local Labour Party member. The truth of the matter is that Hazelglen is caught up in the internal politics of the Croydon Labour Party. The decision to close Hazelglen is therefore political and not financial. Hazelglen, unlike the other day care centres in the North of the borough, has suffered from budget cuts every year since Labour took office. The closure has been planned for years and is not the result of 'financial pressures' from this year's tight settlement. Having realised the paucity of the financial argument Labour has resorted to claiming that Hazelglen is not as accessible as the other centres. This is despite of it being located on top of not one, but two BR stations (Sanderstead and Purley Oaks) and with local bus stops also. Incredible! Hazelglen is, therefore, the nursery that is being closed for no reason and in this entire process the Labour council has shown contempt for the principles that the Labour party should stand for: democracy, social justice, decency and integrity. I believed that Labour was set up to fight injustice, not to cause it. Maybe, I was idealistic, but the disappointment is profound. As I say, that letter was from a Labour party member.

Most amazing of all was the fudge and obfuscation of Labour councillors and Ministers. I took up the matter with Mr. Charlie Burling, who at that time was chairman of Croydon council's finance committee, and asked him to receive a delegation of parents. In a letter under the slogan "New Labour, New Life for Britain", he refused. His refusal to meet a delegation was to cover up the internal rows in the Labour party.

The bluster and cover-up continued. I wrote to the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, and his reply on House of Commons notepaper states: The closure of Hazelglen was authorised by the previous government". I decided to take up the matter with his Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Yardley, who is replying to today's debate. In the debate on 5 December, I asked her to look into the matter, and she courteously agreed. She carefully relied on advice on the closure that was given to her by Croydon social services department, and in her letter she gave the following reasons, quoting Croydon: the centre was not best located for families in the West and South of the Borough; the average occupancy was lower at Hazelglen than at the other day care centres in the Borough; and the level of need in the areas covered by the centre was not as marked as in the south east and north of the Borough. None of those reasons is true. Although I said that they were totally contrary to the explanation that was given by the council to the parents, which was that the decision was financial, the Minister wrote to me again stating: I understand from Croydon Social Services Department that the decision to close Hazelglen was based on the factors cited in my previous letter, but that this was prompted by the financial situation facing the Council. The Minister's letter contains a slight shift of emphasis. It continues: You also say that the closure of Hazelglen means that there is now no special needs nursery education in the south of the Borough. Croydon Education Department have explained that all nursery classes in the borough are expected to support children with special education needs. I understand that specifically in the south of the Borough there are a total of 184 nursery places in schools receiving significant input from other agencies, a further 156 places in schools situated in areas of relative deprivation and a pilot project at an infant school which provides 104 places. That information is simply not correct. First, the Minister should know that there is a big difference between nursery classes that focus only on educational needs, and day care, which is what many of the children at Hazelglen needed. Secondly, Croydon council's nursery expansion programme reveals that only 15 per cent. of any additional nursery places will go to the south of the borough.

According to a council report that I received only yesterday, the most generous interpretation is that there are only 65 special needs places in the southern part of London's largest borough. It is worrying that there is a complete absence of a good explanation for the closure. It was badly handled and upsetting, and stressful to all concerned. It was in breach of Labour's manifesto commitment, of Croydon's policy on special educational needs, and of the Green Paper principles; and it is a breach of faith with the parents and children of Hazelglen.

I shall give the Minister a final flavour of how the parents feel about this matter by reading a poem for Croydon Labour councillors. It reads:

• "A teardrop trickles down my cheek,
• Looking for a place to hide.
• Why couldn't you be honest,
• Not cheated us and lied?
• I wonder if you mock us
• When we're no longer there,
• If you laugh we voted LABOUR
• And we fell into your lair.
• Did you ever really worry?
• Or was it simply fun,
• To pull the strings of people's lives
• And watch the damage done?
• We took you all for honest.
• We thought you would be true.
• A victim of your silly games,
• Now what are we to do?
• We feel the pain so deeply,
• We only wish you knew,
• Of all that we have suffered,
• As a result of trusting you!"

That poem is signed "From the parents of Hazelglen". Is that what new Labour is all about?

12.47 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Ms Estelle Morris)

I congratulate the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) on again managing to bring the needs of his constituents, especially for early years special education, to the House. He made an important contribution to our debate on the matter before Christmas and to the Green Paper, which I appreciated. I recognise his continuing concern, not only about SEN but for the children of his constituents.

I shall continue from where we left off in the previous debate on the matter, which took place just after we published our Green Paper on SEN, which, I am pleased to tell the hon. Gentleman, has resulted in more than 3,500 responses. That is a massive response, on a subject that has not had as much attention in the past as it deserved. Croydon was one of the local education authorities that responded. We look forward to analysing the detailed responses and taking the agenda forward.

I share the hon. Gentleman's concerns about SEN and about early identification and assessment. Whatever differences we may have in the rest of the debate, I know that we shall share concerns about those matters in the years ahead. Such issues unite the House, and I am happy to pay tribute to all those hon. Members who put them at the centre of their concerns.

I mentioned the importance of early identification and assessment and, in view of the passion with which the hon. Gentleman spoke about the closure of the nursery in his constituency, it is necessary to give the reasons for that importance.

I know that the hon. Gentleman will be concerned about early identification and assessment. He knows that, unless we get it right in those crucial early years, we stand little chance of getting it right elsewhere in the education system. Moreover, I agree with him that early identification is even more necessary for children with SEN than for any other identifiable group.

Although I would never pretend that early intervention and support will remove the need for support later in a child's school career, they accomplish three crucial objectives: first, they reduce the need for later support; secondly, they send a message that we have high expectations of all children, including those with SEN; and, thirdly—I know that the hon. Gentleman will be in accord with this objective—they establish at an early stage the vital relationship between parent and teacher and all the other professionals who work with children with SEN.

I share the hon. Gentleman's long-standing concerns about nursery provision for children with special educational needs in Croydon. As he said, we have corresponded—I think twice now, although he has corresponded also with the Secretary of State—about the closure of Hazelglen nursery.

As the hon. Gentleman knows, closure of the nursery is a matter for the Croydon local authority. As it is not a school, neither the Department for Education and Employment nor the Department of Health has any statutory powers to intervene. However—because of our shared concern about special needs—I am concerned if he feels that its closure has meant that the south of the borough, which he represents, will have no provision for nursery-age children with special educational needs.

I have spoken to Croydon—which will inevitably be one of the sources of information used by the Department. The comments made in this Adjournment debate also will be taken on board and investigated by the Department. Moreover, I shall happily reply to the hon. Gentleman if he wishes to continue our correspondence.

I have been told by Croydon that its policy is to ensure that all the nurseries it maintains offer places for children with special educational needs. Almost 450 places are available for nursery-age children in south Croydon. Specifically, the borough maintains four nursery schools that give priority to children with SEN and are resourced to do so. Two of those are in the south of the borough.

Additionally, nursery places are attached to two special schools, and 35 nurseries are attached to mainstream schools—15 of which are in the south of the borough. All those nurseries can and do offer places to children with special educational needs. Currently, 54 nursery-age children in Croydon are statemented, and all of them have nursery places.

I hope that that information will at least partly allay the hon. Gentleman's concerns. I should add that 65 children in the borough currently benefit from the portage system, which is a very valuable part of early years service.

I heard what the hon. Gentleman said about the special needs of SEN youngsters. I would not be happy if those needs were not being met specially within an early years institution. However, I should not be keen to make the judgment that those needs can be met only within a special educational needs nursery, although they have a very valuable role to play. I am sure that he will agree that nurseries that do not specialise in SEN children could, with support, offer a very good-quality service to those children. As the Green Paper indicated, such matching and variety of provision is the route that we want to pursue.

My information from Croydon is that it offers those two categories of service and specialised support. In Croydon, 43 per cent. of children with statements of special need are in special schools, whereas 57 per cent. are in maintained schools with either units or people to support statemented children. I think that such a varied, and I hope flexible, approach to children with statements of special educational needs shows the way forward.

Mr. Ottaway

Neither the letters from Croydon council nor these from the Minister to me gave those reasons for the closure. If those are the reasons, why were they not given? The truth is that they were not the reason why the school was closed.

Ms Morris

All I have attempted to do is state the provision that Croydon feels it is offering for special needs children. That is the pattern on which it has embarked in making nursery provision for all its statemented children.

I understand what the hon. Gentleman said about Hazelglen day centre. Any closure and any change is disturbing and distracting for parents and young children. As a constituency Member of Parliament, I realise that, every time a school is closed or threatened with closure, someone's life is affected. Such changes perhaps cause that person temporarily to have a more disjointed existence. However, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that we would never make progress if we set everything in stone.

Croydon's letters to me, and certainly my second letter to the hon. Gentleman, acknowledged that, on the basis of last year's financial settlement—not on the basis of the financial settlement that this Government have offered for next year, although I do not attempt to make political points—the financial situation was one of the factors that drove it to reassess the matter.

In my letters to the hon. Gentleman, I said also that the reassessment was prompted by the fact that the centre was not best located for families in the West and South of the Borough", and that average occupancy was lower than in other day care centres. I wrote also that Croydon had said that the level of need in the areas covered by the centre was not as marked as in the south east and north of the Borough. I would defend a local authority's right to replan its provision. Authorities must occasionally do that, because it is right for them to assess where they are at and where they want to go. Croydon maintains that Hazelglen is part of that redevelopment, and part of the necessary change in achieving its vision for meeting the needs of children with SEN and their parents in the borough of Croydon.

Croydon gave a commitment—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will tell me if it is not being met—to the users of Hazelglen day care centre that the children there would receive alternative services. I am told that that commitment has been honoured, and that many of those children are moving into nursery and reception classes. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will tell me if he feels that what Croydon has told me is not an accurate reflection of the situation there. However, I accept that a period of change is sometimes difficult to handle.

The hon. Gentleman gave the impression, both in his correspondence to me and in his speech today—it is important to get it straight now—that Hazelglen was a special needs nursery. Hazelglen was established not as a day care centre to meet the specific needs of special needs children and their parents, but to offer a wider service. That includes children with SEN and their parents, but it also includes other children and parents. It is right to establish that fact.

I am pleased also—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will welcome it—that the Hazelglen site will be developed as a family resource centre. Croydon has an agreement with Barnardo's—a national children's organisation of very high repute—to implement that planning—

Mr. Ottaway

Maybe.

Ms Morris

I am told that it is a bit more than "maybe", and I hope that it comes to fruition. I very much hope that—if we were to return to this debate in a year or even less—the hon. Gentleman will be able to say that, "Yes; as ever, the period of change was difficult and challenging, but the new facility on the site is continuing to offer provision that meets the needs of families in my area."

Although I do not under-estimate for a minute the hon. Gentleman's concerns about children and parents at Hazelglen, I was pleased to hear his tribute to other providers—schools and units—in Croydon. In preparing for this debate, I inevitably became better versed in what is happening in Croydon. I was very pleased to note the match of provision—the special schools and units—provided by Croydon. St. Giles school, which he mentioned, is one of those in which a special unit for the hearing and visually impaired has been attached. That is very attractive.

For all that the hon. Gentleman has said about Hazelglen, he represents a constituency in a borough that has, over the years, provided for the needs of special needs children in an imaginative manner—which, as he said, he has supported. Although I do not want to put a time limit on it, I should like to accept his offer to visit St. Giles school—which he has offered to the House as an example of good practice. That is how we want to develop policy—by learning what works, seeing who has got it right and then letting the rest of the country know about it. I am sure that some of the changes taking place in Croydon with regard to early years provision and how to meet the special needs of certain youngsters will in time be the sort of good practice from which we can learn and which we can spread to the rest of the country.

Again, I congratulate the hon. Member for Croydon, South on keeping the needs of his constituents at the forefront of our mind. I also want the needs of this particular group of people to be met, and I very much hope that the hon. Gentleman's fears will be allayed in the near future.