HC Deb 01 March 1999 vol 326 cc851-8

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jamieson.]

11.8 pm

Mrs. Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham)

I am delighted, even at this late hour, to have an opportunity to air the concerns of parents, pupils, governors and staff about the future of Penn school, which is based in my constituency.

I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) and for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), who are supporting me here tonight. My hon. Friends the Members for Wycombe (Sir R. Whitney) and for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) have sent their apologies, but have also been of great support to me. I wish to mention in particular the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) who, together with other Labour Members, has supported the future of Penn school.

I am delighted to welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment to the Front Bench and I hope that, in replying to the debate, he will be able to give heart and a definite future to Penn school. Some 18 hon. Members have an interest in the school's future, and that interest extends well beyond this place. Many people will have stayed up tonight to hear what the Minister has to say to us.

Penn school, a designated regional resource for deaf and hearing-impaired children—is under threat. For 76 years, it has met the special educational needs of deaf and hearing-impaired children. Since 1990, its role has evolved to include a unit for language-impaired children. Throughout its history, children have come to Penn from as far afield as the counties of Avon to the west and Cambridgeshire to the east. No fewer than 11 London boroughs place children at the school.

In 1990, Camden local education authority bid, and took responsibility for, the school. However, the LEA now proposes ceasing to maintain it from August 1999. I support the governors and others in their hope of retaining the school as an expanded regional resource for secondary-age children with communication problems who cannot wholly be successfully managed or treated in mainstream schools.

In their own words, the governors and others aspire to continue to nurture and care for children with communication difficulties, educate them to the highest limit of their individual abilities and prepare them to maximise their achievements in adult life". As well as providing facilities for secondary-aged pupils, the governors and staff wish, depending on demand, to introduce a primary entry class for pupils aged nine to 11.

As the Minister will know, the governors have made a formal application to the Secretary of State for Education and Employment to continue to operate Penn school as a non-maintained special school. I press the Minister on the matter and hope that he will respond positively to that proposal. However, there are some concerns about how the Department will interpret the school's degree of specialism. That has been defined as a "unique combination" and includes the school's provision of facilities for deaf or hearing-impaired and language-impaired children, who also have other, sometimes severe, difficulties.

The school offers teaching by qualified teachers of the deaf and a high-level signing system. In addition, there are boarding facilities. The school provides a small, homely environment that secures the development of a range of secondary-age pupils with disabilities. It has a successful history of providing a period of restorative care and teaching that enables severely disadvantaged pupils to return to mainstream schools after a spell at Penn. It is worth mentioning, although I am sure that the Minister will have noticed it, that the school received a very good Ofsted report in June 1998.

The governors have succeeded in attracting funding to back their attempt to continue the school's work. I hope that their application will be given every consideration to enable that valuable resource to continue to help young people. I have been to the school on several occasions and met pupils, parents, governors and staff. It is obvious that the standard of education in the school is excellent and that the children respond extremely well.

I urge the Minister to make a decision as soon as possible because, clearly, while there is uncertainty about the school's future, it is difficult for LEAs to come to decisions about whether to place a pupil at the school. The governors also face the problem of retaining the well-trained and highly motivated teachers.

Camden's case for closure depends partly on the argument about the viability of the school, but it could be argued that its policy of stopping residential admissions from May 1997—a decision that I appreciate has been reversed—in itself damaged the school's viability. That has made it more difficult to recruit new pupils. However, following market research, the governors and teaching staff believe that at least seven LEAs are potential new customers for the school.

The school has the capability to provide places for 60 pupils—either for all their senior years, or for some—to enter the school for a relatively short period before they re-enter mainstream education. In addition, the school could take part in the programme of greater inclusion for pupils with special educational needs, as set out in the Department's Green Paper "Excellence for all Children". I do not mean to quote the Minister's words back at him, but, as I am sure that he knows, the Green Paper states: We recognise the continuing need for special schools to provide—in some cases temporarily—for a very small proportion of pupils whose needs cannot be fully met within the mainstream sector. Penn school fulfils all the criteria to operate as a centre of regional excellence. The Green Paper acknowledged that there should be a "continuum of provision" across the country, and I believe that Penn school has a role to play within that provision.

The preferred option set out in the Green Paper is to encourage voluntary contribution between local education authorities and other providers, including non-maintained special schools. One of the core functions is defined as the planning of places for low-incidence disabilities. That includes pupils with hearing impairments and autism—the type of pupils who attend Penn school.

Another difficulty faced by the governors and the team putting together the bid is Camden's recent decision on the valuation of the site. The estimated value of the site and the buildings, for continued educational use, is £1.6 million. However, in mid-February, Camden stated that it must adopt as its basis for valuation the full market price of the site, which would be some £2 million. The argument is that the council has a statutory duty to obtain the full market value on a best-consideration basis.

I urge the Minister to do what he can to persuade Camden to rethink its decision. The governors are prepared to give legal undertakings that, in the eventuality of the school's having to close, the London borough of Camden would be involved in any arrangement for its disposal; but I cannot emphasise too strongly that the team at Penn school see no reason why it should not have a thriving future for many years to come.

Camden's decision about the valuation is one more obstacle put in the way. There does not seem to be any reason why Camden should not accept an offer based on the valuation of the site operating as a school under the provisions of the Local Government Act 1972. When Camden council ratified the closure recommendation in September 1998, the education committee stated in writing: Members urged officers to work with the governors in their aim for Penn to become a non-maintained/independent school". That effectively set the valuation as the utilisation of an existing use. What has happened since then could be described as a U-turn. If the Minister can wield any influence with the LEA to persuade it to rethink its strategy, my constituents and I—and the constituents of many other hon. Members—will be extremely grateful.

Children at Penn have often been placed once, twice or as many as three times before coming to the school. They eventually find the right school, and start to make good progress. If the school is closed, we shall also have to think about the consequences for pupils who will then have to travel far from home.

A former pupil, Shaun Wiggins, wrote this about his personal experience of the school and the effect that it had on him: When I started Penn School I had very bad speech problems and since I started I have improved a lot in my work. If people can keep Penn school open then more people will come and would be treated the same as other kids. Before I came to Penn School I went to a comprehensive school where I had no friends. When I came to Penn School I had friends for the first time and now I am very happy. That is a great tribute to the work of the headmaster, Mr. Alan Jones, and his staff, and to the dedication of the school's governors, headed by Mr. John Tripp. Their greatest concern is for the welfare of the children in their care. They want the work of Penn school to continue for many years, as indeed do my hon. Friends and I.

I hope that Shaun Wiggins's eloquent plea will not be disregarded, and that other pupils with hearing or language impairment, or autism, can continue to receive the benefits of the education provided at Penn school.

I hope that, today, the Minister will give the Penn school the future that it desires. It is a centre of excellence. I have been delighted to visit the school, and to see the outcome of the education provided to its pupils. I cannot tell the Minister how dedicated the parents, the governors, the staff and the pupils are to the school's continuation.

The Minister has a golden opportunity today to set at rest the minds of deserving people and their children. I hope that he will grasp the opportunity with both hands.

11.20 pm
Mr. Tom Levitt (High Peak)

I congratulate the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) on securing this Adjournment debate on such an important topic for children with the special need of hearing impairment—in which I have great interest. I do not know an awful lot about land valuation, but I know something about teaching and—as trustee of the Royal National Institute for Deaf People—a bit about deafness.

I shall speak only briefly, simply to make the point that if children—any child in any culture—are to develop language effectively, they have to grow up in an environment that is rich in that language. That is as true for a hearing child, in any language, as it is for a deaf child growing up, who is developing sign language as his or her first language—as it is for 50,000 people in the United Kingdom.

As far as I know, the Penn school provides that type of rich cultural environment for hearing-impaired children. I therefore urge my hon. Friend the Minister to do what he can to respond positively to the pleas of the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham.

11.21 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Charles Clarke)

I congratulate the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) on securing this debate. Not all hon. Members will know that she spent much of her early life in my constituency, in Cringleford, which is just outside Norwich. For some reason, she decided to depart—to Cheltenham Ladies college and to Amersham and Chesham. I do not know why she left, but I know that our loss in Norwich was their gain in Chesham and Amersham. I congratulate her on the way in which she made her case.

I very much welcome the opportunity of discussing the future of Penn school, which, judging from the correspondence that I have received, is a subject close to the hearts of many hon. Members and people elsewhere, such as parents at the school and others who are interested in the education of deaf children.

I really am grateful to all those who, in the past few months, have contributed their views on the school. The Department and I have received submissions from hon. Members representing south-east Buckinghamshire—I am glad to see the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) in the Chamber—and the hon. Members for Chesham and Amersham, for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington), for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell), for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty), for Finchley and Golders Green (Dr. Vis), for Wycombe (Sir R. Whitney), for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas), for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning). From the other place, I have received representations from Earl Howe and Lord Ashley of Stoke. It is a testament to the quality of the school that so many Members of the House and of the other place should have decided that they wished to make representations in the manner that they have.

We have received representations also in a petition of 1,200 names, from the National Deaf Children's Society and from a variety of local education authorities— which I suspect are among those that the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham said would be keen to use the school.

Mrs. Gillan

It is quite obvious that there is tremendous support for the school, and I am glad that the Minister has catalogued the number of representations that he has received. May I also, through him, thank his officials, who I believe have visited the school several times, most recently last week? I was pleased to note that officials took such close interest in the school and in the outcome. I therefore hope that the Minister will today be giving us the response that we wish to hear.

Mr. Clarke

I appreciate that remark, and shall certainly pass it on to officials in my Department. As the hon. Lady said, they have worked hard on the matter, and I join her in thanking them for their work.

Mr. Gareth R. Thomas (Harrow, West)

My hon. Friend has already mentioned the written representations that other hon. Members and I have made to him. May I underline the point about the considerable uncertainty facing parents—such as Mr. and Mrs. Wilson, who have a child at the school and live in my constituency—because of continued uncertainty about the school's future? An early decision to end that uncertainty would be particularly welcome for them.

Mr. Clarke

I appreciate that point and I hope that I can help my hon. Friend during the debate.

Special educational needs is an important issue for the Government. Our Green Paper in October 1997, followed by our action programme in November 1998, set out a clear plan for dealing with the issues. We are committed to taking all possible steps to improve the situation for people with special educational needs. That is the context in which I turn to the proposal from Camden local education authority to cease to maintain the school and the school's application to become a non-maintained special school.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham on the clarity with which she made her case. Penn school is a special school in Penn in Buckinghamshire, but maintained by Camden LEA, for children with hearing impairments and communications difficulties. Most of the children also have other learning difficulties. As the hon. Lady said, it is an important regional facility for that group of children.

Camden LEA inherited the school when the Inner London education authority was abolished in 1990. The school serves a wide area, with children from a number of authorities. None of the children currently at the school is from Camden. The school received a good Ofsted report in June 1998, which was a commendation of all those working at the school and the service that it offers.

However, because of the consideration that I mentioned earlier, Camden LEA served notice on the Secretary of State on 6 October 1998 of its proposal to cease to maintain the school from the end of the current academic year. Later that month, the school applied for non-maintained special school status. Non-maintained special schools are run by charitable trusts on a non-profit making basis. The governors of Penn school have already established the Rayners special education trust, with a view to running the school under the proposed new arrangements. We have received many letters of support for the continued existence of the school and my officials have kept in close contact with Camden LEA and Penn school throughout.

I am pleased to be able to announce that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has considered all the information available to him and has decided that he is minded to approve Camden LEA's proposal to cease to maintain the school from 31 August 1999 and the school's application to become a non-maintained special school from 1 September this year. I hope that that will allow the school to plan for its future as a non-maintained special school.

As the hon. Lady mentioned, substantial independent research has been carried out and a business plan has been developed that gives the governors of the school confidence that they will be able to develop it as they have proposed.

I said my right hon. Friend is minded to approve. Final approval will be given when the school and Camden have agreed terms and conditions for the sale of the site, which is currently being negotiated, and when the Secretary of State is satisfied that the school's sponsors have provided formal confirmation that they will provide financial security for the school for its first five years as a non-maintained special school. I understand that that is expected shortly.

Mr. John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington)

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his announcement, which will bring great relief to many of my constituents as well as to many others. When I was the chief executive of the Association of London Authorities, I was involved in the transfer of properties from ILEA to the boroughs. They were transferred largely as trusts so that they would be maintained for the benefit of London and the whole country. It behoves the Government to ensure that that concept is taken into account in the consideration of the financial arrangements between Camden and the school. The school was designed to provide educational value and service to the whole community. Any pricing of the property should be on that basis. Under the Wednesbury principles, it would be reasonable to take that into account.

Mr. Clarke

I take that point, which was also made by the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham. I was coming to that. I cannot give any detailed comfort on that, save to say that I understand the powerful and forceful points that have been made and I shall give careful consideration to the situation to see what good offices my Department can offer to try to ensure that an agreement is reached at a reasonable level.

Mrs. Gillan

On behalf of my constituents, the school, the governors, the parents and the children, may I thank the Minister for arriving so speedily at a "minded-to" decision tonight? He knows that this is a subject close to my heart, and one about which I feel strongly. To be able to send those with the greatest interest in the school home tonight with happiness in their hearts means a great deal. I unreservedly thank him for the decision. I note that there are some precursors to the final signing of the document, but I feel sure that, as the Minister has come to the Dispatch Box tonight to make the announcement in response to this Adjournment debate, most barriers will melt away.

Mr. Clarke

If only that were true in all walks of life, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I appreciate the sentiment that the hon. Lady has just expressed, and I hope that the decision provides some of the security for which my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Levitt) has asked. There are matters to be sorted out, but I, too, am confident that they will be sorted out. The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham referred to the definition of impairment, to the boarding facilities and to restorative care, and those issues will be addressed positively and constructively.

My Department has written today to Camden LEA and to the chair of the governors of Penn school to inform them of the decision. I am sure that they, too, would want to pay tribute to all those who have campaigned so hard to support and maintain the facility.

The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham will wish to know that Camden LEA has undertaken to invest the proceeds from the sale of the site specifically to improve the special educational provision for children in Camden. I believe that that is an important commitment, which will be of benefit. I appreciate what has been said from Members on both sides of the House, and I hope that everybody will agree that that is good news.

I want to conclude by wishing the school every success in the future, and by congratulating the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham and all her parliamentary colleagues who have argued so forcibly, constructively and patiently to ensure that the issue is resolved. The school is an important resource, and I wish the teachers, pupils and governors well in the future.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes to Twelve o'clock.