HL Deb 09 May 1994 vol 554 cc1412-26

7.48 p.m.

Baroness Blatch rose to move, That the draft code laid before the House on 13th April be approved [16th Report from the Joint Committee].

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the main document before the House today is the draft Code of Practice on the Identification and Assessment of Special Educational Needs. Together with the draft code is a foreword which offers an explanation of the background to and status of the draft code. The third document in the package is the Education (Special Educational Needs) Regulations 1994, which were also laid before Parliament on Wednesday 13th April. The regulations were included in the package for information, as they are subject to the negative procedure.

Sections 157 and 158 of the Education Act 1993 are concerned with the making and approval, of a code of practice. Section 157 says that the code should give practical guidance in respect of the discharge by local education authorities and the governing bodies of maintained or grant-maintained schools, or grant-maintained special schools, of their functions under this part of this Act. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State is required to issue a draft code for consultation and then, if he sees fit to proceed with the draft, either in its original form or with such modifications as he thinks fit, to lay it before both Houses of Parliament. That is the stage we have now reached. If the draft code is to come into effect, it must be approved by resolution of each House.

The code of practice is an important document. The draft code aims to put flesh on the provisions of Part III of the Education Act 1993. It aims to set out a model of good practice which will help iron out inconsistencies around the country in the quality of provision for children with special educational needs and eradicate undue delays in identification of, and making of provision for, special educational needs.

In brief, the draft code proposes a staged model for assessment and provision for special educational needs. The first stages are school-based in recognition of the fact that the great majority of pupils with special educational needs do not need statements of special educational needs. The code recognises that there is a continuum of special educational needs and that there should be a similar continuum of special educational provision.

In the staged model, the draft code seeks to promote the effective assignment of responsibility for children with special educational needs. It allows scope for the proper use of judgment by schools and LEAs. It lays particular emphasis on the role of the mainstream school. The draft code also lays emphasis on partnership —between schools, LEAs, social services departments and district health authorities and between all those agencies and parents.

Much of the code's content represents existing good practice. It seeks to build upon the invaluable report of the Committee of Inquiry chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock. It reflects the principles embodied in the Education Act 1981. It also reflects lessons learnt since the passage of that Act. In offering comprehensive practical guidance drawn up in the light of that experience, I believe that the code will do a signal service to children with special educational needs and their parents.

In producing this draft code, we have benefited from the time and expertise of very many skilled and experienced people in the special educational needs world. The draft code emphasises partnership. It has been developed in that spirit. I must take this opportunity to pay the warmest tribute to all those who have helped us. We are most grateful to them.

My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education issued the consultative draft in October last year. Over 30,000 copies were distributed. There were over 1,000 written responses. In addition, Ministers and officials participated in many conferences and meetings. I particularly valued a meeting which I had with your Lordships' Ad hoc Group on Special Educational Needs, led by the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth).

The consultative draft code was widely welcomed, subject to certain caveats, mostly but not exclusively, to do with the implications for teachers' time and workloads and for schools' and LEAs' resources. We took those issues and other points into account in revising the draft code. I know that many of your Lordships will be familiar with the consultative draft code. I will quickly run through the main changes that we have made.

First, we have added the foreword, as I have mentioned, to explain the legislative background and the status of the code; to emphasise our commitment to monitoring the code's impact; and to make important connections with other documents and the work of the SEN tribunal. We are particularly indebted to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway, for suggesting this foreword. The foreword does not legally form part of the code itself. It could therefore be updated in the light of experience and subsequent developments.

There is an important change in Part 2 of the draft code. In response to representations made to us by schools in the consultation exercise, we have stripped away any unnecessary bureaucracy and concentrated on the main principles of a staged approach. We have stressed that schools will wish to have regard to the code in the light of their own particular circumstances. The three school-based stages now comprise the registration of concern and initial special measures at stage 1; the development of individual education plans at stage 2; and the involvement of outside specialists at stage 3. Nonetheless, it remains an obligation on schools to have regard to the code. While the code provides guidance designed to help schools fulfil their duties, they cannot ignore the code.

Part 2 also includes important new passages on the role of the health services and co-operation with the LEAs' special educational needs support services. The message here, as throughout the code, is on partnership.

In Part 3, we have not proposed any significant change to the time limits for assessments and making statements or to the criteria for deciding to make a statutory assessment. We have, however, sought to clarify the role of the named LEA officer. And here and in Part 4 we have, in response to concerns expressed by your Lordships, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), significantly developed the role of the named person, who will be able to offer independent advice to parents of children with special educational needs.

The revisions in Part 4 are in the nature of clarification, of, for example, the distinction between the objectives of a statement and the short-term targets to be set in the light of a statement and to be reviewed annually.

We have also sought to improve the guidance on speech and language therapy. Throughout, the code lays particular emphasis on partnership. Nowhere is such partnership more important than in meeting the deeds of children with speech and language difficulties. In order further to promote partnership in this field, the Department for Education and the Department for Health, will jointly make available a sum of £50,000 over the next few months to fund projects to maximise the use of speech therapists' time.

Those projects will focus, among other things, on developing and increasing the consultancy role of speech therapists working with schools and teachers. We expect the outcomes to be disseminated widely and to make a positive contribution to the co-operative working of the bodies responsible for the delivery of speech therapy.

Paragraph 4:47 addresses the requirement on LEAs to send to parents with the proposed statement complete lists of maintained schools in their area and of all non-maintained special schools and independent schools approved under the Act. I hope that that will fully meet the concerns expressed by my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding and many others, during the passage of the legislation. My department and the Welsh Office Education Department will ensure that all LEAs are provided annually with an up to date and comprehensive list of non-maintained special schools and approved independent schools.

In Part 5 we have sought to import some of the principles of the staged approach; to recognise more fully the role of the health services in the identification of special needs in the under fives; and to recognise the substantial contribution of pre-school playgroups.

Part 6 likewise contains a number of clarifications and improvements, including encouragement to LEAs to avoid bunching of reviews of statements at one point in the school year; noting that the head teacher can delegate his or her functions; dropping the requirement to invite the Further Education Funding Council to the 14+ review, and introducing a requirement to invite the careers service to the 14+ review.

The foreword to the draft code lists the regulations and circulars which are relevant to matters covered in the code. I will not repeat the full list here, but I will mention the Education (Special Educational Needs) Regulations 1994, which give statutory effect to the time limits for assessments and making statements. Those are the regulations appended to the draft code laid before your Lordships' House and will, subject to your Lordships' approval of the draft code, be published alongside the code. Those regulations are crucial to the achievement of an efficient and timely service to children with special educational needs and I believe that they will be workable if the code's guidance on their application is put into effect.

Your Lordships will also wish to be aware of the Education (Special Educational Needs) (Information) Regulations 1994, which are summarised in the code and will be enlarged upon in a separate circular. Those in effect require schools to adopt policies on special educational needs and report annually upon them. I regard those regulations, the development of schools' special educational needs policies and the accountability that that will entail as vital to the success of the code.

We are planning to publish along with the code a guide for parents. We should pay particular attention to make it an easy to read and easy to understand document, bearing in mind, of course, the complexity of the subject. The guide will explain the system of provision for special educational needs as set out in the legislation and the code of practice. It will help to embed the principle of partnership. The knowledge, views and experiences of parents are vital if effective provision is to be made for their children.

I turn now to the legal status of the code. The primary legislation provides that schools and LEAs must "have: regard" to the code. That means that, whenever schools., LEAs, the health service and social services take action on behalf of pupils with special educational needs, they must consider what the code says. They cannot ignore it. The decisions they reach will, of course, vary according to local circumstances. Some LEAs, for example, may adopt a four-stage model of assessment of special educational needs, but they should do so only after having considered the code and the principles of the staged approach which it embodies.

As the foreword explains, the effect of having regard to the code may vary according to circumstances and over time. Clearly one cannot expect all schools and LEAs to have undertaken a comprehensive study of the code and to have changed their procedures accordingly in September this year. But it is reasonable to expect them to have regard to the code from that point and to plan future action in the light of the code.

The independent special educational needs tribunal will also be under a duty to have regard to the code of practice. This will serve as an added incentive to LEAs to have regard to the code. But the tribunal will not. exercise a general oversight of LEAs' adherence to the code's provisions. The tribunal's task will be to consider appeals in cases where parents have exercised their right of appeal under the 1993 Act. My noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway will have noticed the statement in the draft foreword: The Tribunal will expect LEAs to be able to justify any departure from the Code where such a departure was relevant to a decision in question". We will be putting in place a battery of measures to monitor and evaluate the effect of the code of practice. Bodies such as Ofsted and the Audit Commission will play their part. We shall also discuss with the local authorities ways in which we can co-operate in the gathering of information and statistics and shall consider the case for commissioning research projects. We shall of course keep Parliament fully informed.

The impact of the code clearly depends upon the effectiveness of the procedures which we put in place for its dissemination and the preparation and training of those who will need to implement it. Together with the Council for Disabled Children, the National Children's Bureau, the Department of Health and the Welsh Office Education Department, we are planning a series of dissemination conferences which we hope will spawn many more conferences and seminars. We are making available substantial GEST funds for special educational needs, including £9 million directly to support the code. We will also be supporting the development of a variety of materials for in-service training of teachers generally, special educational needs co-ordinators in particular and for the training of governors.

The Government will not hesitate to seek the approval of your Lordships' House for any new code of practice in the light of evaluation, but I hope that we shall now have a period of stability in which those to whom the code applies can adapt their policies and practices. I commend the draft code to your Lordships' House.

Moved, That the draft code laid before the House on 13th April be approved [16th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Blotch.)

8.2 p.m.

Baroness Darcy (de Knayth)

My Lords, I wish to give a warm welcome to the code of practice and to the regulations in their final form. It is a pleasure to be the first to do so. They are clearly an important step towards the entitlement of appropriate provision for children with educational special needs and their parents.

The code is overall excellent; it is well presented, easy to read and written in clear language. The table of contents and the index make it easy to find one's way around.

In turning to the details, I shall stick to the issues with which I was involved and which have been resolved thanks to many welcome amendments to the earlier versions of the code and regulations. I appreciate the Government's willingness to listen and to act upon comments and suggestions made by a number of us, including members of the ad hoc group referred to by the Minister. I wish to thank the Minister in particular for being so ready to meet, listen, talk and respond so positively.

I am pleased that under the code parents will from 1st September receive copies of all professional advice on their children's needs when the LEAs decide not to issue statements following assessments. Similarly, under regulations parents will receive copies of all professional reports obtained on their children when statements are reviewed.

I am delighted that the Government have amended the regulations to remove the gag which would have been placed on professionals, preventing them from giving their opinion on the type of provision suitable for a child with special needs as part of their formal assessment advice. Parents need to know what the professionals think, particularly now given the new parental right to state a preference for a type of school. So, three cheers to the Minister for this. I am also pleased to see that the amended code encourages professionals to share their advice with parents.

I welcome the fact that arrangements for a child's placement should be finalised by the beginning of the child's last term before transfer to a new school. That should solve the problem of the many children without a placement at the beginning of the school year because proposals for change of provision are made too late.

I shall not be too starry eyed over the code for a moment. Many of the changes which during the passage of the Bill I argued should be in primary legislation have materialised in the code. I am grateful for that. However, the code will not be as binding as the Act or the regulations and because of this I would welcome reassurance from the Minister on two counts.

The first is that the Secretary of State will do all in his power to provide effective policing of the code and will state clearly in the guide to parents that he will investigate fully and vigorously any formal complaint made by parents under the Education Act 1944 when they believe that either their child's school or the LEA is ignoring the code. Page 12 of the guide states that parents can complain about the school but it does not state that firmly. I cannot find any statement anywhere that one can complain about the LEA.

Secondly, I would like reassurance that the Government will be prepared to bring forward amending legislation to transfer the duties to which I referred from the code to the regulations if it emerges that the code is proving too cumbersome or toothless to be of practical benefit to children or parents on these particular points.

Perhaps I may touch briefly on speech therapy, which is such an important area. The amended code is greatly improved in that it has, moved from stating who employs the therapists to what is the nature of the child's need. It also clearly states that the ultimate responsibility for ensuring provision rests with the LEA. The code cannot go further, but there is a great need to draw up guidelines on what constitutes educational and non-educational speech therapy. Certainly, AFASIC believes that. It will be very important to monitor just how the code works in practice in relation to the provision of speech and language therapy. I was delighted to hear what the Minister said about the money that is to be made available for that. I was also glad to hear how much importance she puts on monitoring.

All in all, the code is a very important milestone for children with special educational needs and their parents. As the helpful foreword clearly states, it, should also be a living document and should therefore be kept up-to-date in the light of experience". That is very important.

I approve wholeheartedly of the code. I very much hope that it will enable children with special educational needs to acquire the education that they need to survive and flourish in a competitive world.

8.7 p.m.

Lord Campbell of Alloway

My Lords, I wish to associate myself wholly and without qualification with the glowing commendations of the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth). They are wholly merited. Indeed, it is a privilege to follow the noble Baroness, who chaired the ad hoc all-party committee on the drafting of the code. I had the privilege to serve under her. The committee was set up with the approval of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and my noble friend Lady Blatch, with whom it was also a privilege to serve.

The code of practice is introduced by the Education Act 1993 as a means of implementation. It was your Lordships' House which on an all-party basis supported the Private Member's Bill, which my noble friend Lady Blatch took on board giving full effect to the spirit of that Bill in the 1993 Act. In the result, the Government have without doubt produced a far superior regime, conceived in the mould of partnership, to that proposed in the Private Member's Bill. That tinkered with the old regime by amendment to the 1981 Act. However, as a result of the 1993 Act, under which the code arises implemented by regulation, a totally fresh start has been made. A new tribunal has been set up to entertain appeals by parents to ensure that regard is had to the provisions of the code, as explained by my noble friend the Minister, which, in appropriate circumstances, must be implemented. But a degree of flexibility is always maintained and always retained. The status of the code is fully explained in the foreword in a wholly clear and satisfactory manner.

As I understand it, the code will be amended from time to time and will be reissued in the light of practical experience. In the meantime, specific aspects of anxiety —for example, clarification as to who is responsible for the provision of speech therapy, subject to the ultimate responsibility being on the LEA—may be covered by ministerial circulars.

In that context, I refer also to the issue of guidelines to which the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy, has just referred. I am afraid that there is still a shortage of speech therapists.

It is just not possible to give adequate credit for the shared toil and trouble taken by the Minister and her department in the drafting and presentation of this code. First, it is written in good, plain, clear English which is readily understandable by all concerned and, in particular, by the parents. The diagrams for time limits for making statements and assessments at page 48 and the charts which show the action involved at the three school-based stages of the stage model at pages 33 to 35 are indeed most useful. The narrative which takes in reference to statutory provisions and regulations affords an excellent and—perhaps I may say as a lawyer in this sphere—accurate basis for the exposition of main principle. There is a comprehensive table of contents indexed to paragraphs in the code which serves as an index.

As has already been said, the code is a milestone in our fresh approach to children with special educational needs. The Government may take just pride in that notable achievement. Perhaps my noble friend Lady Blatch will allow me to offer my sincere appreciation for her own spirited public service in that regard.

8.13 p.m.

Lord Addington

My Lords, I find myself in almost total and rather boringly repetitious agreement with the two speakers who have preceded me. This very important document was produced in a spirit of co-operation. It has covered up many of the holes which were present in the provision of education for those with special educational needs. If such a spirit of co-operation were to continue, we should need far less time to discuss these matters in this Chamber as we should know exactly for what we were aiming and how we could achieve those aims.

The noble Baroness gave tremendous help to the ad hoc committee, in which I must admit I always felt I was something of a bit player, but to bask in reflected glory is better than to have no glory at all. The time and help that the noble Baroness gave helped enormously in regard to the production of this document.

I shall not detain your Lordships for very long. I am glad to see that dyslexia is at last officially recognised in a government circular. I am glad that the Government are moving forward towards recognising individual types of disability; and, indeed, they are listed in this document. I believe that that is a good step forward. If that attitude continues—that is, no longer talking about a whole but beginning to define it down to its parts—we shall solve many of the problems which occur in the very wide field of special needs education.

8.15 p.m.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch

My Lords, I join with other noble Lords in welcoming the code of practice which we are discussing this evening. I feel that I should take the opportunity to repeat just one regret which I mentioned during our debates on the 1993 Act, which is that it contains a presumption in favour of educating all special educational needs in an ordinary school unless the parents object strongly to that and maintain their objection. As I mentioned before, special educational needs is a very broad church, and as the father of a mentally handicapped child I feel sure that this presumption is misguided for mentally handicapped children. Indeed, since our debates last year, there is mounting evidence that mentally handicapped children may not always be accommodated in ordinary schools as comfortably as the authors of the policy hoped.

So with that view, the new tribunal is particularly welcome to parents such as myself who had a considerable battle to get their child accepted in a special residential school against the prevailing ideology of the local authorities and the social workers who wanted them to go to an ordinary school. And I would like to record my thanks, particularly to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway, for his part in perhaps giving birth to the concept of the new tribunal.

Parents who want their children to go to a special residential school but who come up against the prevailing ideology which I have mentioned will find the tribunal particularly useful. However, there is one assurance about the tribunal's powers which I would seek from my noble friend this evening. As I understand it, the general policy is that children with statements of special educational needs should, subject to the wishes of their parents, be educated alongside their peers in mainstream schools so long as this would be compatible with the child receiving the special education provision that he or she needs, with the interests of other children already in the school and with the efficient use of resources.

It is with the last caveat that I seek my noble friend's help. It seems to me that a local authority might refuse, for example, a place in a residential special school chosen by parents on the grounds of efficient use of resources, whereas in fact its objection might he more on ideological grounds and its belief that it wishes to keep the pressure on to educate the child in an ordinary school. My question to my noble friend is: can she confirm that the new tribunal, in its consideration of such a hypothetical case, will be able to challenge a local authority's decision in that regard; that is, will the new tribunal be able to satisfy itself that the efficient use of resources argument, if advanced by a local education authority, is indeed a genuine one in the case under consideration?

With that small question, I join with others in congratulating my noble friend on and thanking her for the wisdom that she has shown in bringing this code as far as it has got at the moment.

8.18 p.m.

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede

My Lords, I too should like to open by welcoming the draft code of practice and, in particular, I welcome the co-operative approach taken by the Department for Education in its writing.

So far as I am aware, the teachers' trade unions, the local authorities' representative associations and the Special Education Consortium, which itself represents some 140 organisations, have all commented favourably on the co-operation which they have received during the consultation period.

The fundamental principles of the draft code of practice are generally welcomed. They enshrine the existing good practice of a number of local education authorities and build on the concept of the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, of a continuum of need, requiring a carefully staged response, recognising shared responsibilities between LEAs and schools.

However, I shall register a note of caution. It is doubtful whether any local education authority has implemented all aspects of the draft code, although it is likely that all elements are in operation somewhere. The DFE has chosen to develop those fundamental principles into a long and detailed code. Teachers, governors and LEA officers will need time to understand and implement its provisions. Paragraph 7 of the "Foreword" is helpful when it states that, it would be unrealistic to expect all schools to have in place on 1st September 1994 procedures matching those set out in the code's guidance. Schools thereafter are expected to plan their provision in the light of the code". The Government must recognise that that leads to issues of teacher workload and school resources. It is ironic that the code, if approved by Parliament, will arrive in schools during the period of the failed 1994 national curriculum assessments. It will be a great pity if the code suffers the same fate as that first version of the national curriculum. The fact that there has not been a trial of the code of practice should make the DFE act with caution over its implementation. It should be ready to review the code without delay. The education system should not be subjected to another experiment like the national curriculum.

If noble Lords will forgive me, I should like to give a brief anecdote outlining the issue of resources. It concerns my local authority of Wandsworth. We have a primary school which has been earmarked for closure. The parents of children in that school have started removing them in advance of the school's closure. Teachers and council officers have found that reading standards in that school are beginning to rise. I believe that that has been attributed to the smaller class sizes. That helps all children but, in particular, it helps children who are at Stages 1, 2 and 3 of the code of practice scale. That shows that the general level of school funding will inevitably affect the extent to which the code of practice is brought into use.

In my opening remarks I broadly welcomed the draft code of practice and outlined some general concerns. However, I should now like to comment on some more specific concerns about various aspects of the code's implementation. As regards training, all the groups which have contacted me have highlighted the issue of training. All have said that the DFE will have to respond clearly to the training needs implicit within the draft code of practice if it is to work successfully.

The SEN co-ordinators in some schools, perhaps even in many, will have been appointed, but few will have the necessary skills to meet the demands of the code of practice. Moreover, schools' governors will need a far better knowledge and understanding of special educational needs to enable them to fulfil their duties in relation to their school's policies and practices in special educational needs. At the very least, funding should be provided through the 1995–96 GEST budget. I think that the noble Baroness alluded to that in her opening remarks. However, I believe that the DFE should give consideration to funding fully that training itself for a few years.

There has been an allusion to the monitoring of the implementation of the code of practice. Again, it is a second issue raised by all the groups which contacted me that are concerned with the production of the code of practice. Mr. Eric Forth, in evidence to the Select Committee, suggested that the code of practice will be monitored by parents, governors, LEA inspectors, Ofsted and the SEN Tribunal. Governors and LEAs may become more concerned with keeping spending within limits rather than the effective implementation of the code of practice. Ofsted will usually be in schools on a four-yearly cycle which is hardly sufficient to monitor the code of practice. That leaves parents and the SEN Tribunal to carry out the monitoring job. They will need help and I suggest that the DFE should do that by giving Ofsted a monitoring remit beyond providing schools with advice in the run-in period for the code of practice.

The noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), mentioned language and speech therapy. It seems to be a perennial concern of those involved in special educational needs that there should be adequate liaison among local education authorities, health authorities, trusts and social services departments. I believe that there is a successful model in Scotland to call upon. The education authorities in Scotland receive funds from the Scottish office to buy speech and language therapy from the health authorities. I am told that that approach works. While the code of practice is, I am told, incapable of amendment at this stage, I hope that the Minister will realise the importance of resolving that issue.

There must be doubts about whether the local education authorities have sufficiently strong multidisciplinary support services to meet SENs at the enhanced level implied by the draft code of practice. Examples of the reductions in support services and specialist teachers abound. That, together with the trend towards smaller and unitary authorities in the English counties and in Wales, leads me to fear that there is a real danger that many LEAs will not have the breadth of support service provision to fulfil the intentions of the code of practice. Ad hoc joint boards, or some other arrangement, may have to be made for special education. But I would question whether that is the best background in which to operate the code of practice.

I should like to conclude by reiterating that I believe that the code of practice is a good document. The shortfalls to which I have alluded by no means outweigh the correctness of the code's general approach. We welcome the code of practice.

8.26 p.m.

Baroness Blatch

My Lords, I am enormously grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken and for what now appears to be a universal acceptance of what I believe to be a most important piece of work. I should like to add to my noble friend's comments and pay a tribute to work done by my officials in the department. They have worked with great sensitivity and great professionalism; indeed, they have undertaken some very painstaking work as regards the code of practice which has enabled me to bring it before the House and my right honourable friend to do so in the other place.

I. turn now to some of the individual points that were made during the course of the debate. I should like, first, to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), for the very generous comments that she made and to refer to one or two of her concerns. She mentioned the effective policing of the code. I believe that I probably made it clear in my opening statement that that would be a most important part of the process. We shall involve Ofsted, the Audit Commission, and there will be special studies. Indeed, I promise also that we will keep Parliament fully involved.

The noble Baroness was concerned about the complaints system and referred to parents making complaints. She said that she hoped that any complaint that was brought to the attention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State would be taken seriously. I can say that any complaint which makes its way to my right honourable friend will be taken seriously. However, I hope that the noble Baroness will agree with me that the establishment of a code will mean that complaints will not find their way to my right honourable friend's desk. It is important to do what we can to encourage effective partnership as regards all the agencies. However, as the noble Baroness pointed out, there is a reference on page 12 of the code to a gateway to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. If that is used, we shall ensure that parents' views are taken most seriously.

The noble Baroness also mentioned the fact that the complaint only refers to teaching and she wanted to know the position as regards the LEAs. In addition to what I have already said in the course of my statement today. I should like to point out that the system is very much more transparent now. It is not possible for an LEA not to honour its obligations either under the Act or having regard to the code without notice. There will be the annual inspections of at least one-quarter of the schools every year so that the Ofsted registered inspectors will be visiting and revisiting schools every four years, together with the special studies that we are carrying out and the feedback of information which we shall receive from the monitoring system. Therefore, we shall be able to pick up very quickly where local authorities are not honouring their obligations under the code. Moreover, because we have put a time limit on the time during which the statements have to be dealt with, it is to be hoped that any delay in that respect will come to light.

There was also a reference to speech therapy. That is an important point that was also referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede. The code is clear as regards the responsibilities of the health service. Local authorities may expect the health service to provide a speech therapy service and of course local education authorities have ultimate responsibility for making special educational provision but they can still look to the National Health Service to provide. Again I think all noble Lords realise that there is a crossover here—sometimes it may be a teaching and sometimes it may be a non-teaching provision. But the important thing is that there is effective partnership to make sure that the particular needs of a child are properly met.

The Act contains, after extensive consultation, a duty on the National Health Service to co-operate with local authorities. This, of course, is qualified. We cannot, nor can we expect, LEAs to dictate medical judgment of use of National Health Service moneys. But again, permeating the whole of this Act and the code of practice are the needs of the child, particularly those children who need special speech therapists. We are now putting aside money to help to make those partnerships more effective and to make sure that the partnerships between the local authorities, the schools and the speech therapy service work more. effectively.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for his complimentary remarks. We were all pleased to see dyslexia mentioned by name in the code. There are two points here. First, there is a very large number of young people who are affected by dyslexia. It often underpins under-performance of children in school. Because the whole force behind both the code of practice and Section 3 of the Act is early identification, that is important. But the other important point to make about the naming of dyslexia and one or two other conditions (and I have in mind a condition such as autism) is that we must remember that this is not an inclusive list. What we are talking about is meeting the needs of all children irrespective of their particular condition. We are talking about meeting the needs of all children with special needs.

It is appropriate that my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway should remind us where this all started. It all started with his Bill and I am delighted that we have not only subsumed his Bill but have, I believe, gone further. I thank him for his generous comments tonight. He has been relentless in pursuing all his concerns and I think the code is the better for it. I shall return to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), about complaints to the Secretary of State. I should put it on record that the purpose of the guide, like the code, is to promote partnership and the amicable resolution of problems and differences between the key agents. As I have said, there is a reference on page 12 to parents' rights to complain to the Secretary of State, and there is a clear introduction to the tribunal. There will also be a leaflet for parents which, as I said, will be as user friendly as it possibly can be. It would be helpful to know whether the noble Baroness is satisfied with that response and if she is prepared—as I hope we all are now—to allow this code to go forward. We can adjust the foreword at any time if we believe it needs adjusting, and we can come before both Houses of Parliament by means of a simple measure in order to adjust the code. However, I think it is important to have some period of stability to see that the code is working and so that we obtain a body of evidence to underpin any changes rather than chop and change. I believe the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, referred to the importance of a period of stability.

My noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch again returned to the whole vexed issue of integration. I can tell my noble friend that it will be possible for the tribunal to question and to challenge where a local authority prays in aid expenditure or the cost of a provision. It will be absolutely essential for that to be taken into account but also for it to be justified. I can give my noble friend that assurance. What at the end of the day is absolutely essential is that parents make a preference; that there is a presumption in favour of that preference; and that it will be for the local authority to justify why it does not meet that preference if it goes before the tribunal. But the tribunal's prime responsibility in all of this is to make sure that the provision that is made at the end of the day, following a determination, is wholly consistent with the needs of a child with special needs. I hope that that is helpful to my noble friend.

The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, was concerned about implementation and made references to the difficult implementation in the early days of the national curriculum. There is no comparison here. What we are talking about here is a code of practice that encodes good practice. There are local authorities out there working very well, and this codifies that good practice. We have gone further than that and firmed it up where necessary. We have said that there will be funding for training. We recognise that. We have said that we will put money aside for developing effective partnerships. We have recognised the importance of training for co-ordinators. We will use the cascading system, where people are trained and become the trainers within the system. That will be important.

However, the noble Lord seemed to misunderstand the code when he talked about leaving monitoring to parents, children and teachers themselves. I think I have made it clear that the monitoring will be through Ofsted, the Audit Commission, and will no doubt also receive enormous feedback from the annual registered inspections of a quarter of our schools every single year. So we will know from 25 per cent. of our schools just how this code is working.

The noble Lord made an important point about unitary authorities and the transition from two-tier authorities to unitary authorities. That is an important point and it is important that that is taken into account when the changes are made. I believe the noble Lord's party supports unitary authorities and indeed supports the smaller authorities—the district authorities—be-coming unitary authorities. But it is also important that, when the Local Government Commission—this is part of its obligation and its remit —advocates unitary status for an authority, it must make sure that all the services and all the obligations, and certainly all the statutory obligations, are properly catered for by the receiving authority. Sometimes that will mean working cooperatively with other local authorities.

I hope that I have been able to answer all the questions which have been raised. If I have not I will of course write to noble Lords. The code of practice is a major new departure. It marks the Government's determination to secure a fair deal for children with special educational needs and to ensure that they fulfil their educational potential and subsequently take their place as productive and fully integrated members of society. I believe that the code will be seen as a landmark in special educational needs policy, that it will be widely welcomed and that it will be a success. I commend it to your Lordships' House.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House adjourned at twenty-three minutes before nine o'clock.