Education Bill

Lord Addington

This group of amendments brings us to the subject of integration. There are several question marks over this subject. Amendment No. 199ZA is a sensible amendment as it suggests access audits to determine what the needs are. My name is added to Amendment No. 201. I believe the gremlins have got into the Marshalled List as I do not believe that my name should have been added to the amendment. When we are considering integration we have to be careful to ensure that individual needs are met. There has been a movement to integrate everyone with special needs into mainstream education as the only way forward. I believe that cannot be right as pupils with special educational needs have many different types of problem.

It is absurd, however, to exclude someone from a school simply because he is in a wheelchair. Ramps should be provided. However, it is questionable whether someone who is badly dyslexic and who has not received the same level of tuition as his peers should be forced to enter a mainstream school. That pupil may feel that he is a failure. We discussed this matter earlier. Such a pupil may have an emotional reaction to such integration. Any child who suffers from a perception learning problem may feel isolated from his fellows and from the learning process in a mainstream school.

I hope the Committee will bear in mind that there are no absolute rules in this matter. There is no blanket rule for everyone. We should not permit any attack on special schools as there will always be certain pupils who require special schools. As teaching techniques develop and staff receive more training in this area, the role of special schools may diminish. If special units are attached to mainstream schools, a very small percentage of pupils may attend special schools. Nevertheless, there will always be a role for 514 specialist teaching in special schools. This group of amendments concerns the concept of how far we should take integration. We must always remember that individual needs must be the bottom line of any consideration of this subject.

Baroness Darcy (de Knayth)

I welcome the debate on integration. It is essential that we move forward on this matter, although we debated integration on an earlier bunch of amendments. The 1981 Act made integration possible but there was no compulsion to integrate. However, the danger at present is that we might be going backwards with the so-called parental veto on Clause 152(1). At present I am in correspondence with the Minister as I am seeking clarification of the Government's intentions. I hope that I shall eventually obtain a positive response. However, I was quite worried about what the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, said on Clause 152(1) when she spoke much earlier on a large and disparate group of amendments.

I hope very much that the noble Baroness or the noble Lord, Lord Henley, if he deals with that clause, will agree to meet me and discuss the matter outside the Chamber as it is extremely complicated. I should be grateful for that assurance.

I shall also speak to Amendment No. 201 in my name, which gives the smallest possible nudge towards integration possible. However, I shall speak first to Amendment No. 199A. I shall be as brief as I can, but I have kept quiet all evening because I knew that I would take a little time on this subject.

Amendment No. 199A provides the strongest commitment to integration. It has a great deal to recommend it because it includes a commitment, and without such a commitment I do not believe that we shall make much progress. It refers to planning. That is crucial. I have seen in Hounslow how successful a calm, carefully planned but committed move towards integration can be. I spoke to pupils there who all said how beneficial it had been for them and that the education had stretched them immensely.

The reference to a "compelling" reason provides a let-out so that when an individual child needs a limited period of special provision that can be provided but there is still a commitment to integration.

On the question of integration, I was very struck by the experience of a mother with a disability, who was very much a survivor rather than a beneficiary of the special school system, who came to talk to the All-Party Disablement Group. Her daughter has a similar genetic inherited disability and goes to a mainstream school. The mother told us how deep the segregation had been in her case. She would travel to and from the special school in her special transport, never mixing with able-bodied peers. She lived a parallel existence in a parallel world. That struck me very forcibly.

The lady who is the joint co-ordinator of Parents in Partnership provided another very good description of the position. She said: Friendship and a feeling of belonging are as important to a disabled child/young person as it is to an able-bodied youngster. Community is part of life, and they deserve to be part of the whole… When you segregate. you effectively segregate the whole family, you segregate the disabled child 515 from their peers, and the rest of the family from the extended family of connections which naturally occur through mainstream education". The child with a special need needs the model of the "ordinary" child. The latter learns very much from his contemporary with a special need. If they can grow up and laugh and play and fight together they have a far better chance of understanding and co-existing happily than if they are suddenly thrust face to face in uneasy integration into a harsh, competitive adult world.

I shall now move on swiftly and speak briefly to Amendment No. 201. Before doing so I should like to say that I support Amendment No. 203 in the names of my noble friend Lady Warnock and the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull. It relates to children with statements in special schools. I wonder whether the Government are now collecting figures relating to children without statements in special schools. Figures used to be collected and published, but that stopped. I believe that the figures are again to be published and I should be interested to know whether that is the case.

Amendment No. 201 would ensure that LEAs had regard to the potential benefits which provision for a statemented child might bring to other persons when considering the efficient use of resources. That does not mean only other pupils. It includes teachers, governors and visitors with disability, particularly now that schools are used out of school hours for other activities.

I should like to give an example which has been provided by IPSEA. Perhaps I should declare that I am a director of IPSEA. The example is the case of Lawrence. Lawrence was refused a place in an ordinary secondary school because his LEA claimed that adapting the school to permit him access would not represent "an efficient use of resources". Lawrence is physically disabled and relies on calipers and a wheelchair for mobility. The main adaptation needed to the school was the installation of a stair lift. Lawrence and his mother visited the school, after his refusal, and discovered that there was another boy in a wheelchair already on the school roll. That boy, Ben, was being taught some of the time on his own, in the footwell at the bottom of a staircase. On occasions, Lawrence's mother was told, other students would physically lift Ben up and down stairs. Clearly any adaptations made to admit Lawrence would have brought immediate and equivalent benefit to Ben, in strict accounting terms thus doubling the efficiency of the expenditure on a stair lift. That was an example of another child who was already at the school, not even a potential future pupil, who would benefit.

Therefore, I hope that I shall receive an encouraging reply in respect of this very modest amendment. It is important. If I do not receive a satisfactory reply I may return to the matter at a later stage, although I shall not move this amendment at this stage because it forms part of a huge group of amendments.

Baroness Faithfull

I should like to speak to Amendment No. 203 in my name. The purpose of the amendment is to prevent a child who has neither been assessed nor issued with a statement being placed in a special school unless that school is a hospital school.

The Secretary of State would expect that children in special schools would normally be afforded the protection of a statement. However, it is clear that some LEAs are ignoring that advice. That was highlighted in a recent study by the Centre for Studies on Integration in Education. There are a number of concerns about children placed in a special school without a statement.

Without a statement a child's case is not reviewed, whereas if the child is statemented its case must be reviewed from time to time. Equally, the child's case must be monitored. Some children remain in residential schools when they have so improved that they could return to their homes and ordinary school. Without monitoring they might not return home. We feel that it is very important that it should be clearly understood that every child who is placed in a special school should be statemented.

Baroness Warnock

I very strongly support that amendment.

Baroness Hamwee

As the noble Lord, Lord Judd, said in introducing this group of amendments that there is evidence of head teachers being reluctant to accept into schools children whose needs do not easily fit into the existing pattern of school life, I wonder whether he could comment on whether that is a matter of resources rather than of other difficulties. It is my experience that heads are very open to the needs of children who require special assistance, whether of a physical kind or in the form of additional teaching. However, there is the usual problem of juggling resources and taking a decision when a school's budget is being set as to which of a number of competing priorities will win the day.

Lord Judd

It is perfectly proper that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has raised that question. There are many dedicated head teachers with a great sense of social commitment who would move heaven and earth to accommodate such people. Unfortunately, they are not everywhere. It is partly a problem of resources but it is also partly another problem of pressure concerning performance, leagues and all the rest, which I do not think we should go into now, although that is a very relevant issue.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch

I should like to speak to Amendment No. 200 which is in my name. The amendment seeks to differentiate between mentally handicapped children and all other children with special educational needs. It seeks to exonerate them from the presumption in favour of educating them in a school for normal children which seems to exist in Clause 152.

My authority, such as it is, for moving the amendment is, first, that I am the father of a 12 year-old girl who suffers from Down's syndrome and, 517 secondly, that I recently chaired the Special Education Needs sub-committee of the Teacher Education Committee of the Council for National Academic Awards. In that latter capacity I entered the world of the academic special education needs specialists. I have to say that I found it rather crowded with people who hold lots of well-meaning theories about children with one kind of handicap or another but who were rather short on personal experience in the field upon which they pontificated and upon which they often wielded very great influence.

By "personal experience" I mean actually suffering from a handicap themselves or caring for a relative who did. I was surprised, for instance, to discover that no other member of the sub-committee which I chaired had a mentally handicapped close relative or indeed a close relative with any form of what most of us would regard as a special education need. I was further surprised to learn that the more enthusiastic of the SEN enthusiasts, of which my committee seem to be entirely composed, believed that nearly all children should be regarded as having a special education need at some time in their education. I suppose that this may have been a simple empire-building exercise; but it opened my eyes to the breadth of the possible meaning of the expression, "special education needs".

Be that as it may, nowhere was the lack of real experience to which I have referred more obvious than in the case of the experts dealing with mental handicap. One measure of the depth of this ignorance is that these are largely the sort of people who have decreed that the term "mental handicap" is now somehow unkind or inappropriate. They have instead invented the expression "people with learning disabilities" and woe betide anyone who dares not to use it.

It is of course true that mentally handicapped children and adults suffer from learning disabilities. But their condition goes far wider and deeper than that, and to pretend that it does not by sticking a cosy label on them helps no one or anything except, I suppose, the consciences or perhaps the subconscious of the experts in question.

I must emphasise that I am seeking to exclude only mentally handicapped, statemented children from ordinary schools unless of course their parents actually want them to go there and unless the school in question can really provide the unique care that mentally handicapped children need at school.

I do understand what the Bill and the other amendments which refer to special education needs are trying to do for all other categories of special education needs children, and I am not sufficiently expert in these other areas to comment on them. I confess that I fear there may be an element of wishful thinking even in the attempt to force the pace of integration into ordinary schools of children with other categories of special education need. I suppose I fear this because normal children can be quite cruel and in the present indisciplined state of many of our schools I worry that the disadvantaged will be subject to considerable bullying and unkindness when no one in authority is looking.

518 But the Bill itself, together with the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady David—to whom, together with my noble friend the Minister I wish to add my condolences—and by the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, my noble friend Lady Faithfull, and others, all amount to an honourable attempt to integrate the physically handicapped, the dyslexic, those suffering from violent or unusually difficult home backgrounds and others into our normal schools. But most of the children in those categories can keep up with the lessons for normal children, at least mentally. Indeed, they often outshine normal children academically. And, what is more, they can answer the other children back if they are unkindly teased. In short, they can largely hold their own in the playground and they do not hold the other children back in the classroom. We cannot say that of the mentally handicapped.

Having criticised the Bill and the other amendments to it in this category for not seeing that mental handicap should be treated differently from other kinds of special education needs, I hope that it will be helpful if I say where I believe the emphasis should be laid for mentally handicapped children. I am in no doubt at all that many, if not most of them, are at their happiest in a good special school or a sheltered community type of school, one of which my own daughter is lucky enough to attend.

I mention this also because our well intentioned community care policy (for which I appreciate that the Minister is in no way responsible) is beginning to work against such schools. I suppose that this was to be expected because our community care policy is the elder sister of the philosophy which I am criticising here. My own view of our community care policy is that it is fundamentally flawed because there actually is not much of a community where we are forcing the mentally ill and the mentally handicapped to go, and even where there is, I am afraid that it does not care as much as the authors of the policy hoped it might. One result of these two attractive but naive sisters working in tandem is that local authorities are beginning to refuse to fund mentally handicapped children at least in special non-maintained schools, using such irrelevant excuses as that the schools in question do not stick closely enough to the national curriculum.

I suspect that this sort of attitude is also strengthened by the Government's very regrettable and misinformed decision to leave sheltered and village communities off the list of provision which local authorities are encouraged to support.

I know that my noble friend cannot answer for much of this latter point, criticising our community care policy, and indeed I made the point personally to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health only yesterday. But our Departments of Health, Social Security, and Education, and our local education authorities are inevitably intertwined in our policies for the mentally handicapped. I trust therefore that the Committee will not think that I have strayed too far from the specific purposes of the Bill. I am merely trying to show how good intentions towards the mentally handicapped can pave the way to a very 519 private hell which only those particularly unfortunate people must travel. I very much hope that the Committee will not force our mentally handicapped children down that road, and that the Committee will therefore feel able to support the amendment.

Lord Glenamara

Perhaps I may—

Baroness Cox

My name is linked with that of the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, on the amendment. I should like to follow him, since it follows logically, in support of what he said. Perhaps I may take this opportunity to say how much I agree with the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, in his contribution.

I speak not as a parent of a mentally handicapped child but as a nurse who has had the privilege of caring for many people who are profoundly handicapped. I have also had the privilege of being a patron of Restcare, an organisation established by and for parents with profoundly handicapped children.

Like my noble friend Lord Pearson I make no apology for using the term "mentally handicapped" although I know that it is not at the moment the professionally correct terminology. I do so because the parents of the families in which there are profoundly mentally handicapped children have told me that they prefer that title because it does not confuse the issue. I therefore use that terminology out of deference to their wishes and their concerns.

Of course I respect the principles and policies underlying the theme of integration. I recognise that for many young people integration has been a very good thing. I also recognise that when the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth) speaks about schools for children with special education needs in an earlier era, perhaps much was left to be desired. We have made much progress both in mainstream education in providing for those children and in the schools which still cater for them.

I have two worries about the Bill as presently drafted. That is why I support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Pearson. I am worried about the presumption in favour of integration: the presumption that integration is the most appropriate policy for all children with special educational needs. In this amendment our concern is especially for the mentally handicapped.

I am worried that the clause that we are discussing puts an onus on parents to make a special case for their children to be treated specially. They have to make the case for them not to go into mainstream education. Many parents have been subjected to enormous pressure from professional advisers and local education authorities to send their children to mainstream schools. Some of them have succumbed to that pressure against their better instincts and deep knowledge of their own children. Over and above that, it must surely be obvious to anyone that while integration may suit many children with a mental handicap—and I rejoice for them—for others it can be a recipe for unhappiness. Day after day, week after week, month after month they are brought up against the agonising reality that they do not learn as quickly 520 as other children. They are brought up against the agonising reality that no matter how much people try to integrate them, they are different. They are disadvantaged. They are in a situation of real unhappiness and isolation.

In the past couple of days I happened to mention this amendment to a teacher in a secondary school in the North of England. The school had a special regional unit for pupils with special educational needs. He described how a pupil with mental handicap had been put in a mainstream class. Because the teacher could not cope, the pupil was repeatedly sent outside the classroom. My friend described how he would find that pupil sitting alone in the library, unhappy and demoralised. That is isolation, not integration, in the concept of mainstream education.

I was speaking to another person who is chairman of governors at a primary school. He described in vivid terms how six of the pupils in that primary school who are all mentally handicapped are subjected to quite frequent bullying. I do not say that that happens everywhere. There are many places in mainstream education—and I respect them wholeheartedly—where pupils with mental handicap are integrated, and they flourish. There are many examples of good practice. But the examples I have given are not atypical; and they are real. The law is there to protect against bad practice. It is there to promote good practice, but it must protect primarily against bad practice. Over and above that, there is the inherent problem that many children with mental handicap may be far happier in a more sheltered and more specialised environment where they are enabled and encouraged to realise their potential with the protection that a special school can afford.

I should like to emphasise that I believe that parents know best. The Government are committed to parental choice. I believe that we should offer a genuine, open, unbiased choice without this preconception, this presumption, that integration is always best and should always be chosen unless there are real reasons against it. I am in favour of integration where appropriate, but I do not think that it should be the main presumption. While it is the main presumption it has repercussions in terms of policies—of promoting funding policies favouring integration against special provision. It also puts great pressures on parents who already have to suffer the tragedy of having a mentally handicapped child. My support for the amendment is based on a belief that the choice for those parents should be open. It should not be prejudiced at the beginning in favour of a presumption that they ought to send their children into mainstream education. That is why I would like the amendment to be supported. It does not build in that presumption and that pressure.

Lord Glenamara

Earlier in the day I said that I would raise again the question of parental choice. I wish to put a view which is rather different from that of the noble Baroness, Lady Cox. I do not believe that the presumption she talked about is a reality in most local authority areas.

521 I have a friend whose daughter has a son with Down's syndrome. I believe that Down's syndrome is one of the saddest disabilities of all. The little boy is four-and-a-half years of age. At present he attends a mainstream nursery school. His parents have avoided the statement process which would be his only passport to assistance, because the only provision would have meant a long daily ride to school in a bus. His parents, like many parents throughout the United Kingdom, I have discovered, want the right of choice between a mainstream school or a special school.

I believe, and I speak as somebody who started life as a teacher, that the educational needs of a child with learning difficulties can be met in any school, provided that the local authority supplies the resources. In the school of which the noble Baroness spoke, the resources were obviously not provided.

Baroness Cox

I did say that one of the schools to which I referred had a special regional unit for pupils with special educational needs, and that was still occurring. So resources were not the issue.

Lord Glenamara

In the case of the boy sitting in the library I am sure that the resources were not provided. Only local authorities have the power to allocate such resources and the power to decide which school a special needs child shall attend. Therefore, parents have no right of choice of school. A child may be sent to a school which they believe to be not at all suitable. That is happening.

The National Down's Syndrome Association finds that its members often have to fight for years against the local authority to find a mainstream placement. I agree that some parents do not want a mainstream placement. Some want a special school. All I am saying is that the choice ought to be there. Most parents do not want their children to mix only with children suffering from the same disability. Those of us who have been teachers know that children often learn far more from each other than they do from their teachers. But if all the children suffer from Down's syndrome they will not learn very much from each other. In the case of that disability, it is a disaster for their speech and development.

Unfortunately, there is nothing at all in Part III of the Bill which will help. There are new appeal tribunals, which I welcome. They are long overdue. There is a right for parents to state a preference for a school, and I welcome that. However, the local authority does not have to grant that preference. More importantly, parents will have no option but to choose a school where the resources have been provided by the local authority. The Bill strengthens the hand of local authorities and their special schools.

I repeat the point I made earlier. Parents are newly granted an absolute right to have their child sent to a special school. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Henley, will reply, but if he reads the clause he will discover that if English words mean anything they carry that meaning. However, there is no corresponding right for a mainstream placement.

The local authority's duty to arrange for a mainstream place continues to be subject to three provisos which are set out in Clause 152(2) (a), (b) and 522 (c); namely, that the child's needs can be met there, that the placement will not affect the efficient education of other children, and that it will be an efficient use of resources to send the child there.

With regard to the last of those provisos, while the local authorities continue to pour resources into special schools, it can never be, in the strict sense, financially efficient to integrate in any one child's case. The other two points, (a) and (b), are inevitably interpreted subjectively by the local authority.

Finally, I point out that, alarmingly, new plans come into force next year to hand over financial management to all special schools. The LMS funding formula is based on the number of places available rather than the number of pupils. LEAs are obliged to pay for a fixed number of places. They will therefore have a financial incentive, to say the least, to fill those places. So the situation will get worse. It will become ossified, with the special schools filling the centre of the stage.

I should like to make it absolutely clear that I am not opposed to special schools. At present I am the president of a college that trains disabled people. I followed the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, in the post. She knows very well the college to which I refer. I am very proud of it and I am proud of many special schools. However, the fact remains that for the past few years those involved in education have been trying to persuade parents that integration is the right thing and that is the way to treat their children. They have accepted our point of view. All they want is a choice.

I have deliberately not tabled an amendment on this point but I hope that the noble Baroness—I am sorry that she is not in the Chamber—will think about the matter and before Report stage come up with some measure to help those parents. I am quite prepared to put forward an amendment at that stage but I would much rather that the Government brought forward an amendment to deal with the point.

Baroness Masham of Ilton

I should like to ask the Minister a question about Amendment No. 203 with regard to statements. If a statement will benefit a child, why do some children have statements and other children do not? Is it because the local authorities are overloaded and not able to cope? I should like an answer from the Minister as it is very difficult to make legislation when one is not sure why some children are without statements.

I go along with the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara. I believe that choice is needed. Some children do not thrive in a school and if they are unhappy perhaps they should go to a school where they do thrive. I believe that choice gives satisfaction.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch

Before my noble friend answers that question, perhaps I could pick up on three points made by the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara. He said that he was speaking in the light of his experience of the four year-old son of a friend. I must suggest that that is rather different to dealing with a member of his own family whom he may not know so well.

523 Secondly, he made it clear that he was speaking for the Down's Syndrome Parents' Association, or that he supported to some extent the views that it was putting forward. Most of the members of the Down's Syndrome Parents' Association favour a normal placement for their children, but they are by no means the majority. I should be very surprised if they comprised even half the number of parents who have a Down's Syndrome child. When one allies that pressure to the pressure that he admitted comes from educationists toward mainstream education for their children, noble Lords will understand the kind of pressure that a parent comes under in order to put his or her child in a mainstream school. That is exactly the pressure that my wife and I suffered in facing that dilemma. I am extremely glad to say that we were mature enough and able to avoid it.

Lord Dormand of Easington

I shall be very brief. I was very moved by the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson. He was absolutely right to say—though not in these exact words—that there is no substitute for direct experience. He can speak from his personal experience, as some of us cannot. Whatever happens in this or any other Bill, I hope that that will not be forgotten.

This Government and previous governments, urged by a number of noble Lords, have made some kind of provision for consultation. They have put on to various bodies and committees people with, if I may use the expression, second-hand experience—the noble Lord at least will know what I mean by that—so that we get as much benefit as we can from that kind of contribution.

I also hope that the Minister will take very careful note—I am sure that he will—of what his noble friend said in his speech regarding mental handicap. Something more than has been done must be done in that field.

I was also pleased that the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, and my noble friend Lord Glenamara brought up the question of choice. I was one of those who succumbed to the original enthusiasm about integration. Obviously there is much to be said for it, and there is no question about that, but right from the beginning I had certain doubts in my mind because one of the most enjoyable experiences I had as an education officer was to visit our special schools—the warm welcome one received, the things that were said and what one observed. What was particularly noticeable, and this applies to every school, was the enthusiasm of head teachers and teachers in such schools. That is not realised except perhaps by those who have direct experience of them.

I therefore hope that the Government will take some notice of the question of choice. I add only one comment. What a parent decides is not necessarily the best choice for the child. In practice it will mean that parents will at least listen to advice from specialists within the educational service, regardless of the type of school. I make that plea, that the Government place more emphasis on that.

I wish to say only two or three brief words in regard to Amendment No. I 99ZA, moved by my noble friend 524 Lord Judd. It is astonishing that in 1993 Parliament is debating the content of this amendment. I recall, as does my noble friend, the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act from our honourable friend Alf Morris in 1970. That was 23 years ago. More recently we had the Act on disability by our honourable friend Tom Clarke. It is astonishing that, after all this time, in education of all fields, an amendment of this kind has to be tabled.

The first worry is that it has to be tabled at all. The second is, why? There are at least two answers, which have perhaps been dealt with. My noble friend said, quite properly, that on the whole headmasters would like to have all the facilities if they can get them. But sometimes they do not think about them—they have so much on their minds and it may not be possible.

The Government might also say that these things are not cheap. That must be considered. Perhaps the Minister will say—and one can understand it—that it is up to the local authority or indeed the head teacher to decide the priorities. I believe one speaker has already said that. That is perfectly understandable. But we say that the time has arrived to change that situation and in those circumstances I hope that the Committee will accept the amendment.

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede

I should like to address some comments to Amendment No. 199A in the name of my noble friend Lady David. Before I do so, I will convey to her the sympathies which many Peers have expressed, along with my own.

This has been an extremely interesting and principal debate on the degree of integration. Amendment No. 199A goes perhaps further towards integration than all the other amendments. Perhaps I can quickly mention some figures which show that we are likely to be moving backwards in the integration of children with disabilities into our schools.

Progress with integration since 1983 has been slow. For example, between 1988 and 1991 there was only a 3 per cent. drop in the level of pupils segregated across all English LEAs. When the primary school population was analysed separately it was found that there was a 2 per cent. rise in the placement of that age group in special schools over the same period. That rise is possibly explained by the impact of primary school testing under the national curriculum, which takes up a point made earlier by my noble friend Lord Judd. Mainstream primary schools across the country may be getting rid of their more difficult pupils because they threaten the academic record and ambitions of the school in a rapidly changing market place.

The amendment seeks to place a stronger integration duty on schools. There is a wide variation in the proportion of pupils placed in special schools by different local education authorities. The patchiness of the provision has been found by an Open University report which was found to range between 0.5 per cent. in Barnsley up to about 3 per cent. in Lambeth, Kensington and Chelsea and Hackney.

There have been some emotive terms bandied around in the press in regard to this subject: phrases 525 such as "apartheid", which we heard also this evening; "disability cleansing", which is an even more emotive term, and so on. The noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), spoke to Amendment No. 2O1, which is perhaps more acceptable among the pressure groups which make up this special education consortium. The purpose of that amendment is to ensure that in considering the efficient use of resources account is taken of the benefits to other users of school premises arising from changes made for an individual child. It seems to me that that is the consensus of the interest groups in special educational provision.

The debate has veered between the extreme as put forward in Amendment No. 199A and the views as articulated by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, who spoke against the presumption that is generally favoured on both sides of the Chamber.

I refer briefly to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Pearson. The amendment is a curious one. The 1981 Act requirement that a child with special educational needs should be educated in a mainstream school unless there are overriding conditions is lifted for a child registered under the Mental Health Act. The force of the amendment appears to be that a child registered under that Act will automatically be educated in a special school unless the parents wish otherwise. I wonder whether the mover is seeking a reversal of the 1981 Act policy. If so, I believe that it goes against the whole thrust of cross-party consensus, which is a preference for integration.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch

I do not know whether the noble Lord wishes me to answer that point at this stage. To be honest, I am not sufficiently familiar with the 1981 Act to know exactly what it does in this area. I merely wish to remove the qualified duty to secure the education of children with special educational needs in ordinary schools when those children are mentally handicapped. I am quite happy to leave the rest as it is. I do not want there to be a presumption either way; I want it to be for parents, their advisers and so on to make the decision case by case, child by child. If there is a presumption against what I say in the 1981 Act then I certainly oppose it.

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede

I thank the noble Lord for his clarification. I believe there is a great deal of consensus on the point that parents should have a choice. I see that the noble Lord opposite is nodding. I do not wish to argue particularly in favour of the different degrees of the amendments. I totally agree with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, that the primary concern must be with the individual child, but I also believe that we should bear in mind the possible insulation of able-bodied children from children with disabilities and the benefits and broadening of the minds of able-bodied children if they were to be educated alongside children with disabilities. Although I agree with the preferences expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, I believe that we ought to be cognisant of the whole picture.

Lord Henley

Like the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, I believe that there is much more common ground than we have necessarily given ourselves credit for. The Government are committed to the principle that, wherever possible and when it is right for the child, a child with identified special educational needs should be integrated in mainstream provision. However, that is a general principle. It implies that there will be an important continuing role for special schools, even if the number of pupils attending such schools declines slightly as a higher proportion of children with special needs have those needs met in mainstream education.

The other fundamental factors that are relevant in any debate on integration are the statutory assessment procedures through which the child's needs are precisely identified and parental choice. The Committee will know that the measures included in the Bill are designed to streamline the assessment procedures. At the same time the principal thrust of the Bill is to enable parents of children with a statement of SEN to play a more active role in their children's special education and to give greater weight to their wishes. Parents of children with SEN will in future be able to express a preference for a particular maintained school. I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, that in this respect the Bill significantly extends parental choice.

Turning to the amendments before us, I start with Amendment No. 199ZA in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Judd. We believe that the amendment is unnecessary. We are, of course, familiar with the Coopers & Lybrand report to which the noble Lord referred and which, I believe, has inspired the amendment. I do not disagree entirely with some of the principles behind the amendment, but I cannot support it. In the first place, the provisions as drafted would allow an LEA's consideration of these matters to extend to grant-maintained and independent schools where the authority's writ does not run. In any event, as I hope I shall show, it is unnecessary.

That said, I would not want to be in any way dismissive of the Coopers & Lybrand report which contains a great deal of very interesting and important material. However, we have no intention of building a raft of prescriptive legislation on the findings of that report, based as it was on only five local authorities. LEAs have been under a duty to promote integration of children with SEN since the 1981 Act became law. There is now, with the imminent introduction of local management of special schools, an ideal opportunity for LEAs to look into the costs of various forms of integration. There is in fact very little in the Coopers & Lybrand report about LMSS. The need to submit variations to published LMS schemes should now be focusing authorities' attention on the comparative cost of the different forms of provision and the desirability of ensuring that a good spectrum of mainstream schools has access for the disabled. We certainly would not be surprised, therefore, if a substantial amount of relevant information becomes available over the next few months.

Another aspect of access for disabled pupils in mainstream schools is the role of the FAS. When the 527 FAS has been established, it will be able to encourage grant-maintained schools to apply for capital grants for access for the disabled by inviting schools to bid for works in this area. It will be for the FAS to determine the allocations within the budget as a whole. Moreover, grant-maintained schools' success in bidding for capital grant to aid access for the disabled will not prejudice or pre-empt bids for capital expenditure for other purposes. Grant-maintained schools themselves will therefore have every incentive to apply for such grants. We are convinced that, as in many other spheres of educational practice, grant-maintained schools will lead the way by securing excellent facilities for disabled people. Many schools may consider applying for such capital grants as part of their new duty to formulate and publish individual policies for pupils with special needs. As an increasing number of grant-maintained schools are approved, the FAS will be able to maintain a strategic overview of such provision. Thus, well-planned and cost-effective facilities for the disabled should become increasingly available.

Finally, I should remind the Committee that there is a good base from which LEAs, the FAS and schools can move forward. We have given high priority in recent years to building projects necessary to implement approved statutory proposals. Prominent among these have been projects for integration arising from the closure or reorganisation of special schools. LEAs have spent more than £2 billion on capital expenditure on school buildings between 1986–87 and 1989–90. Much of this will have gone on improving the building stock, including through the provision of better access arrangements for disabled children. We estimate that between 1990–91 and 1993–94 LEAs will have spent a further £2.3 billion on their schools. I therefore urge the noble Lord, when the time comes in due course, not to press his amendment. I believe that it is unnecessary.

Turning to the other amendments, I should like to refer first to Amendment No. 199A in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady David. I should like to echo all the expressions of condolence expressed by the Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, spoke to the amendment, as did others. We believe that the amendment is neither necessary nor, for that matter, desirable. As I believe I have made clear, we believe that parents have a major role to play in deciding what should be done for children with special educational needs.

The Bill itself represents a significant advance. Parents will be involved in considering whether children should be integrated into mainstream education or whether they should attend a special school. However, this amendment removes all reference to the wishes of the parents and as such it is wholly unacceptable. It represents an extreme viewpoint by assuming, in effect, that every child can and should be educated in a mainstream school. I believe that, as has been the general feeling expressed in the debate, that virtually all the Committee will agree that this is manifestly not appropriate.

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede

I draw the noble Lord's attention to Section 3(2) where it explicitly makes reference to the child's parents in any consultation.

Lord Henley

My understanding is that although there is that reference, it actually plays down the role of the parents. As I said at the beginning, I believe that there is a great deal of consensus in the Committee on this particular issue, or at least more consensus than the man from Mars might assume on first listening to such a debate, if I may put it in those terms. I believe that the noble Lord himself said that this provision is possibly at one end of the spectrum. We believe that it is too far towards that end of it and not necessarily appropriate. It does play down the role of the child's parents and for that reason we cannot find that particular amendment satisfactory.

I now turn to Amendment No. 200 in the name of my noble friend Lord Pearson. As he explained to the Committee, he has very understandable motives and very good reasons for moving that amendment. I believe that his involvement in these matters is appreciated by the Committee and by all Members of the House. We all know that he speaks about these matters with a great deal of authority and personal interest. We all value his contribution to a debate of this nature.

I hope to be able to reassure my noble friend by saying that Clause 152, as drafted, will already deliver what he is seeking in his amendment as regards all children and not just those who have mental illnesses. Subsection (1) of that clause would not apply in the case of any parent who did not want it to. I am advised that that is the effect of the words, unless that is incompatible with the wishes of [the] parent". So if the duty is not compatible with the parents' wishes, then the parents relieve the LEA of that duty. Therefore, I hope that my noble friend will welcome that clarification. Again, when we reach his particular amendment I trust that he will not feel it necessary to press it.

Lord Peston

I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Perhaps I may ask for clarification. It is very rare, and almost the first time in my experience of the House, that I find the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, completely compelling. Can the noble Lord assure the Committee that the wording in the Bill—namely, "unless that is incompatible"—means exactly the same as the words in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, which seem to be much clearer? I refer to the phrase, Unless the consent of his parents has been obtained". As someone who believes that he understands the English language, the words do not mean the same to me. I am willing to accept the statement of the noble Lord, Lord Henley, that he is absolutely certain that they mean the same, but what the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, wants should be the case.

Lord Henley

The noble Lord is quite right to interrupt me on that. I very carefully said that I am advised that that is the case. In the light of the recent 529 court case, Pepper v. Hurt which went to the Judicial Committee of the House, it is very important that I know exactly what I am saying from the Dispatch Box. I reassure the noble Lord that that is my understanding. If I am wrong—and there is every opportunity that I am—I shall certainly write to the noble Lord after we have had another look at it. I shall also write to my noble friend Lord Pearson.

I was trying to give an assurance that the wording means exactly that. It is quite important that we get this matter right, but that is my understanding of the meaning of the words. I have forgotten most of the law that I ever knew, but I do not know about the state of the noble Lord's knowledge of the law.

Before I turn to Amendment No. 201, perhaps I may deal with one particular point raised by the noble Baroness whose amendment it is; namely, as regards statistics and whether we are collecting them on the number of children without statements in special schools. This really relates, I suppose, to Amendment No. 203, but the paper just happens to be here. I can assure the noble Baroness that we are, in fact, collecting such statistics on a national basis and we are in contact with several authorities with large numbers of unstatemented children in special schools. We are certainly monitoring the position closely and in due course I hope that we shall be able to provide the noble Baroness with more information.

Turning to her first amendment, Amendment No. 201, I obviously appreciate the motives which have led the noble Baroness to sponsor this amendment and particularly the desire to ensure that authorities consider the case, for example, for improved access for disabled pupils in mainstream schools, when carrying out their qualified duty to secure education of children with special needs in mainstream schools. But again I must regard the text of such an amendment as misconceived and its substance, in fact, as unnecessary.

The Government also have qualms about the necessity for an amendment of this kind. As I think I have made clear, we already have good policies—which have wide acceptance—on the matter of access for disabled pupils. If the noble Baroness will bear with me, I should like to say a little about this. I believe that within any area—but not necessarily a single authority—there should be at least one reasonably accessible maintained mainstream school with good facilities for disabled pupils. However, not every school needs to be equipped in this way; in metropolitan areas with a high population density there may be less need than in rural areas where choice of school is in any event obviously and naturally much more restricted. But bearing in mind the balance between efficient use of resources—I think this is very important—and increasing parental choice, the Government consider that a good proportion of schools should be accessible to such pupils. Measures are in place to ensure that this is occurring and will continue to occur.

Before I move on to Amendment No. 204 in the name of my noble friend Lady Faithfull and the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, asked me why children have to have 530 statements. Children will have statements when the local education authorities decide that they must intervene to arrange the special education that those children need because they need more than their school can provide alone. The code of practice, which my noble friend Lady Blatch dealt with earlier, will ensure a much greater degree of objectivity and consistency in the LEAs' decisions. Turning to my—

Baroness Masham of Ilton

Just to clarify that—what I asked the Minister was why some children had statements and other children did not have statements when the provisions meant that they should have statements.

Lord Henley

If the noble Baroness is dealing with the question which the amendment itself is about (Amendment No. 203), in effect, why are there a number of children in—yes, I have got the right one—these special schools who are unstatemented, I am coming on to that. If the noble Baroness will bear with me, I will address those points.

I thank my noble friend for moving this amendment. I think this is a very important issue. I would certainly not wish her to think that we have not considered this matter carefully—or indeed that it has not been considered in the past. Again, I am sympathetic to some of the general principles behind her amendment, but again I have to say that I do not think that it is necessary and I do not think that it is necessarily appropriate to have such a measure enshrined in primary legislation.

The Government have an expectation that children in special schools should normally have a statement, and this has been made clear in the formal guidance which we have issued on this matter in Circular 22/89, which was quoted by my noble friend, that The Secretary of State would expect that children in special schools would normally be afforded the protection of a statement". In practice, a minority of special school children will be undergoing assessment. This seems to be a reasonable position, assuming that the placement is provisional and has been agreed with parents.

However, it is another matter as to whether special schools should be statutorily prevented from taking any pupil without a statement and who was not undergoing assessment. There are certain, albeit relatively rare, instances when such a placement could be entirely justified. We consider therefore on balance that this is a matter for firm guidance (which could issue within a departmental circular in the wake of the Bill) rather than primary legislation.

The noble Baroness referred to research from the CSIE. We do not believe that the picture is quite as black as has sometimes been painted by that report. We have considered that report carefully, and we are also aware of more recent information from each of the 15 authorities which the report identified as having an unduly high proportion of children without statements in special schools. I am satisfied that in the great majority of cases these authorities have made substantial progress since January 1991 when the data in the CSIE report was collected. In those few authorities where there is still some cause for concern, 531 we have asked officials in the department to monitor the position to ascertain just what progress is being made.

I apologise to the Committee for taking up a great deal of time in responding, but these are important points and it is vital that the Committee address them. I end by repeating the spirit of what the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, said, and what I opened with at the beginning. There is considerably more agreement in these matters than we necessarily give ourselves credit for. I hope that in that conciliatory tone the noble Lord, Lord Judd, will not feel it necessary to press his amendment, and that the other noble Lords and noble Baronesses with amendments in this group will not feel it necessary to press them when they come up in due time.

Lord Glenamara

Could not the noble Lord give any reply to my plea that the parents who want integration should be given the same absolute right as the parents who want special schools for their children?

Lord Henley

They have a preference, and there is a presumption in favour of that preference. I do not think that one can ever talk about an absolute right in the way that the noble Lord is talking about. We believe that this Bill significantly extends parental rights, but it cannot go as far as the absolute extent that the noble Lord seeks.

Lord Glenamara

I wonder why there is a right in the case of the parents who want a special school and not in the other?

Baroness Faithfull

I must apologise. My noble friend rose before I managed to speak on Amendment No. 203. Many of us have come across parents who have wanted their children to be integrated, wanted them to go to the local school, and been told that they cannot. The amendment that I have put down says that parents must be told why their children cannot go to the local school if the statement is such as to make it clear to the parents that a local school would not meet the needs of their children.

I have had representations from about six parents who have been told that their children cannot go to these mainstream schools, but they have been given no reason why they should not go. Parents are distressed about this because they do not think that it is because of the child's state, and that it has been statemented to go to a special school, but simply because there are not the facilities. This ought to be addressed.

Lord Henley

My noble friend is under a misapprehension. My noble friend is talking about a situation that exists at present. Under the provisions in this Bill, parents would be told, and would have a right of challenge, if what my noble friend said occurred. In other words, if a statement child could not go to a school of their choice.

Lord Judd

I genuinely want to thank the Minister for his sensitive and courteous reply. I do not want in any way to embarrass him, but whenever I hear him speak at the Dispatch Box, I feel that the cause of reasonable pluralistic democracy is not lost, and that it is possible to examine subjects constructively together whatever our differences.

The Minister referred to how the proverbial man from Mars might see the situation here. Whether it was him or the woman from Venus, the conclusion would be that there was a great deal of intellectual meeting of minds on the issue; but what I believe they would find amazing is that after the intellectual meeting of minds, the logical action was not followed through. They would go back and say, "It seems to be a very nice political system they have down there; they talk at great length, late into the night; they find a great deal about which they agree, but they do not actually do anything about it". That is the message that would be taken back to Mars.

I wish to make a couple of practical points. The Minister referred to the evidence upon which the report was based. There is a slight problem because I believe that he has been speaking about the first report by Coopers & Lybrand, commissioned by the Spastics Society and the NUT. I was speaking not just about that report, but about the report published today which takes the matter further. The Minister may not have been briefed about that report. What is interesting is that the evidence has been based on replies by 2,500 schools and not just by local authorities. That is an important point. The other point we must realise is that in today's publication Within Reach (the school survey) we see clearly that the problem is that no one knows how suitable our schools are for disabled children. The information is not available.

The amendment provides that an LEA shall determine accessibility—that is, undertake access audits to provide a local and national picture. It further provides: The Secretary of State shall issue … guidance". That brings me to the point that here again we are up against the issue of whether we are indulging in a genuine moral commitment to the principle of choice, as distinct from ensuring that meaningful choice is available. What has been said from several quarters in the debate is that the condition of so many schools means that choice does not exist. If, therefore, we are to have a free choice, and everyone favours a free choice, there must be a meaningful opportunity to make a choice, in terms of the provision that has been made, not just the intellectual possibility to do so. That is where we remain unconvinced.

It would be helpful if we could have an assurance from the Government that if by any chance Amendment No. 199A is lost the Government will ensure that somewhere in the Bill there is a provision that from 1993 LEAs should begin to plan for integration. That point does not seem to be firmly and clearly established. It is the point that we had on the last debate: we are putting the poor old LEAs into the position of having the moral public responsibility 533 without power and effectiveness. Power and effectiveness start with reliable information. All that we are asking for at this juncture is reliable information. The hour is late, as I have said before in our proceedings; I am a realist, and in that sense, I shall not pursue the amendment tonight.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch

I wish to speak to Amendment No. 200, although I do not know whether it is appropriate to do so now. I wish to thank all noble Lords who spoke on the amendment. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, for his understanding of what I had to say, and for, if not necessarily his agreement, his acquiescence in the points that I made.

I thank also the noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington, for his kind words. We drew swords the other evening over the quality of some LEAs, although I do not think that we actually crossed them. His remarks this evening demonstrate his genuine commitment to the good of all children in our state system of education. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, for his remarks. He mentioned the advantage which normal children receive from association with handicapped children, and of course I accept that. I imagine that it is one of the main themes which underlies the whole integration policy towards the civilisation of our society in the future, and the trend away from locking people up and excluding them; people who are perhaps unpleasant and frightening at first sight. I understand that completely.

It is a question of balance and I think it is wrong if the handicapped suffer from that association. My contention is that the mentally handicapped are more likely to do so under the wording of Clause 152 as presently drafted than is appropriate.

Finally, I have to say that I am really extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, for his intervention. I am afraid that I have to agree with what he said. I think that the wording of Clause 152 as drafted is not acceptable, as the Minister felt, because it clearly says that: the child is educated in a school which is not a special school unless that is incompatible with the wishes of his parent". Incidentally, I do not know why "parent" has suddenly become singular in this part of the Bill and not "parents"—two parents. But that is another matter.

The point is that this really is a hurdle that the parents of a handicapped child have to jump. I had to jump it myself. I know the pressures that come against one from the social workers, who simply cannot understand that you do not want your child in a normal school, and from the Association of Down's Syndrome Parents, which is also rather of that frame of mind. Therefore, I feel that this is an unacceptable expression and I think that my amendment, although it may not be perfect, does create a balance towards the mentally handicapped children at least. I certainly should not dream of testing the opinion of the Committee at this hour of the evening but if my noble friend can come back at the next stage with more of a compromise in that regard, I should be very pleased.

Lord Addington

I should briefly like to express my support for the amendment. As information is required by everyone to make a logical decision, it would seem that LEAs should not be excluded.

Lord Henley

In moving the amendment, I suspect that the noble Baroness spoke about the state of affairs at present. I must stress that the Bill takes us somewhat further. I also suspect that her amendment wants to make LEAs justify on the face of a child's statement their decision to specify a special school. LEAs would not be similarly required to justify naming an ordinary school.

The Government, on the other hand, believe that LEAs should always discuss with parents all aspects of a statement. Those discussions should include the name of the appropriate school, be it a special school or an ordinary school. We are confident, too, that the Bill makes full provision to that effect. I hope the Baroness—I am sure that she will not wish to press it—will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Obviously, the LEA must explain its decisions to parents. Indeed, parents should have been closely involved throughout the process of assessing the child and drafting the statement. We have already issued clear advice to that effect. Circular 22/89 says: The relations between professional advisors and parents during the process of assessment are of crucial importance. Parents should be encouraged to feel that they are partners in this process". Further guidance issued under the Bill will very much underline the importance of that partnership.

Beyond that, the Bill gives parents an important new right —to state a preference for their child's school. The statement will go to parents in draft form. They will have explicit rights to make representations to the LEA and to hold meetings with the LEA. There will, therefore, be ample opportunity for parents and the authority to discuss the name of the school which should appear on the statement. When parents state a preference, LEAs will be bound to abide by that preference so long as certain reasonable conditions are met.

Our measures provide for full parental participation in the process of making an assessment, writing a statement and naming a school. There must be a full exchange of views between parents and authorities. The tribunal will stand behind that process: if the parent is dissatisfied, the tribunal will consider both sides of the argument. I hope, therefore, that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Baroness Darcy (de Knayth)

I should like, first, to thank the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for his support and the Minister for his full reply. I shall read carefully what the Minister said and think about the matter. I am not sure that he has totally reassured me. I may return to the matter at a later stage or I may have a word with the Minister. But, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Judd

We on these Benches applaud this amendment and fully support it.

The Earl of Swinton

It only happens once in a blue moon that one lands lucky in this Chamber. Tonight I feel as though I have backed a 33 to one winner because I find my Amendment No. 226 grouped with this amendment. In the normal state of affairs I would have had to wait until some even more unearthly hour to speak to my amendment but I have been given a chance to speak to it now. I do not believe my Amendment No. 226 has anything on earth to do with the amendment of my noble friend Lady Faithfull. However, I do not wish to lose the opportunity of having a go at it now.

I welcome very much Clause 165 whereby parents of under-two-year-olds can agree to have their children assessed and then statemented. That is an excellent provision. However, Clause 161, which gives a right of appeal to parents who disagree with statements, does not cover the position of the under-two-year-olds. My amendment would bring those children into line with the other children and give them the same right of appeal.

Members of the Committee may well feel there can be no question of educating under-two-year-olds and that I must be talking about a health provision. In fact that is not the case. My noble friend Lord Pearson spoke on this issue in the previous debate. I am assured that children with Down's syndrome can benefit greatly from early education at the age of about 18 months onwards. They benefit from education conducted through water and sound methods. That form of education enables those children to improve enormously in their early years. If a child under two receives a statement, that statement will continue long after the child's second birthday and may have a potential influence on the rest of that child's education. Therefore, it is only right that parents of children under two years who disagree with the statement should have the same right of appeal as parents of older children.

Lord Addington

I support the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull.

Lord Swinfen

I strongly support both these amendments. It is well known that it is beneficial to children who do not have special needs to start education as early as possible. I believe it is even more beneficial to children with special needs to start education as early as possible.

Lord Henley

I am grateful that my noble friend Lord Swinton is grateful that these two amendments have been grouped. I can give him no particular explanation as to why they were or were not grouped, and I appreciate they are on slightly distinct subjects. But if it makes life easier for my noble friend, I am sure he will be happy.

I start with the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Faithfull and the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock. It calls for schools' annual reports to contain information on their admission policies for children under five where such children are admitted to the schools concerned.

538 The Bill already makes the important provision that the annual reports of all maintained schools should include a report about the implementation of the governing bodies' policy for children with special educational needs. The annual report will therefore provide a significant body of information from which parents and others with interest in this matter will benefit. We shall make regulations which will govern the issues which schools' SEN policies must address. We have in mind such matters as the number of children with special educational needs and their age range, any particular specialisms offered, staffing provision and expertise, in-service training policy and links to other schools and specialist help. We shall ensure that schools with provision for children under five will report annually to parents on their policies for those children. We shall expect schools with provision for the under fives to have clear policies for identifying, assessing, teaching and monitoring the progress of all children under five who have or may have special educational needs.

We also need to consider the information available to parents before their child gains admission to a school. Section 8 of the 1980 Act sets out a full regime requiring prospectuses to be produced by or on behalf of the schools. It is clearly sensible practice for such prospectuses to discuss provision for children under five where that provision exists. I am not aware of any widespread absence of such information. We must, however, remember that, apart from provision for children with statements of special educational needs, provision for the under fives is discretionary.

Earlier this year the department consulted widely on the information which should, by law, be included in schools' prospectuses and annual reports. Among the issues discussed in that consultation was the question of schools' admission policies. We shall be making the relevant regulations next month. It would be sensible if, in the light of this debate and that consultation, we were to consider further the question of whether schools which make provision for the under fives should in their prospectuses state their admissions policies for those children. In doing so, we should have to bear in mind that the full statutory regime governing admissions does not and cannot apply to children under five. Nonetheless, I believe that the question is one which merits further consideration. I undertake to give it that consideration.

I turn now to the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Swinton. I have to say that it seems inappropriate. While under the Bill, as under the Education Act 1981, children under two can be assessed and statemented, the process of assessing and statementing the under twos may be different from that which applies to children aged two and over. We believe that the issuing of statements for such children is rightly a discretionary matter. The formal rights of appeal relate specifically to the assessing and statementing processes for children aged two and over.

We believe that it is essential to retain a degree of flexibility so far as concerns children under two. To insist on applying the same educational assessment 539 and statementing procedures to children under two as apply to older children, with all the attendant appeals procedures, would in the Government's view be inappropriate. We do, however, consider it important that the conduct of assessments and the making of statements should meet the same standards as apply to the statutory processes. I hope, therefore, that my noble friend will accept that explanation as to why I do not believe that his amendment is appropriate.

I hope that with the assurance that I have given to my noble friend Lady Faithfull she will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Faithfull

I thank my noble friend for his reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Judd

I seek one point of clarification from the Minister. The amendment does not broaden the clause far enough to include independent special schools; but perhaps I have that wrong. Thus, if a local authority reaches the margin of its capacity for the purposes of the Local Authorities (Goods and Services) Act 1970, it would be allowed to continue trading with grant-maintained schools under the provision but would have to cease any trading activities in respect of independent special schools. Will the Minister reassure us?

Baroness Blatch

I am subject to correction, but my understanding is that a local authority will not be able to trade with schools beyond its own area of influence, 540 and certainly not with independent schools. I believe that I am right. If I am wrong, I shall return to it or write to the noble Lord.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Judd

We strongly support the amendment.

Baroness Blatch

Perhaps the noble Baroness will accept that I address Amendments Nos. 207 and 208 in my response.

Clause 154 provides for local education authorities to supply goods and services to governing bodies so that, if a pupil has special educational needs, the special education provision which his learning difficulty calls for can be secured. We recognise and endorse the importance of identification and appropriate provision for special needs. As the code of practice will say, appropriate provision cannot be made unless special educational needs are identified, preferably as early as possible, and the child's needs are properly assessed.

I very much doubt whether local authorities could provide services in relation to Clause 154(1) (c), which deals with teachers' awareness of the importance of identification and provision for children with special educational needs, that they could not also provide under Clause 154(1) (a), which deals with governors using their best endeavours in making provision for such children. As I said, identification is a necessary preliminary to provision. I therefore believe the amendment to be unnecessary.

I cannot endorse Amendment No. 208. It seeks to place local authorities under a new duty to ensure the availability of special educational need support services. I do not believe that such a duty is necessary or appropriate. Local education authorities must, and indeed will, maintain support services, or retain access to such services, to allow them to fulfil their duty towards children who require or may require statements. Staff employed in those services will be available to all maintained schools in the area to work with pupils with statements and those without. But it would be up to schools to decide whether they wish to retain access to those services to assist them or whether they wish to secure services from an alternative source—a voluntary body, for example, such as the Royal National Institute for the Blind.

If they are to abide by the code of practice, schools will need to use support services. But they will not always need to use the local authority support services. If the LEA was obliged to provide support services in all cases, that would discourage the growth of alternative suppliers. It cannot be the noble 541 Baroness's intention to stifle the choice available to governing bodies. Therefore, I hope that the amendment will not be pressed.

Baroness Warnock

That seems an extraordinarily wasteful reply in that there will be a great need for increased teacher training—a factor hardly mentioned in the Bill—if all the benefits for children with special needs are to result. I refer particularly to what is generally known as a whole school policy, without which it is impossible for children with special needs in mainstream schools to obtain a proper education. That requires a great deal of education of teachers.

It defeats me to see why, if the local education authority sets up that kind of arrangement, it should not be possible to supply the use of such arrangements for the governors of grant-maintained schools. I simply fail to understand that. Perhaps I have just not grasped the difficulty. At any rate, I do not think the point is worth pursuing any further. If I have completely misunderstood, perhaps the Minister will be kind enough to put me right. In the meantime, I withdraw the amendment.