HC Deb 19 April 2004 vol 420 cc49-50W
Bob Spink

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many children attended severe learning disability special schools in each of the last five years. [162909]

Margaret Hodge

Information relating to special schools with approval to make provision for severe learning difficulties is shown in the following table. Schools may be approved to make provision for more than one area of special need.

Special schools1: Schools approved to make provision for severe learning difficulties—position as at Jan wry each year—England
Number of schools Total pupils2
1999 347 25,064
2000 350 25,153
2001 449 35,590
2002 445 37,302
2003 496 41,985
1Includes maintained and non-maintained special schools.
2Includes all pupils in the school, not just those pupils with severe learning difficulties.
Source:
Annual Schools' Census

Bob Spink

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many children attended moderate learning difficulty special schools in each of the last five years. [163112]

Mr. Miliband

Information relating to special schools with formal approval to make provision for moderate learning difficulties is shown in the table. Schools may be approved to make provision for more than one area of special need.

Special Schools1: Schools approved to make provision for moderate learning difficulties— position as at January each year—England
Number of schools Total pupils2
1999 354 39.071
2000 336 37,592
2001 454 47.832
2002 472 51,036
2003 489 51,273
1Includes maintained and non-maintained special schools.
2Includes all pupils in the school, not just those pupils with moderate learning difficulties.
Source:
Annual Schools' Census

Jonathan Shaw

To ask the secretary of State for Education and Skills pursuant to his Answer of 22 March 2004,Official Report, column 630W, on special educational needs, if he will make a statement on each of the four cases the Special Educational Needs and Disability Panel has reviewed, the reasons for each being reviewed and the subsequent outcomes. [164758]

Margaret Hodge

As stated in the previous Answer, the SEN and Disability Tribunal has identified four cases since September 2002 in which panels have reviewed decisions because they might have included obvious errors. Over the same period panels have reviewed five decisions because the interests of justice appeared to require it. In a further two cases the Tribunal reviewed decisions because there might have been an error resulting from administrative mistakes.

The following table summarises the cases reviewed and the outcomes.

Review date Reasons Outcome
3 December, 2002 Obvious error Decision set aside
8 January, 2003 Obvious error Decision amended
3 February, 2003 Interests of justice Decision stood
9 April, 2003 Interests of justice Decision amended
9 May 2003 Administrative error Decision stood
19 September, 2003 Obvious error/interests of justice Decision amended
18 November, 2003 Administrative error Decision stood
24 January, 2004 Obvious error/Interests of justice Decision amended
24 February, 2004 Interests of justice Decision stood