Handicapped Children (Hansard, 14 February 1985)

§ Sir Keith Joseph

The Voluntary Council for Handicapped Children has performed a valuable service in preparing the report. However, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and I have concluded that it is not necessary to establish an advisory committee in order to safeguard and to promote the interests of pupils with special educational needs. I have written as follows to the Senior Officer of the Voluntary Council for Handicapped ChildrenMrs Philippa Russell Senior Officer Voluntary Council for Handicapped Children 8 Wakley Street London EC1V 7QE 14 February 1985 Dear Mrs. Russell, Thank you for your letter of 29 June enclosing a copy of the report "A National Advisory Committee for Special Educational Needs?" Nicholas Edwards and I are grateful to the Voluntary Council for Handicapped Children for the valuable service they have performed in preparing this thorough review of the question. As the report makes clear, most of the organisations consulted by your working party felt the need for some type of national body in this field. So far as the replies were specific however there was considerable variation in the views expressed about the nature and the functions of such a body. It therefore fell to the working party to consider a number of possible options and the report recommends the establishment of a body whose functions would be rather different from those of the former Advisory Committee on Handicapped children. Its main task would abe to monitor the implementation of the 1981 Education Act and the ideas underlying it, to promote interdisciplinary co-operation, and to help to overcome difficulties. The Committee would also offer advice to the Secretaries of State; and would promote research and development, publish reports and hold seminars and conferences. The report estimates the Committee's annual budget at about £150,000. We have looked very carefully at each of these functions and are not convinced that the case has been made for creating an Advisory Committee. To take first the question of monitoring the implementation of the 1981 Act: this Act imposes certain duties on local education authorities and other statutory authorities and has some implications for voluntary bodies. The responsibility 224W for ensuring that these functions are carried out properly rests firmly with Ministers who have the machinery — their Departments and HM Inspectorates—for obtaining information and advice. Clearly we shall need to draw on other sources from time to time but it is clear that the Secretaries of State do not need an additional national agency for this purpose; and to create one would run the risk of confusing lines of responsibility. It is true that the written evidence submitted to the working party drew attention to problems experienced in the early stages of implementing the 1981 Act. Many of these, however seem to arise from a lack of co-operation at local level between statutory authorities — a problem which the Warnock Committee had identified under the previous arrangements—and it seems to us that a solution to this sort of problem is more likely to be achieved by the efficient working of appropriate machinery at local and regional levels rather than by a national committee. It was inevitable that there should have been some difficulties in the early stages of the implementation of the 1981 Act, particularly in view of the changed obligations imposed on local authorities. As you probably know the Government have commissioned a research project by the University of London Institute of Education on developments following the 1981 Act, which is due to produce its report in 1986. There would, we think, be a real danger of confusion if another Government sponsored body were also looking at the implementation of the 1981 Act. The second function envisaged for the Committee would be the traditional one of offering advice to Ministers. Although Ministers have their "in house" advisers there are many occasions when we need to sound the opinions of a wider group of people outside the Departments; and when the outside interests feel the need to let us know their views. It is however not clear to us how the creation of a committee, by itself, would add to our ability to obtain advice from our Departments, HM Inspectorates and the voluntary organisations. We already have a great deal of direct contact with the voluntary organisations which I know they value. If the voluntary organisations wish to approach Ministers, either individually, or collectively through organisations such as your own, they know they are welcome to do so. It is not at all clear that the interests of either side would be served by interposing between us a small body of individuals faced with the task of trying to interpret often widely varying views and trying to achieve sufficient common ground to give advice to Ministers. If the Government needs advice on a particular topic, it is always open to them to establish a committee for a particular purpose. It is perhaps significant that the major reports on handicapped children were made, not by the Standing Advisory Committee on Handicapped Children, but by groups set up for a specific purpose. The third broad function envisaged for the Advisory Committee would be to promote research and development. Once again the question arises as to what an Advisory Committee could do that is not capable of being done already through other channels. At present the Departments and the voluntary bodies commission research; the Departments, HM Inspectorate, local education authorities and voluntary bodies hold seminars and conferences. At the beginning of this year the Department of Education and Science had allocated over £800,000 for research into children with special educational needs. A further £300,000 has now been allotted for curriculum work. It is doubtful whether an Advisory Committee could argue that a larger share of the research budget should be devoted to this field. Most of these research projects are carried out by university departments or institutes of education since that is where the expertise lies. An Advisory Committee would not be able to carry out the research itself and would need to commission it from other bodies. It would rely heavily, as do the Departments, on reports produced by HM Inspectorate and on seminars held by the Inspectorate to publicise good practice. Nicholas Edwards and I believe that it was right for the Government to provide financial support to enable this question to be reviewed by an independent body: and I was grateful for the opportunity to discuss the report with Lady Faithfull and others. We are, however, not convinced that the case has been made out for the establishment of an Advisory Committee at this time. This does not, however, rule out the possibility that we may wish to reconsider the position later; given that a number of the initiatives mentioned in this letter are due to produce results in the latter part of 1986, the time for a review might be two or three years from now. 225W I am sending a copy of this letter to Lady Faithfull, Mr. Hannam MP and Mr. Cooke. Yours sincerely, Keith Joseph.