New Clause 1

HC Deb 26 April 2001 vol 367 cc477-85

PROVISION OF MOBILITY AND INDEPENDENCE EDUCATION

'In the 1996 Act insert the following section—

"324A Provision of mobility and independence education

1. (1) An assessment of the educational needs of a child with visual impairment or multi-sensory impairment under section 323 or section 331 must include an assessment of their mobility and independence needs.
2. (2) Where a local education authority makes a statement of special educational needs for a child with visual impairment or multi-sensory impairment under section 324 or section 331, any needs for mobility and independence education shall be specified as special educational provision in the child's statement.".'.—[Mr. Win Griffiths.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

2.31 pm

Mr. Win Griffiths (Bridgend)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The new clause is meant as a probing amendment, which the Royal National Institute for the Blind and Sense were keen to have debated on Report. They want to highlight the need for mobility and independence education for visually impaired and multi-sensory impaired children to be treated as, I underline, a special educational provision, which must be provided by local education authorities if specified in a statement, rather than as a form of non-educational provision that LEAs may arrange. The RNIB and Sense want the revised code of practice on special educational needs to set out clearly that important principle.

Visually impaired children and children with multi-sensory impairment experience huge problems getting around safely and confidently and, more generally, in understanding and negotiating their environment. Aspects of self-care, such as grooming, dressing and cooking, may present huge challenges. Addressing those needs is an essential part of the children's education and must start from the earliest possible age to maximise future independence. The new clause therefore refers to section 331 of the Education Act 1996, which deals with the assessment of the under-twos. Even at that young age, children need to be encouraged and motivated to explore their immediate environment safely and to move around it confidently.

Mobility and independence education is fundamental to visually impaired and multi-sensory impaired children's access to education. Put simply, if children cannot find their way around their classroom or school safely and confidently, and if they are not given the practical skills that they need to move around safely in the playground and participate fully in physical education and drama classes, they cannot be said to be included. Furthermore, if children are denied the opportunity to learn self-care skills such as dressing and grooming, they cannot be said to be receiving an education appropriate to their needs. Training for that involves a specialist mobility teacher acting as programme planner, staff trainer and adviser—the child's teachers and support workers must be closely involved—as well as direct training.

The latest RNIB research, detailed in "Shaping the Future", which was published in 2000, shows that nearly two in three pupils attending specialist schools for blind and partially sighted pupils have received mobility education, but that fewer than one in three visually impaired pupils in mainstream schools have received mobility and independence education. One in 20 16 to 25-year-olds of average learning ability have no mobility education, but would have liked to have had it. Moreover, when such education is provided, there is evidence that it is treated as a marginal element of the curriculum, which is not in the spirit of the commitment of the Department for Education and Employment to fully inclusive education. Only three out of 117 pupils who had had mobility education had it built into their timetables.

As a result, one in three mainstream secondary pupils said that they felt left out of some classroom activities; more than one in four said that there were school clubs and activities in which they would have liked to participate, but had not done so, and of that proportion one in six said that that was due to their sight difficulty. Moreover, lack of mobility education was found to be one reason why blind and partially sighted children and young people are less likely than their sighted peers to travel independently and confidently. Lack of self-confidence in travelling was an issue for six in 10 primary school pupils, more than one in three secondary school pupils and four in 10 16 to 25-year-olds.

As well as training starting at an early age, it is vital that children receive it consistently and for as long as they need it to prepare for adult independence. Tackling those problems is central to the Government's goal of ensuring that inclusion in mainstream education is a more realistic and effective option for children with sensory impairment. As things stand, mainstream placements are clearly not delivering mobility and independence education consistently or effectively to sensorily impaired children.

Mr. Tom Levitt (High Peak)

I am attracted to my hon. Friend's proposal, but it would be nice to think that it was not necessary. Does he agree that independence education of sensorily impaired children is necessary, but that there must also be greater awareness among their peers about how to relate to them? It should be possible to extend the proposal to include the peers and classmates of children with sensory impairments.

Mr. Griffiths

I agree with my hon. Friend. In fact, specialist teachers, to whom I referred earlier, and who maintain close contact with teachers and others in the classroom, should try to ensure that the whole class and school appreciate the tremendous problems of sensorily impaired children. I experienced those problems a week or so ago in Westminster Hall, when I had a brief go with a blindfold and a guide dog.

The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. David Blunkett)

I hope that it was not mine.

Mr. Griffiths

I assure my right hon. Friend that it was not. That certainly brought home to me how disabling lack of sight and partial sight can be. I believe in the participation of the whole class and school.

Mr. Andrew George (St. Ives)

The hon. Gentleman's argument is persuasive and I believe that his new clause is reasonable. Has he or the organisations to which he spoke made any financial assessment of the impact on the DFEE of introducing such a provision?

Mr. Griffiths

I do not have such information, although I understand that it is available. I do not believe that the provision would be a great financial burden. I shall refer later, without specifying figures, to matters in Wales which show that the commitment would not account for a huge part of the education budget. The costs involved would be offset by the huge benefits that would be gained for partially sighted and sensorily impaired children.

Part of the problem is that mobility and independence needs are frequently not specified as special educational needs in part 2 of the statement, and consequently are not identified as educational provision that the LEA considers it necessary to make under part 3 of the statement. Instead, special educational needs may be included in part 5 of the statement, which deals with non-educational needs, and in part 6, as the non-educational provision agreed between the LEA and health and social services.

LEAs have a duty to arrange the special educational provision specified in part 3 of a statement, and parents have a right of appeal to the tribunal if they disagree with the description of needs, the provision or any plans to stop making the provision by ceasing to maintain the statement. However, none of that applies if mobility and independence training are included in parts 5 and 6 as non-educational provision. LEAs simply have the power to arrange provision. The RNIB considers that a significant factor in explaining why so many children are not gaining access to the training that they require.

Recognising mobility and independence training as educational needs within the statutory assessment and statementing process would provide LEAs with the necessary incentive to ensure that what is specified in the statement is carried out. If mobility and independence training becomes part of the specified provision, it will be possible for children who are visually impaired or have multi-sensory impairments to receive, under the statement, properly specified, the help that they need through mobility and independence education.

As I said, such training is fundamental to allow the children to play a full and proper part in their school. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench will respond positively to the issues that I have raised, and that when the special educational needs code of practice is published it will take account of those needs.

I should be interested to know what other plans for action the Department has to meet the needs of children with visual and multi-sensory impairments so that they can participate fully in the schools that they attend, particularly when those are mainstream schools, in accordance with the Government's aim to make inclusion a reality for those children and their families.

Mr. Tim Boswell (Daventry)

Not for the first time, as we know from having heard his contributions in the Standing Committee, the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) has performed a service by raising issues sensitively and with a good deal of perception. I agreed with a good deal of what he said, and it is right that Ministers should respond to it—although in view of the load of business that we have this afternoon, we will all have to keep our remarks as short as possible.

I share many of the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Bridgend and have had many of the same experiences. I, too, had a trial run with a guide dog, and found that interesting. At the edge of my constituency is the centre for dogs for the disabled. Those people do not necessarily have sensory impairment, although they may have various impairments. I have been able, through the work of the centre, to see the great skill required to train the dogs, and then the users of the dogs, to make the best of that partnership.

2.45 pm

I shall summarise the points set out by the hon. Gentleman. The first, to which we refer in other new clauses, is the importance of the setting in which any mainstream education is to be delivered, and the importance of induction and training for all the participants—that is, the pupil, the teachers and, as was mentioned in an intervention, the other pupils, so that the best is made of the situation and nothing creates a difficulty.

Secondly, a continuing motif of our debates has been our concern about the comparatively low overall attainments of children with special educational needs, in terms of their final outcomes. We need not dissect that in detail today, and I certainly do not want to give the House the signal that we expect children with one or other special educational need necessarily to do badly in their school, particularly if they have a sensory impairment. Indeed—this is the last time that I shall mention it—the Secretary of State gives the most eloquent possible lie to that.

It is essential that every child should be able to perform to the best of his or her ability, and that any difficulties are effectively overcome. That is the entirely proper motive for the new clause. There must be concern, especially in what may be termed straightforward cases of sensory impairment—blindness or deafness—that those give rise to underperformance, which should not have happened.

The third point, which the hon. Member for Bridgend was right to raise, is the importance of a holistic approach. It is not simply a matter of putting children into the classroom, telling them that they are now included and part of the mainstream, and expecting them, the school, the other pupils or anyone else simply to get on with it. All the various aspects must be brought together. As the hon. Gentleman reminded the House, the new clause brings together the special provision of an educational nature that is specified in the statement, and the other things that an LEA may do to support the child.

There is a detectable functional distinction between those two categories, which hinges on what is or is not educational. An analogous case is the fraught issue of what is nursing care and what is support or personal care in residential care or nursing homes. We will get into difficulties if we seek to draw absolute distinctions between categories, especially where, by implication, the funding streams are different. We do not have an immediate answer to those problems, and we need to focus rather more on finding our way through them.

If Ministers tell the House that that is all secured under present arrangements, we will be reassured, but we will retain a degree of scepticism, as does the RNIB, about whether that is the case in practice. We should explore the issues in the spirit in which the hon. Gentleman moved the new clause, as a probing measure, and listen carefully to the ministerial response. The problem deserves attention and will not go away.

Mr. Andrew George

The hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) emphasised the fact that the new clause raises issues that we may have overlooked in Committee. The intervention by the hon. Member for High Peak (Mr. Levitt) highlighted the importance of ensuring that the needs of pupils with a severe sensory loss are taken into account in the wider school environment and among other pupils. That is essential.

In the spirit of the new clause, which is meant as a probing amendment, the key point is for the Under-Secretary to reassure those who believe that the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) has raised an important matter that our concerns are encompassed in the Bill or in some other way. It would be helpful if such clarification were put on the record. Will she also comment on the difficulty and additional ties that the new clause would create for local education authorities, the Department for Education and Employment and local schools?

Mr. Win Griffiths

I omitted to mention what the RNIB said about Wales, which is relevant to the hon. Gentleman's remarks. It believes that two or three centres could be established in Wales to provide a service to all local authorities. Obviously, not every local authority would have the expertise that is necessary to make the provision. The scale of the proposal in terms of Welsh local authorities would be extremely small.

Mr. George

I am grateful for that helpful clarification of the extra dimension in Wales.

The Liberal Democrats support the spirit and purpose of the new clause and we look forward to hearing the Under-Secretary's response.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Ms Margaret Hodge)

Like other hon. Members, I welcome the opportunity that my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) has given us to discuss a crucial issue. The new clause deals with a matter that is of concern to many families with children who have a visual or multi-sensory impairment: the training that such children receive to enhance their mobility and independence.

All hon. Members accept that it is vital for children with a visual or multi-sensory impairment to learn how to get around independently and safely in the school or institution in which they are undertaking their learning. Without those basic skills, visually impaired children will not enjoy properly inclusive education and will be excluded from society as adults. If visually impaired children are not taught the basic life skills that make for independence, they will be excluded from life at school and from society as adults.

Mr. Boswell

The Under-Secretary has made an excellent start to her speech, but does she agree that even if skills training is not given in school, it will still be required somewhere and will have to be given outside that setting? It might as well be done in the most appropriate place.

Ms Hodge

That training needs to be provided in the most appropriate place and by the most appropriate people. Perhaps that will become clearer as I develop my remarks. As the hon. Gentleman said earlier, the purpose of the Bill is to equalise opportunities, so facilities for visually and sensorily impaired children are integral to it.

As I think my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend acknowledged, a range of agencies are involved in providing support for the children to whom the Bill relates. I pay tribute to the active and helpful role of Sense and the RNIB, both of which I meet frequently, and of others in promoting mobility and independence. Those organisations have worked effectively with local education authorities throughout the country to provide training where it is needed.

LEAs do and must work in partnership with health authorities, social services departments and voluntary organisations to ensure that children get appropriate support and training. As the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. George) acknowledged, not all the services will be funded through LEAs. The way in which a service is funded and the agency that is selected to provide it will depend on the individual circumstances and needs of the child in question.

I hope to give some reassurances to all hon. Members who have participated in this short debate. LEAs are required to specify in a child's statement the special educational provision that is necessary to meet his or her special educational needs. They are also required to set out the non-educational needs of the child and the provision that is needed if he or she is properly to benefit from that provision. Indeed, the non-educational provision that is necessary to enable the child to benefit from his or her education provision can also be specified in the statement. That can encompass all needs, including those that relate to mobility and independence.

Our current code of practice and framework for special educational needs are somewhat different from what is suggested by the new clause, which would require LEAs by law specifically to assess mobility and independence as part of the statutory assessment of every child with visual or multi-sensory impairment. It would also require them to specify as educational provision in their statements the provision of mobility and independence training. I am not sure that such legislation is either necessary or appropriate.

As I hope that I have demonstrated, the current SEN framework allows for the holistic approach that we all acknowledge to be necessary for the children. It allows for the consultation of specialist teachers in appropriate individual circumstances when a child's special educational needs are assessed—a matter that was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend. When we establish our policies, we will require a framework that encourages all the agencies that have a role to work together.

Mr. Win Griffiths

I accept everything that my hon. Friend says, but let me point out the problem that is apparent from research and surveys carried out by the RNIB. Although children get the help and support that they need in specialist schools, such support is not always available in mainstream schools because of the different standing of such provision within the statement. Will she assure us that the new code of practice will ensure equality of treatment? That would be very encouraging.

Ms Hodge

I acknowledge that the standard of current provision is not as high as we want it to he, and that it is not as integrated as we want it to be. I hope that my assurances about the steps that we are taking will show my hon. Friend that we are genuinely trying to achieve the aims to which he and the organisations in whose name he makes his representations aspire.

I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that it is important for us to establish a framework that facilitates, encourages and demands multi-agency working, rather than one that allows some of the agencies to opt out of their responsibilities in respect of dealing with the children's needs. As the new clause deliberately specifies the obligations in terms of the LEA, it might enable social services and health departments to opt out of their legitimate responsibilities in that regard.

Mr. Boswell

Those are helpful remarks, but I am not sure whether the Under-Secretary can secure her intentions in the Bill. Does she at least agree that it is incumbent on all agencies, whether they are specifically educational or not, and whether they are national or local, to collaborate and exchange information so that the overall holistic solution can emerge? I understand her point about not shifting their responsibilities away, but one of those responsibilities must be to work with other agencies in order to achieve the right outcome.

3 pm

Ms Hodge

I accept that those responsibilities must be shared and that collaboration must occur. One of the challenges that we face in trying to provide and improve services is finding methods of enhancing collaboration, thus ensuring that the needs of the child are central, and replacing traditional attitudes and practices, which tended to leave people in funnels. We want to encourage work across the professions.

The current SEN framework allows a holistic approach to need. We must ensure that it is appropriate to the needs of every child, and acknowledge that they may differ. The new clause would constrain our response to shifting the burden on to one authority. That may be inappropriate for some children, who may require more input from social services or health departments on mobility, independence or other needs. The disability provisions will ensure that every school makes reasonable adjustments to its policies, practices and procedures, and to access to the curriculum and the building. That will ensure that all children, including those with visual impairments and sensory impairments, are fully included in the life of the school. I acknowledge the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend made about low incidence impairments. We want to take advantage of the experience and expertise of specialists, yet enable children to be taught in mainstream schools in their locality when possible. The new clause shows that there is much work to be done and I do not pretend that we have achieved our aim yet. As my hon. Friend said, we need to spread the best practice of specialist schools in mainstream schools.

The aim of many of the SEN and social inclusion policies of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary with responsibility for school standards is to fund, through SEN regional partnerships and the SEN small programmes fund, mechanisms that will enhance the capacity for specialist schools to pass on their knowledge, experience and expertise to the mainstream sector. I am delighted that we have been able to increase so substantially the money that we are putting into the standards fund, which will support the training of teachers in mainstream schools and others to deal with impairments, especially low incidence impairments.

We need to do much more on early identification and intervention. We spent much time in Committee, as did another place, on that subject. If we can improve that, we will ensure that children can develop their full potential and live a more inclusive life. We are therefore investing a large sum of money in special educational needs in the early years, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced on Second Reading. We have also announced the establishment of a multi-agency working group to develop guidance on identifying the special needs of children under two so that necessary provision can be made for them at the earliest opportunity.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend raised another issue, about which I share his anxiety. We need to try to ensure greater consistency in provision throughout the country, especially for low incidence impairment. We have therefore issued our consultation document on quality standards in education for children and young people with visual impairments. As hon. Members know, it is designed to secure the right sort of services to help pupils to be independent learners. We refer specifically to the need to ensure support for mobility training when needed. We await the final comments from the consultation exercise, and we shall then distribute a final version to local authorities. I hope that we can use the document to ensure greater consistency across the country.

Multi-agency working is the key to ensuring a holistic approach. Several Government initiatives will support that. From sure start to the Bill, our policies will provide a framework based on the needs of the child rather than the interests of the professionals.

Clearly, we need to continue to seek improvements in our response to the specific needs of children with visual impairments and other sensory impairments. Together with the RNIB, Guide Dogs for the Blind and Opsis, we are funding a one-year research project, which considers the mobility and independence needs of children and young people from two to 16 and the training needs of those who work with them. That research will help inform future policy decisions, and we shall keep the issue under review. I hope that I have been able to persuade my hon. Friend to withdraw the new clause, and that we can proceed with introducing the much-needed Bill.

Mr. Win Griffiths

I thank my hon. Friend for her response to the new clause, which, as I said earlier, is a probing motion. I did not intend all responsibility to fall on the local education authority, but I wanted the special provision that we are considering to be equal to other special education provision. The disability provisions, the aim of equal treatment and the research project, to which my hon. Friend referred, will help. I am therefore happy that the Department, in conjunction with the many agencies and voluntary bodies, is dealing with the matter. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.