Special Educational Needs and Disability Code of Practice: 0 to 25 years
Baroness Hughes of Stretford Excerpts(9 years, 9 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hughes of Stretford (Lab)
My Lords, a number of the points I was going to raise have already been raised so I am going to be brief. There are just a few points I would like to rehearse. First, I welcome the code of practice. It is long and complex but I have great sympathy with the people who have tried to put it together. Its language is certainly a big improvement. It is written in plain language, even if some issues about implementation still need to be a bit clearer. The Minister said rightly that this document is mainly for practitioners and managers. It has been the practice, certainly in the Department for Education and its predecessor, to produce slimmer, accessible versions for parents and young people and I wondered whether the department would consider doing this or at least commissioning someone else to do it.
Secondly, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, that the document is still a bit unclear as to what children without an EHC plan can expect. Worryingly, I found the following sentence on page 48 in relation to the local offer:
“In setting out what they ‘expect to be available’ local authorities should include provision which they believe will actually be available”.
By implication, that might include some provision that in fact will not be available. There is a lack of clarity there about what parents who have to rely on a local offer rather than an EHC plan can expect in reality. I wish the document had been stronger in its emphasis on the local authority making sure that what is in the local offer will be available to people.
Thirdly, on accountability, as the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, said, we are still waiting for the inspection framework that Ofsted was going to review and publish. I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Nash, indicated to my noble friend Lady Wilkins that an initial report would be out in late May. We have still not seen that from Ofsted, which makes it difficult to make an assessment about the accountability framework that Ofsted is going to apply.
Fourthly, I welcome the section on nought to two year-olds, and the fact that it is there, but I wonder whether the Minister could clarify something. It is written only for service providers, saying that they must do this and must do that, and does not say anything about the role of local authorities in relation to nought to two year-olds. Would he be prepared to put on record that local authorities are accountable for nought to two year-olds in terms of identifying and ensuring provision there, in the same way that they are for other age groups?
I also wanted to ask something about further education. It has come to my attention—this may be wrong, so I want to check it out—that the person designated as a SENCO in a further education college does not have to have special educational needs qualifications. Is this the case and, if it is, would the Government consider requiring those people to have those qualifications? My second point about FE is about inclusive provision. Having gone round a number of further education colleges and talked to young people, it is quite depressing, to some extent, to see what some FE colleges are providing for children with special educational needs: lots of preparation for living courses, but no identifying and enabling of those young people who could go on a mainstream vocational course. It is an option not often available to young people with special educational needs and disabilities. FE colleges should not be able simply to provide the kind of courses that they think are suitable and shoehorn people into them but should try to include disabled young people on mainstream courses for other students, where they can be included with support.
My last point is about the need for a review of the code and how it is being implemented. The Minister said that the Government would keep the code under review. The problem with that is that, if the department keeps it under review, the rest of us will really not know much about implementation. There needs to be a specific review at a point in time, the results of which are then published for us all to see.
Lord Nash
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords for their comments and questions. I will try to address the points raised but I doubt whether I will manage to cover them all. Where I do not, I will write to noble Lords.
The noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, talked about inclusive education, particularly higher and further education. The code reflects the current position, which includes the general presumption that children with SEN should be taught in mainstream settings. That principle is extended to young people in further education through the Children and Families Act 2014. The code also highlights that schools and colleges have important duties under the Equality Act 2010 to prevent discrimination against disabled people, to promote equality of opportunity, to plan to increase access over time and to make reasonable adjustments to their policy and practice, which, since September 2012, has included providing auxiliary aid and services such as specialist computer programs et cetera. However, I note the point made by both the noble Baroness and the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes, and I would be interested to discuss further at the end the point she made to ensure that these colleges are taking their duties seriously.
The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, is to be commended for reading all 270 pages. He must have done so in order to pick up the typographical error. The publication of the final code will not be determined in advance—he is right about that. However, in communicating with schools, colleges and local authorities on the implementation of the reforms, we have always made it clear that the version of the code issued for consultation on 16 April this year was sufficiently near to the final code for implementation-planning purposes. Key duties remain as they are currently for schools and early year providers. They will start to put in place from September the new approach to identifying and supporting children with SEN set out in the code and record those with SEN under SEN support in the January 2015 census. FE colleges will have a duty to use their best endeavours to ensure that young people with SEN get the help they need as they have always done, and will have regard to the approved code of practice.
We believe that the guidance provides a robust framework for supporting those without EHC plans which focuses on the impact of the support rather than how children access support according to the category they fit into. It will also challenge schools to improve the quality of teaching and learning for all pupils rather than inappropriately labelling some pupils as having SEN. The guidance makes clear that schools should involve parents in shaping the support that is provided, be more transparent about what support is available at the school, monitor the progress of all pupils and respond quickly where children are making inadequate progress. School leaders will be expected to include the quality of SEN support within their approach to school improvement, professional development and performance management arrangements.
More generally, we will keep the guidance and the code of practice under review, allowing proper time for the reforms to bed down, particularly as they are being implemented gradually from September. We made provision in the Children and Families Act for subsequent versions of the code to be approved under the negative procedure precisely to enable the code to be kept up to date more easily.
As regards the point about the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill, the Ministry of Justice has indicated that it will consult later this year on its approach to secure college rules. This will provide a further opportunity to contribute to the development of secure colleges and ensure that the needs of young people, in particular as regards their welfare and safety, are met. However, I will pass on the noble Lord’s remarks to try to ensure that when the Bill comes back later in the year he gets a better answer than the one he got last time.
The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, also talked about enforceability and accountability. For the first year we will ask local authorities and parent carer forums to complete implementation surveys on a termly basis. These will focus on whether the key elements of the new statutory framework are working. We will take action, including appropriate support and intervention, where it is clear that a local authority is struggling to implement the reforms. For the longer term, we are developing an accountability framework for monitoring delivery of the reforms. We expect this to be in place from September next year. It will include an agreed approach for challenging poorly performing local authorities and taking more formal intervention action where necessary. The noble Baroness, Lady Howe, the noble Lord, Lord Low, and other noble Lords asked about Ofsted. Ofsted is now completing its survey of how local areas are working on the reforms and will make recommendations soon about the possible role of inspection in monitoring and accountability.
The noble Baroness, Lady Howe, also asked about the disabled students’ allowance. The noble Baroness will recognise that higher education institutions must meet their duties under the Equality Act. Students can challenge their institution under internal procedures if they do not get the support they should and can ultimately go to court. Currently, they would have to use the Student Loans Company procedures and, as I say, ultimately the courts. As far as appeals are concerned, the outcomes in the EHC plan are much broader than the objectives in the statement as they cover health and social care as well as education and training. Local authorities need to be able to take an integrated approach in describing outcomes in the EHC plan which reflect how a number of services may need to work together to deliver a particular outcome. Making the education and training outcomes themselves appealable could prevent local authorities taking an integrated approach in describing outcomes, but, of course, it remains the case that the special educational provision in an EHC plan is appealable through the tribunal.
My noble friend Lord Addington talked about encouraging charities to make their own version of the code in relation to their particular issues. We know that some organisations are already doing this, an example of which is the Communications Trust. I agree that such organisations are particularly well placed to do this. We are also working with the voluntary sector and other organisations to develop guides to the code of practice, particularly for parents, schools and NHS bodies. My noble friend also talked about training. In order to gain qualified teacher status, trainee teachers must meet national standards which require them to vary their approach to meet the different needs of children, including those with SEN. In 2012, some 76% of newly qualified primary school teachers and 89% of secondary NQTs rated their SEN training as “very good”. It is up to schools to decide what professional development their staff require, and it is true that the code sets out a range of sources of training materials.
For their part, the Government have supported improvements through the teaching schools programme, through their funding for the National Association for Special Educational Needs and its SEN and disability gateway, an online portal that provides access to a range of training resources, including on dyslexia, autism, speech, language and communication needs. We have also funded the training of more than 10,000 new SENCOs and are supporting Achievement for All 3As to provide leadership to help 1,200 schools in developing their provision for children with SEN. The code of practice makes it clear that school leaders should ensure that staff receive appropriate professional development, and the national training of new SENCOs includes an understanding of the main types of SEN, including dyslexia, speech, language and communication needs and autism.
The noble Lord, Lord Low, referred to special services for deaf children. The code recognises that it is up to the local authority to decide, with local children, young people and parents, what services to commission and to include in their local offer. That will include services for deaf children and those with other types of SEN. He asked whether the system will be ready in time for September. We have always been clear that the reforms will be implemented from this coming September. The key elements of the reforms were set out in a Green Paper in 2011. We have regularly been asking all local authorities in England how well they have been preparing, and local authorities are ready to go. Over 90% have reported that they are ready and the department is working closely with the others. Implementation will be gradual, and we have put in place a range of support, including the £70 million SEN reform grant in 2014-15 to help with plans for the reforms, along with £45 million in 2014-15 and £32 million in 2015-16 for the recruitment and training of independent supporters. We also have the regional SEN champions, drawn from the local pathfinders who have been testing the reforms in practice and from a range of delivery partners with specialist expertise in key areas such as person-centred planning.
I am extremely grateful to my noble friend Lord Storey for his supportive remarks. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, mentioned the guidance on mental capacity. We think that the guidance in the code on mental capacity is about right. It sets out how cases where young people and parents lack the mental capacity to take certain decisions under the Children and Families Act should be dealt with. We have provided a link to further advice on the Mental Capacity Act and have listed all the sections under Part 3 of the Children and Families Act in the regulations where mental capacity considerations come into play. However, I have listened to the points made by the noble Baroness and I will reflect on them. We will be able to consider this issue in a further review of the code.
Children and Young Persons Act 2008 (Relevant Care Functions) (England) Regulations 2014
Baroness Hughes of Stretford Excerpts(9 years, 9 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Earl of Listowel (CB)
My Lords, I want to raise concerns about these regulations but also to welcome certain aspects of what the Government are doing. It is good to hear from the noble Lord, Lord True, about what seems to be a very positive initiative in Richmond and the other local authority he mentioned. Certainly, the principle of allowing professionals to use their own judgment is a very important and powerful one. We have seen it across the board in terms of children’s services, and I welcome the intent. The Government are frustrated that outcomes for children are not improving as they should and they are not going to leave any stone unturned in order to change that. I commend that intention.
The former Secretary of State, Michael Gove MP, really pushed the use of voluntary adoption agencies in terms of the adoption system. That made a good and positive improvement in terms of the numbers of children being placed for adoption more swiftly. I welcome, too, the Social Care Innovation Fund, which seems to be a very good initiative to improve and make sure that we make best use of the resources available to us.
However, I have a number of concerns. I regret that if I am not fully reassured at this point, I may come back and seek to debate the regulations in the Chamber. I recognise the Minister’s frustration at not being able to improve outcomes as swiftly as we need to for young people. I would underline a couple of issues in that context. The fundamental one is the question of professional capacity in the workforce. I commend what this Government and the previous one did about raising the status of child and family social workers. I remember speaking to a former Secretary of State for Education a few years ago. When I told her that it was not necessary to have a degree to be in child and family social work, she did not believe me. Of course, it has only been a requirement in the last three or four years for child and family social workers to have a degree. A lot of good work has gone forward in this area, but we still have a long way to go. Many social workers in practice still will not have a degree qualification. If we look at residential care and staff in children’s homes, we only require those staff to have an A- level qualification equivalent. I was told by an expert recently that most managers still will not have a degree qualification. We must bear it in mind that we need to address the professional capacity within the workforce if we are to see improved outcomes, and that will take some time. As impatient as we are to see change, we may have to be patient for those changes to feed through. My concern is that, in being really frustrated with the system as it stands, we need to be thoughtful in the way that we change it, in case we bring in changes that are unhelpful. That is why this particular regulation needs very careful scrutiny.
I had an e-mail a couple of weeks ago from an academic who has followed the educational outcomes for looked-after children for many years and first raised the concerns about the disparity between educational outcomes for looked-after children and the other population of children. She highlighted concerns that there was not enough support for foster carers. There was no expectation that foster carers would have a good education. She looked across to the continent and saw that where foster carers and staff in children’s homes were recruited from a background in which they had a higher level of education, there were better educational outcomes. She is about to publish a book, in which she highlights that better outcomes on the continent are very strongly associated, in her experience, with the fact that they expect better qualified people to work directly with their vulnerable young people.
As I see it, the risks are, first, fragmentation of services. I was speaking with an academic last week. He is developing an innovative programme in his local authority for looked-after children. He is developing a multidisciplinary team and a one-stop shop so that a child can see the mental health professional, teacher and social worker all in one place. He was regretting the fact that this was how it used to be in local authorities, but that, over time, somehow it had been lost. I was speaking with a children’s home manager several years ago in Camden. He said that the particular advantage of that home in Camden, being in the local authority, was that he could easily and quickly draw on all the necessary resources to get the best outcomes for the children. I think that he had had experience of working in the private sector, but my sense has been that the risk with private sector children’s homes is that they can be more separated from all the services on offer. They may have to develop their own personal services, so that they cannot necessarily draw all the services together, particularly those in mental health, to get the best outcomes for children.
I worry that, if we are going to move towards a system which requires greater reliance on good contracts to make it work, contracts will look at rather short-term outcomes, which are not necessarily the sort of measurements that one would want to use. The key thing with children in care and care leavers is to ensure that they learn how to make relationships, to trust people, and to bear and tolerate intimate relationships. That can be quite a hard thing to measure in the short term. I am a little worried. The Government’s efforts to improve educational attainment and qualifications for looked-after children and care leavers are commendable, but you cannot ignore the ultimate need for those young people to make and keep relationships. You can get them to do well in exams but, if they cannot make relationships with other people, they will have very unsatisfactory lives. Specifications within the contracts will therefore concern me.
Concerns have been raised about whether the bodies concerned will need to be registered and therefore need to follow minimum standards, but I am sure that others will raise those points.
There are concerns about consultation with children in the process. I admired the great pains to which Timothy Loughton MP, when he was Children’s Minister, and Edward Timpson MP have gone to listen to the voices of young people and of care leavers. These measures are likely to affect young people significantly. It was good to hear how positively young people in Richmond spoke about the experience, but to present to young people what is being done and to have their thoughts presented back would be very helpful. Those were my concerns. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Baroness Hughes of Stretford (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the regulations in so far as they will allow, as the Minister has intimated, the potential for local authorities to innovate and to improve services for young people. I also welcome the change to the draft regulations that the Government made in response to the consultation. I am not opposed in principle to the enabling power in the regulations. As the noble Lord, Lord True, has illustrated, used in the context of the right values, these possibilities can open up new ways of delivering better services and, more importantly, better outcomes for children and young people.
However, I have some concerns, not about the principle but about the lack of clarity in the regulations on some important issues. Some of these issues were touched on in the consultation; the responses were not concerned exclusively with the principle of privatisation. I want to raise three issues: accountability, inspection and the not-for-profit status of new providers that the Minister has alluded to. If the Minister could flesh out the Government’s thinking on these issues, it would be really helpful, not least to the Commons when they come to consider the regulations, as they will be looking for answers on some of these issues.
The Government have said that, if children’s services are outsourced either in large part or in whole, the local authority will retain overall accountability for those services. However, we need to understand what that means in practice. Does overall accountability mean that the local authority alone will be responsible for individual children’s outcomes, or will the service provider have any accountability? When I was Minister for Children, I knew a number of directors of children’s services who made a point every month of selecting at random six, seven, eight or 10 case files from their department and reading them to get a measure—a dipstick measure, but none the less a measure—of the quality of his or her social workers’ work. Will directors of children’s services similarly be able to collect a random sample of case files from the service provider and look at what is going on? What direct access will a director of children’s services have to the evidence of the work being done with individual children in an ongoing way, not just with outcomes at the end of the year? That question concerns how the local authority will be expected to put in place continuing quality assurance mechanisms so that it can see what is being done with individual children in a continuing, real-time way.
Given that parents and carers will have an indirect relationship with the local authority through this outsourcing, what would happen if a parent or carer wanted to make a complaint relating to the outcomes for their children or to the way the service was being provided? To whom would that complaint be made and how would it be handled? Under the overarching statement I think that the local authority will remain accountable. There are a number of very detailed questions about how that accountability will be exercised, particularly on how quality assurance, which the local authority must surely seek, will be done on the way in which services are provided.
A related issue is inspection and what appears to be a lack of direct regulatory oversight, in the detail of the Government’s proposals, of the service provider to whom the responsibility for a service is outsourced. As I understand it—I hope the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—the Government propose that external providers of children’s services will not be inspected in their own right by Ofsted, nor registered as inspectable providers, like children’s homes and adoption societies currently are. As I understand it, the local authority will be inspected and a judgment will be made of it, but that is a very indirect look by Ofsted at what is going on. Surely to goodness the service providers have to be inspected. Would it not be important for that provider also to be given a public judgment by Ofsted?
This would be particularly important—unlike in the example of a community interest company conjured up for us by the noble Lord, Lord True—if we were talking about a rather big, profit-making company that set up a not-for-profit subsidiary, which was undertaking service provision for a number of different local authorities in some respect. Would it not be important to have an overview of what that company was doing across the board in different geographical areas, not just an atomised view of each individual local authority, indirect as that would be? Will Ofsted directly examine the case files that the service provider keeps and the quality of the social work and care provided by the agency? Will Ofsted speak directly to children and families? Why will the Government not allow Ofsted to rate the agency as well as the local authority? It is the agency that actually provides the services.
Adoption and Children Act Register (Search and Inspection) (Pilot) Regulations 2014
Baroness Hughes of Stretford Excerpts(9 years, 10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, I rise briefly just to make a couple of comments on the regulations, and register my interest as chair of CAFCASS. In principle I am very supportive of this pilot. There are a number of good reasons for adopting this sort of approach, and I am aware from my work that a number of innovative programmes such as adoption activity days, which have been instigated to increase the number of adoptions and get a better matching process, have proved successful.
My first point is that it is of course of great importance to us all in this House to ensure that vulnerable children are properly protected and safeguarded. I listened with a lot of attention to what my noble friend said about the stringent safeguards that have been put in place to ensure that those data are protected. It is good to hear that but we are all aware of some things that have happened in recent times, however stringent the safeguards around data protection and IT systems have been. Can my noble friend reassure me just once more that he feels that every possible safeguard has been put in place?
As to my second point, I know that the evidence from the adopter-led matchings that we have seen so far has led more adopters to take a greater sense of ownership for what they are doing and to consider a wider range of children. I know that there are early signs that adopter-led matching enables adopters to think perhaps in terms of a broader group of children, rather than the just the nought to two year-olds who adopters so often feel they still want. Has the Minister any more information about the number of adopters involved in this and similar processes who have shown that they are happy to adopt slightly older children, or perhaps sibling groups? This, again, was one of the issues that came up when we were considering the then Children and Families Bill.
Baroness Hughes of Stretford (Lab)
My Lords, I too welcome in principle the regulations, which will enable access to the register by prospective adopters. As the Minister has said, we debated the principle of this extensively in the course of the Bill, when it was a Bill, and I do not intend to spend time on that. It is worth experimenting further to see if this will improve the timescales within which children can be successfully matched, provided that there are sufficient safeguards, as the noble Baroness has just said.
The safeguards as regards access by prospective adopters, and the identities of the children outlined in the arrangements, are satisfactory and robust. The issue is the one identified by the noble Baroness opposite: data security. I agree with her that we want to be as clear as possible about this.
I know the register will be separated into Part 1 and Part 2, the latter for those children who could be placed in a fostering-for-adoption placement, which is sensible and important. I simply want to make two points. One is about the consultation. Although the Minister said it was a full public consultation, there were only 41 responses to this. Given the importance of this measure, that is a very low level of response. I wonder if that is because, as the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has pointed out, there were only six weeks for this consultation over a very busy bank and public holiday period from the end of February through to April, taking in Easter and so on. That is important, and I would be grateful if the Minister could comment as to why it was only six weeks, when the normal period of 12 weeks might have got more responses and more helpful pointers from respondents.
My second set of points concerns the pilots. This is extremely important, as the Minister said, not only to ensure that the systems work, but to see if we can garner any further information about the outcomes for children from this approach. Nine months is not a terribly long period to see what happens to children as a result of adopter-led access to the register. I do not know, but there may be unintended consequences of adopter-led adoption. Surely we would want to know, for instance, if—relatively—more of these matches instigated by adopters either failed or were more successful. I have looked carefully at the explanatory notes that set out the scope of the pilot, which I think should be made a little wider, looking not just at the actual matches but at what happens to the inquiries by adopters in relation to particular children. How many of them actually lead to a match, and how many are stopped in process by social workers for whatever reason? Can we extend the remit of the pilot, so we get under the skin of what is happening before the whole facility for access goes live nationwide?
Thirdly, I have a thought. I have great respect for both the Department for Education and for the BAAF, but I wonder if there was merit in this pilot being evaluated independently, and not by either the department or the BAAF, which are obviously responsible for its administration. But I broadly very much welcome the measure, and look forward to seeing the results of the pilot.
Lord Nash
I am grateful to noble Lords for their comments. Turning to the points raised by my noble friend Lady Tyler, I reiterate a few points and add a few more on the safety front. Of course the safety of children—and of adopters—and the privacy of their information is paramount. The pilot will be subject to stringent independent accreditation to ensure that any risks are managed appropriately. It will be run by the BAAF, which has a very good record of this, as I said. Section 129 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 sets out that wrongful disclosure of information on the register is punishable by a fine of up to £5,000 and up to three months in prison. Information that approved adopters will be able to access about children will not enable them to make any direct approaches. All approved adopters must give written confirmation that they will keep their password safe and will be reminded of their data protection duties. If they do not use the register within a fairly short period, they will not be able to continue to access it. We will have a pretty close idea who has access to the register at any time.
The noble Baronesses asked about the number of adoptions made. It is early days. There is good evidence from the States. We know that one-fifth of matches are made through exchange days. In answer to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes, I can say that we will analyse in detail the experience of these matches to make sure we improve matching and for what we can learn. I pay tribute to her party for introducing exchange days in the first place.
The real driver here is to try to speed up the process. The evidence is clear that every year that children fail to be adopted reduces their chance of being adopted by 20%. We must be very mindful of the damage to those children during that time.
On the length of the consultation, I should say that we published indicative regulations five months before the consultation began, so we thought it was long enough.
I hope I have answered all the points that noble Lords made. I can think of no better way of concluding our discussions today than by quoting an adopter who visited an exchange day. The adopter said:
“For the first time, these children featured in magazines were suddenly real and we could potentially be their new forever parents… I don’t think I would have approached some of the children just by reading their profiles or seeing a picture… It was a very effective way of dispelling some preconceived ideas or anxieties about children waiting for placement”.
Schools: Teachers
Baroness Hughes of Stretford Excerpts(9 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Nash
It is a fact that many schools, rather than go through an extensive competency procedure, which can be highly contested, decide to enter into compromise agreements in order to move teachers on earlier. These often contain secrecy clauses, but I know that this area is being considered more widely.
Baroness Hughes of Stretford (Lab)
My Lords, since the Minister seems to agree that good qualifications, including good degrees, are essential for good teaching, can he explain why the Government have made it legal for academies to employ unqualified people as teachers? Given this, can he assure the House that his department is monitoring the extent to which academies are doing so? How many unqualified people are now working as teachers in academies and free schools?
Lord Nash
I am, as always, delighted that we are having this discussion about qualified teachers because, frankly, if that is all that divides the parties, we have clearly nearly reached a consensus on our extensive teaching reforms. There are, in fact, fewer unqualified teachers under this Government than under the previous Government, despite the substantial increase in academies, which are able—as the noble Baroness rightly says—to recruit them. I will write to her with the precise figures on academy teachers but, as I say, we have fewer unqualified teachers overall. It would be unwise to deny the opportunity for, say, a professional actor or singer without QTS to teach in a school, or someone with a PhD in molecular biology to teach in a school—as is the case in one of our free schools—or, indeed, a teacher from the Guildhall School of Music and Drama to teach part time in a primary school.
Special Educational Needs (Personal Budgets) Regulations 2014
Baroness Hughes of Stretford Excerpts(9 years, 11 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, for once when I find myself talking about the noble Lord, Lord Nash, I am basically saying “Well done”, because the approach to bring parents more into the process and to bring the expertise and support together is very positive. Particularly in the case of certain types of needs or a certain child, the parent is usually the expert, at least initially, and to bring that expertise in is often required.
It is also the case that if one gets an individual need or even indeed something more commonly occurring, it is not uncommon to find a parent who has the time and energy to focus on their child to become more informed about that one child than the professional educators. So this has the potential to be a very good thing.
The devil, of course, will be in the detail and how it is seen through, but at least we have a willingness here to accept that it will need to change and develop, and it will not be one size fits all. This is probably a very good thing. I am sure that politicians and local authorities have the capacity to mess it up themselves, and not all parents will be that well informed and intentioned, but as a basic approach, I think there is much more good than harm in this.
Baroness Hughes of Stretford (Lab)
My Lords, I will say at the outset that we very much welcome, as I think all Members in Committee on the Bill did, the principle of personal budgets and direct payments for children and young people with special education needs and learning difficulties and their families. It is fair to say that we all saw it as a tremendous possibility for empowering those young people and their families and parents. If it works, it will stimulate the provision of more and better services, and hold local authorities and providers to account, using the leverage of the personal budget. However, although we welcome the provision and the regulations, I would like to raise four points with the Minister, which potentially jeopardise this outcome of the empowerment of young people.
The first is the lack of evidence from the pathfinder programme that the Minister referred to. The most recent evaluation we have was published three months ago, in March. At that time, only six of the 31 pathfinder areas had started to implement personal budgets and only four of them had actually managed to develop the necessary resource allocation system which underpins the whole thing. Therefore, as yet, there is no substantial evidence to support what the regulations should be doing in this area—there is not much experience to speak of. It also suggests that many local authorities will have difficulties, as the pathfinders clearly have, setting up personal budgets and will need considerable support and guidance. Although I hear what the Minister says—that this is a kind of iterative, developmental and evolutionary process—there really is at the moment, in this area anyway, very little foundation in terms of knowledge and experience from the pathfinders on which to build. Can the Minister be confident that local authorities generally will be able to implement personal budgets effectively and, more to the point in terms of our discussion today, in the light of that lack of evidence, that these regulations are adequate to ensure that families can really access the personal budgets if they wish?
My second point relates to Regulation 7, which refers to the decisions by local authorities not to make a direct payment. The regulations themselves do not specify the grounds on which a request for a personal budget can be refused by a local authority but simply say that the local authority must give the reasons, in writing, for that refusal. The code of practice that was published in the last couple of days, at paragraph 9.107, refers readers to later paragraphs—paragraphs 9.119 to 9.124—for the reasons why a request may be refused. However, I have to say to the Minister that those paragraphs in the code of practice are about as clear as mud to the average family and, indeed, to me. They refer specifically to other pieces of existing legislation, which you then have to go and trawl through in order to understand what the grounds for refusal might be. Could the Minister say clearly today, and put on record, what are the grounds on which a local authority can refuse a request, over and above those basic conditions outlined in Regulation 8? In respect of direct payments, which are, if you like, a subset of personal budgets, will the Minister look at rewriting the code of practice so that paragraphs 9.119 to 9.124 are clearly understandable by families and professionals who will be looking to the code of practice for guidance?
My third concern is around Regulations 6(c) and 6(d), which the Minister referred to. It seems that these potentially constrain the provision of personal budgets by placing conditions—some would call them a get-out, as the Minister said, although he was referring to something else at that point—because they will enable local authorities to refuse personal budgets if the local authority feels that the provision of those budgets would have an adverse impact on other services or have an impact on the efficient use of local authority resources. I served a long time in local government before coming to this place, and that could mean anything in any local authority. If you are providing a whole range of services directly as a local authority, and somebody wants to take a chunk of your money and have a personal budget, any local authority can argue that that will have an adverse affect on its services and will not be an efficient use of its resources. Therefore, I am very concerned about the wide scope that those two sub-paragraphs give to local authorities to refuse, or at least not promote, personal budgets.
Lord Nash
I am grateful to noble Lords for their comments and questions on the regulations. I turn first to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, about portability. When a family moves to another area, the new local authority may review the plan and conduct an assessment but should keep the provision in the plan in place, including the provision supported by a personal budget.
I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for his kind remarks and support for what we are doing. I turn to the four points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes. I accept that the current evidence is not as extensive as we would all like. However, more than 500 personal budgets were in place at the last count in April, and in May 90% of local authorities said that they were ready to implement the reforms. Local authorities have expertise available to them in relation to the champions for personal budgets. SEN advisers are working with local authorities on this.
When someone’s experience is that something in the code of practice is, as the noble Baroness said, as clear as mud, it gives me cause for concern, but we will be debating this in full in the next few weeks. We feel that the guidance is appropriate but I look forward to those discussions.
I turn to the noble Baroness’s points about Regulations 6(c) and (d). We must consult about the personal budgets with parents and families as part of the process. I have to say that we have had no evidence that local authorities will use these regulations as a kind of devious reason for making the provisions available. Surprisingly, in my visits to a number of pathfinders, I found strong evidence that personal budgets resulted in a more efficient use of resources, as parents understood that this did not amount to a blank cheque, and the co-operation between parents and local authorities resulted in more efficiency.
Lastly, to deal with the point about post-16 provision, the regulations and advice that we give in the code of practice are clear that personal budgets should support provision that is appropriate to the young person as an individual. The wider provisions of the Children and Families Act contain a presumption of mainstream education for those with EHC plans, including those with personal budgets. If that is not an adequate answer for the noble Baroness I would be very happy to discuss it with her further and write to her.
Baroness Hughes of Stretford
I know that the Minister said we are going to debate the code of practice but what are the grounds upon which a local authority can refuse a payment? Why are those grounds not clearly listed in the regulations?
Lord Nash
It looks like I am going to have to get back to the noble Baroness on this. I do apologise.
Perhaps I can close with a quote from a parent on our pathfinder programme, who said:
“The flexibility is essential and means we can reflect changing circumstances’ needs. Compared to this time last year our son is a happier, less anxious, more settled and communicative child and as a consequence we as a family are able to function better and look forward more optimistically”.
I can think of no better way in which to conclude our discussions and, on that note, I hope that all noble Lords will give the regulations their support.
Schools: Bad Behaviour
Baroness Hughes of Stretford Excerpts(10 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Nash
I agree entirely with my noble friend: eating is an extremely civilised way for pupils to learn. I recently visited Dixons Trinity free school in Bradford, which was rated as outstanding shortly after it opened and which I strongly recommend any noble Lord to visit. It has a scheme of family dining whereby pupils eat in eights, teachers join them and one pupil collects the food and serves it to the other pupils. I talked to the pupils about this and they felt that it was extremely valuable.
Baroness Hughes of Stretford (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that a strong PSHE programme is essential to inculcating good behaviour both in and out of school? Is it not another good reason why the Government should put a much stronger emphasis now on PSHE and require all schools to prioritise and improve their PSHE teaching?
Lord Nash
As the noble Baroness knows, we feel that strong PSHE teaching is at the core of all schools—we just do not think that we should legislate specifically for it, as we have discussed on many occasions in this House. We feel we should leave head teachers to adapt the particular pastoral care that they have in their schools. However, we have commissioned the PSHE Association to produce a series of case studies, and Ofsted also has produced a range of key characteristics. We are also establishing a PSHE expert group chaired by Joe Hayman, chief executive of the PSHE Association, to ensure that teachers have the support and resources to deliver high-quality PSHE teaching.
Schools: Academies
Baroness Hughes of Stretford Excerpts(10 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hughes of Stretford
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, following the decision to remove 10 academies from the E-ACT Academy chain, what action they are taking to ensure that other chains are managing schools satisfactorily.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Lord Nash) (Con)
My Lords, within the Department for Education we have a very tough process of performance management for academy chains. The vast majority are sponsored academies—that is, schools which have in most cases previously been allowed to languish in failure for years. Sponsored academies are now improving at double the rate of local authority-maintained schools. In the small number of cases where an academy is not performing well, we hold the trust to account and challenge it to take decisive action. We have a zero-tolerance approach to failure. Since 2011, we have issued 41 pre-warning notices to underperforming academies and these have proved highly effective.
Baroness Hughes of Stretford (Lab)
My Lords, the question here is not individual academies but chains that have been allowed to take over very large numbers of schools. In fact, it is reported that E-ACT, the subject of my Question, has now lost control of 10 of its 34 schools—a third—after damning Ofsted inspections of those schools. Over the weekend, we heard that another big chain has claimed £1 million for so-called ghost pupils. Has not the Secretary of State been reckless in allowing big business to take over such large numbers of our schools without any continuing oversight of its ability to do so? Will he now agree with us, with Ofsted and apparently also with his Schools Minister, David Laws, that to protect the interests of children, parents and teachers, Ofsted should be allowed to inspect not just the schools but these very big sponsoring chains?
Lord Nash
E-ACT was undoubtedly overambitious. It took on a lot of schools which were failing and in very challenging situations. Personally, I think that big business being involved in the academy programme is an excellent idea, and it was of course the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, who introduced this. As I said, this programme, which we are extending, is working extremely well, and we have extremely rigorous oversight of academy chains. We welcome Ofsted’s batch inspection of schools in academy chains and the support that it gets from those chains. However, Ofsted has a lot to do and, given the very tight grip that we have on the central management of these chains, we do not think that it is necessary for it to go any further than that.
Schools: Careers Guidance
Baroness Hughes of Stretford Excerpts(10 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hughes of Stretford (Lab)
My Lords, despite the Minister’s claims, Ofsted, the Education Committee, the British Chambers of Commerce and the CBI have criticised the Government’s hands-off approach to careers guidance. The CBI said recently that careers advice is on life support now in many schools in England. Does the Minister accept that it was wrong to give schools sole responsibility for careers advice but no money to deliver it? Will the Government now act to eradicate the postcode lottery in careers guidance and insist, as my noble friend said, on independent, face-to-face advice for all young people?
Lord Nash
I know that the noble Baroness and I share aspirations for what we expect for young people, but the answer to her question is a firm no. As noble Lords know, the fact that the country is short of money is not this party’s fault. However, I also think that the assumption that a face-to-face interview with a careers adviser is the gold standard is a very outmoded model. As noble Lords will see when we publish our guidance, I hope shortly, we have a very strong emphasis on employer engagement, which we believe is the secret to good careers advice. I give an example: Westminster Academy, which has built up partnerships with more than 200 employers, has 73% FSM and 75% A* to C, including English and maths. I can think of no better example or argument for employer engagement on the ground, giving pupils a direct line of sight to real-life workplaces rather than just career advisers.
Children and Families Bill
Baroness Hughes of Stretford Excerpts(10 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hughes of Stretford (Lab)
My Lords, I understand what the Minister has done with these amendments, and I welcome the fact that we finally have recognition that, as the noble Lord, Lord Nash, admits in his letter of 31 January, there is an individually owned duty to provide services to disabled children where they are assessed under Section 2 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act. I also recognise that through this amendment—theoretically, anyway—the assessed social care needs for disabled children will be met under the existing duty. The amendments will mean that any social care provision which a child or young person is entitled to receive under that social care legislation must be included in the plan.
I had intended to ask the Minister some questions, and it is good that in her opening remarks she put on record what I wanted her to clarify: that local authorities must—she emphasised the word “must”—decide whether a child is eligible for services under the 1970 Act, and must also decide what services the child needs. If they decide that a child needs those services they must put them in the plan—and, crucially, they must deliver those services. The Minister has already put that on the record.
I would like to make two more points. First, the letter from the noble Lord, Lord Nash, also says that he will set out clearly in the code of practice the social care duties that must be included in the EHC plan, and explain the duties to provide those services where they are applicable. Could the Minister say in her summing up whether there are particular social care services that must be provided—and whether there are some, therefore, that may not be provided? Is there a distinction there?
The second point is that in relation to the code of practice the explanation to the local authorities is crucial. As it stands, the Bill, even after this amendment, is a very complex way of framing the respective duties of health, education and social care to provide the services. I certainly would have preferred, for the sake of clarity for those implementing the Act, as it will then be, for social care to be included in Clause 42 rather than Clause 37; Clause 37 deals with EHC plans whereas Clause 42 deals with the duty to deliver the services. I think it would be helpful to local authorities to see very clearly in one place in the Act that all three elements of this new planning process—health, social care and education—have to deliver. Unless the duty on social care achieved by this rather tortuous mechanism is clearly spelt out to local authorities it may not be fully recognised by social workers. Will the noble Baroness comment on that? I welcome the changes.
Baroness Hughes of Stretford
My Lords, it is always understandable, in our relief at seeing positive improvements to the Bill, of which this is one of the most important—we talked about social care before—that noble Lords welcome them, and so do I. However, I am mindful of the persistence and doggedness that it took to get to this point not only here but in the other place. I do not want to take anything away from the change, which is very positive, but rewriting the history of the Bill as being one of consensus is probably a step too far.
I welcome the amendments that the Government have brought forward today and I understand the Minister’s desire to see whether mediation can be an effective alternative to a formal appeals process. I make no criticism of that, as it is entirely understandable, and the amendments that apply to mediation will make it available across the spectrum of health, education and social care.
I have three questions for the Minister: one on mediation and a couple on the review and pilots. I read carefully the amendments on mediation and particularly noted the requirement that the mediator must be independent of the agency providing the services with which the parent or young person disagrees. That point of independence is absolutely right and understandable, but can the Minister say how this will work in practice? One of the things that concerns me is that, if a parent or young person wants to contest, say, both health and social care elements of the plan, it is very important that they should have one mediator who is independent of both the NHS and the local authority. As the noble Lord, Lord Storey, has just said, our debates around this issue have laboured the need for a single avenue of redress for families. That applies just as much to the mediation process as it would to the formal appeal process, as we were arguing.
I ask that question because there are of course separate amendments for mediation in health and in social care. I want to ensure that, when the time comes, which may be when regulations are considered, there will be the opportunity to consider this level of detail and to make sure that families are not relating to two or three separate mediators, plus the First-tier Tribunal, because in a sense that would not achieve the spirit that we sought in the debate on the issue.
My other points concern the review and the pilots. I welcome Amendment 33, which I think takes up the amendment that we tabled on Report about the need for this to be looked at in some detail. It may be three years’ time before we have the results. I hope that there are enough of us still around to see the outcomes of those pilots and the review to make sure that we can use the results productively. In that regard, can the Minister say whether during that time he envisages that there will be some kind of oversight of the pilots and the review process? Could there be some interim findings or representation from interested parliamentarians on some kind of review board or body, with sector representatives? He mentioned parents and young people as well. For us to approve this now and then wait three years is a long time to see what, if anything, is happening. Some oversight of that process would be very welcome.
Baroness Warnock (CB)
Having put my name to the original amendment to remove the then Clause 70, perhaps I may also add my gratitude. This is a real step forward in the education of young people in custody—not just people with special educational needs, which most of them have in any case. In general, it is a landmark move forward, so I express my appreciation to the Government for that.
Baroness Hughes of Stretford
My Lords, if you consider the amendments on young offenders that will have been added to the Bill in total when it is enacted and compare that to the position when we started—the complete exclusion of young offenders from any of the provisions on special educations needs—you can appreciate the enormous journey that has been made. I welcome that the Government have, in the end, listened to the arguments that were made by Members across the House. This issue has concerned many noble Lords on all Benches but I want to acknowledge in particular the expertise and leadership that the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, brought to the issue, corralling us all together and making sure that we ultimately got the changes that we see today—which I very much welcome.
Baroness Northover
Noble Lords will know what a huge relief it is to any Minister when the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, expresses his pleasure at something we have done. I know how much he likes the word “must”, and I am extremely pleased to have been able to deliver this word to him. I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Warnock and Lady Hughes. We are well and truly corralled for very good reasons, and I am very pleased that the noble Lord is content with where we have got to and with the current and future involvement of the Ministry of Justice. I hope that noble Lords will support these amendments. I beg to move.
Baroness Hughes of Stretford
My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, for agreeing to lead on this issue from the Cross Benches. He has been exemplary in the way that he has taken this forward once the issue arrived in this House. I also thank him and the Minister for their recognition of my very good friend Paul Goggins, who is a great loss to the other place and particularly to the cause of improving the lives of children in care.
I am also grateful to my colleagues at the other end because it was very important for us to get cross-party agreement from the two main parties, the Conservative Party and the Labour Party, to the spending commitment involved here. I am pleased that we were able to get that, so that had the Government not agreed to this today we could have given the assurance that we would want to implement it. As the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, says, these amendments extend to a national provision the pilots initiated under the previous Labour Government. I am very pleased that we are able to do that because it will make a huge difference to a great many young people.
I have read the draft guidance and very much welcome the emphasis, which the Minister referred to, on the financial support that local authorities must consider in staying-put arrangements. However, I would also reflect on the fact that the references to any tax and benefit implications for the foster families perhaps need to be strengthened. Local authorities really need to help foster carers unravel any tax and benefit implications of a staying-put arrangement, particularly when they get financial support. The key will be in getting local authorities to implement this fully. Perhaps the Minister could comment on how the Government intend to monitor what is happening so as to know how many young people are being offered, and are taking up, the possibility of a staying-put arrangement and how well those are going.
This is the last time in what has been a very long Bill that I will be on my feet this afternoon. I was reminded earlier that it was July when we had Second Reading. I would like a moment on behalf of myself and my noble friends Lady Jones, Lady Morgan and Lord Stevenson, to make some thank yous. What is remarkable is the number of very substantial improvements made to the Bill during its consideration in this House, which has shown the House of Lords at its best. Despite the fact that many of the changes which we have agreed here had been proposed in the other place and rejected, the willingness of many Members across the House to work together in common cause on key issues has dramatically improved the original Bill, as we received it. On adoption, family justice and special educational needs there are now significant changes which are very welcome. There are new areas of policy as well, as we have been discussing this afternoon, on parent carers, the protection of children from smoking and so on.
There were some lost opportunities for which there was substantial but, in the end, insufficient support to carry the day, particularly on compulsory SRE and online child protection measures. I have no doubt that we will return to those because I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, is not going to give up her indefatigable campaign of online child protection issues. I look forward to supporting her in other opportunities.
While at times the pace of our considerations no doubt caused some concern for the Government, this was in no small measure due to the detailed scrutiny which Members were prepared to give to the Bill, with the time to discuss it and flesh the issues out. We were aided substantially by a wide range of organisations outside the House willing to help us to make the most of the opportunity that the Bill provided, and I thank them very much.
I thank all the Ministers and the Bill team for their willingness to meet us and to listen. They gave very generously of their time and I very much appreciate that. We had some good discussions, and obviously many of those bore fruit.
I also want to mention the Hansard recorders in Grand Committee. We stretched the normal time limits on a number of occasions and I was very conscious of that. I want to put on record that we appreciated their help.
I also thank Sophie Davis, who helps the opposition team in our office. She is terribly well organised, and I am sure that noble Lords who have had e-mails from her and the opportunity to speak to her have found that she is unfailingly courteous and very measured. She has been a great help.
Lastly, I thank the Ministers here today, the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, and the noble Lord, Lord Nash, for their constructive approach and their willingness to bring forward changes that we have discussed. I think that many of us will have heard with regrets the noble Lord’s announcement on Report that he has no intention of remaining a Minister after the general election. One may think that after making such progress with this Bill, it would be rather a waste if this were to be both the first and the last Bill that he took through this House. I hope that he reconsiders. In any event, whatever he does, we wish him well. I thank both Ministers again.
Lord Nash
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes, for her kind remarks. It has been a pleasure working with her and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, over the past few months. I have never had so many compliments—certainly not so many back-handed compliments—quite so quickly. The noble Baroness might be interested to know that the draft of the few words that I might say after the final amendment said, “This is my first and last Bill”, and I found myself taking out the words “and last”, so you never know.
I echo the noble Baroness’s remarks about the noble Earl, Lord Listowel; it is in fact entirely thanks to his relentless determination on this issue that we have arrived at the point where we have today with the staying-put arrangements. I thank him for his time in meeting me and officials to discuss the matter and the clause itself. As I mentioned earlier, I would welcome comments from Peers on the draft guidance in the coming weeks, and I will take back the noble Baroness’s comments that she made today.
On the question of monitoring implementation, the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, made a comment about implementation. I have been saying in the department for some time now that I hope we are not just going to pass the Bill and retire to the sidelines; it is all about making sure that it happens. I just had a word with my honourable friend the Minister responsible for this field and told him that the noble Baroness had made the point again about implementation, and he said that perhaps she would like to come to our first implementation meeting. It is not my brief but I shall be there, and I intend to be at as many as I can get to. As everyone has said, it is about changing practice and ensuring that it actually happens.
On the point about monitoring made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes, we will be monitoring the statistical returns from local authorities to assess the take-up of staying put. Also, the revised Ofsted inspection framework includes a new sub-judgment on care leavers that has a focus on accommodation, including staying put. Based on these sources of information, we will be able to identify whether any local authority is not fulfilling its duties, and will not hesitate to challenge those that are not.
We are continuing to work with sector organisations on the guidance to ensure that it supports the effective implementation of this important new duty. We are committed to doing more to support care leavers, and I believe that the proposed new clause is a crucial step forward. I hope that noble Lords will support it.
Schools: Pupil Premium
Baroness Hughes of Stretford Excerpts(10 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Nash
The right reverend Prelate is quite right to point out the problems with rural deprivation; it is similar to coastal deprivation. There are particular schemes that schools follow: mentoring; systemic feedback; much more involvement of parents; early intervention, particularly using the better teachers; and peer tutoring. Much can be learnt from groups like Ark, whose academy in Portsmouth, for instance, which is in a classic coastal town, has improved results in four years from 24% to 68%.
Baroness Hughes of Stretford (Lab)
My Lords, as the Minister himself just said, Ofsted has a crucial role in improving the standards of attainment for the most disadvantaged pupils. Does he therefore agree that its effectiveness depends on it being a very strong and independent organisation? Does he therefore regret the political interference of the Secretary of State in the reappointment of the current chair of Ofsted, who by all accounts has done an excellent job?