Children with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities
Lord Patel Excerpts(3 weeks, 6 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Fraser of Craigmaddie, and I thank her for leading this debate in such a brilliant way.
My brief comments relate to the educational needs of children born prematurely and the challenges faced by parents and children in getting the system to help them. My comments are based solely on evidence received from many parents by the House of Lords Preterm Birth Committee, which I chaired.
Approximately 45,000 pre-term births occur annually in England. For most children who survive the neonatal period, the outcome is good, but for a significant number, particularly those born between 24 and 31 weeks’ gestation, while the incidence of physical disability is low, the most common outcome is a whole spectrum of cognitive impairment that extends into adulthood. Apart from poor hearing and sight, some children also suffer from epilepsy—and we have already heard of the problems that education has with children with epilepsy. Children born prematurely show problems with memory, attention and problem-solving, and social and emotional problems, withdrawn behaviour and communication difficulties. While some will need long-term healthcare, for most it is their educational needs that need greater attention and therefore consume more resources than healthcare does.
Entering school is a stressful time for children born prematurely and their parents—a flashpoint when the cognitive, social and emotional difficulties experienced by children emerge or become exacerbated. Many parents are worried that their child is not mature enough to enter school according to the cut-off point in age to start school. Children born prematurely are more likely to have special educational needs and learning difficulties than children born at term.
Parents reported a lack of understanding and awareness of the needs of children born prematurely and, therefore, a lack of support in educational settings. While the government guidance recognises the option of deferment to school entry, we heard many parents face bureaucratic hurdles and that there is a lack of understanding on the part of local authorities and schools of the educational needs of children born prematurely. Parents asked for help to make it easier to ask for deferring school entry and for schools to be aware of the birth history of the children, for example, by including the information on the school entry form. Parents who gave evidence were pleading for a way forward that recognises the educational needs of children born pre-term and the need of support from schools to take on board the views and experiences of parents, including options to defer entry.
Our committee was unable to find a way forward, except to support the efforts of voluntary programmes, such as the Prem Aware Award scheme, to raise awareness of prematurity in schools. I hope that the Minister will give some thought to how the children and the parents of children born prematurely can be helped.
Higher Education Sector
Lord Patel Excerpts(1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
Yes, this Minister does recognise that, which is precisely why this Government, unlike the last Government, have taken action to put universities’ finances on a more sustainable basis. It is fundamentally important that we can protect our world-leading universities sector, ensure that the staff doing such an important job there are supported and attract students, both domestic and international, to the benefit of them and of our country.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, following on from the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, which I support, we have something like 113,000 PhD students in the country, of which 43,000 are international students. They are highly talented. They would like to stay here when they complete their studies and, for this to happen, the Government need to introduce more stability in migration policy for both students and post-docs. If they stay here, because they are talented and have completed their PhDs, they will grow our economy and innovate, so I hope the Minister will have some comments to make about how this could happen.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble Lord is right that it is important that the graduate route visa has been protected. It allows international students, in the case of PhD graduates, to stay for an additional three years to contribute and look for work. I think that that is appropriate, given the contribution that they make, as the noble Lord says.
Universities
Lord Patel Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a professor emeritus of the University of Dundee and its previous chancellor. I have also been associated with the University of St Andrews.
I applaud the Government for recognising that a more sustainable approach to the funding of higher education and research is needed. I am pleased to see that the Government have protected the R&D budget and full funding of our association to Horizon Europe. As highlighted by the Universities UK report, brilliantly introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, I hope that, going forward, the Government will recognise that more will be needed to ease financial pressures on universities to support emerging blue-skies research and develop infrastructure to do so.
I will briefly mention two areas that deserve further attention—one was briefly mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs. The bedrock of the UK ambition to remain a leader in science and technology is doctoral education in UK universities. But there are worrying signs. Although talented overseas doctoral students flock to UK universities, which are second only to the USA, domestic demand, particularly from talented students, is falling. This and the reduction in funded PhD studentships are likely the next university crisis.
Of the 113,000 PhD research students, 46,300 are from overseas. A recent report suggesting that there would be fewer funded places in the future is worrying. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council training centres will fall from 75 to 40, leading to some 1,750 fewer funded places. The Arts and Humanities Research Council is reducing its numbers of funded PhD students from 475 to 300. The Wellcome Trust, once a major funder of doctoral students, particularly in the life sciences, is to severely reduce its support following its new strategy. Universities currently provide some PhD studentships and considerable other support for doctoral education, but this will be an early casualty if universities face further financial pressures.
Doctoral researchers are a big cost centre, with low cost recovery. Universities have subsidised doctoral research from fees from overseas students, as we have heard, and from other sources, such as the QR funding. In the past, universities have done this training on the cheap, thanks to 30 years of university growth. By the way, talented overseas PhD students are keen to come to the UK and stay, innovate and help grow our economy, as was mentioned. But, for this to happen, the Government need to introduce more stability in student and post-doc migration policy, as was alluded to. We need them to be able to stay and grow our economy, like in other countries. Otherwise, it does not make sense for the UK to grow brains only for other countries to benefit.
My second point is also relevant to universities’ ability to support research. An important part of this is the QR funding, mentioned in some detail by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, so I will not go over it again. Although there has been a welcome increase in charities funding research, charity research support funding—CRSF—has not seen a commensurate increase or an increase with inflation. The cost recovery of funding related to charity-funded research is now less than 57%. If this continues, it would undermine the important partnership for research between government, charities and universities.
On successful research institutes, I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, who said that, for institutes, the return is two to one, as opposed to three to one for universities. I might have said that it is four to one for institutes, such as the Institute of Cancer Research. This not only carries out fundamental research, particularly in cancers, but has been responsible for producing 60 drug molecules, two of which have been on the market for treating breast cancer and prostate cancer. It also trains half the number of UK oncologists. But it benefits from this research support only due to the funding it gets through the CRSF-related funding, which is not enough for it to support its doctoral students. Over the years, it has therefore supported this activity to the tune of £30 million, which it has to raise from other sources.
There is a need to look at the level of QR and CRSF funding with some urgency. With the spending review in mind, there is a need to look at a more sustained model of university research funding. I hope the Government will be sympathetic.
King’s Speech
Lord Patel Excerpts(5 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, I join other noble Lords in welcoming the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Malvern, and congratulate her on her maiden speech. I tease her a little when I say that it was a really apolitical maiden speech. I also extend my congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, on her appointment as Minister of State in the Department of Health and Social Care. I wish her well. I have no doubt that in days to come we will have many opportunities to interact and debate health issues.
In the brief time allocated to me today, I will confine my remarks mostly to issues related to health. I find myself much in support of the proposed areas of legislation that relate to health. The Tobacco and Vapes Bill, with powers to implement it, will deliver huge health gains. More than 80,000 people a year die of diseases related to smoking, from 18 different types of cancers to cardiovascular disease, chronic lung disease, pregnancy-related disease, stillbirths and pre-term births. The measures will go a long way to reducing health inequalities. Figures show that there are more than 6 million smokers in the UK today, and more than 100,000 children take up smoking each year. The Government’s aim over the years to make the UK a smoke-free country is ambitious but, in my view, worthy.
The proposals to ban the advertising and promotion of vapes are good as far as they go. We will have to wait for details in the legislation. I hope the Government will be bold enough in time to ban vapes altogether. Scientific evidence already shows their high levels of nicotine, and children are taking up vaping; 5% of children now use vapes and 20% have tried vapes. Vapes should be banned as much as tobacco smoking.
At long last, we will now have a Bill to amend mental health. No doubt the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, will have much to say about that. For my part I welcome it. I hope that the legislation will have robust measures to protect and help particularly children and people with learning disabilities. Importantly, I hope that the legislation will include measures to monitor the impact of the proposed legislation, possibly through the appointment of a commissioner, without us having to amend the Bill. I also hope that the legislation will address funding issues in mental health.
The Government’s wish to deliver healthcare closer to home is one that I hope they will pursue with determination, but it cannot be done without the reform of primary and community care, including a greater share of funding going to primary care and community care. This, with legislation related to the devolution of powers more locally, has to be the way forward for providing more care closer to home. We can learn much from countries such as Denmark, where locally managed primary and community health centres deliver much of the healthcare, with 99% patient satisfaction. There will be much opposition from vested interests to develop such a model. I hope the Government will be bold.
I welcome the Government’s commitment in the proposed digital and smart data Bill to allow use of data for medical research. As I have mentioned previously, the lack of legislation to allow the use of health data for scientific research has hindered us in improving the delivery of healthcare, driving innovations, conducting clinical trials, developing new treatments and much more. I hope that the Bill will remedy this.
While all that I have mentioned is positive, we do not yet have plans for the provision of social care or, apart from a promise of more GPs and midwives, a health workforce plan—particularly for the nursing workforce—for a service that by 2035 is likely to employ nearly 10% of the working-age population. Nor is there yet a sustainable funding formula for a service that may well end up costing more than £250 billion by 2035. The NHS for far too long has been a political football subjected to ideologically driven reforms not in the best interests of patients. What we need is long-term political consensus, and I hope the Government might work towards that. Securing political consensus is important given the amount of public money spent on health and adult social care, and so is accountability. Periodic reviews, commissions, parliamentary inquiries et cetera are not the answer. What we need is an independent body, such as an independent office of health and care sustainability, that will hold the Government to account for their funding, plans and long-term use of money.
Universities: Nuclear Energy Sector Skills
Lord Patel Excerpts(1 year ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Barran (Con)
My noble friend makes a good point. I share her appreciation for the organisations that she named. We are investing £50 million over the next two years to pilot ways in which to increase the number of apprenticeships in engineering and other key growth sectors, as well as to address barriers to entry into these professions. We will set out more detail on that in the new year, which will, I hope, go some way to addressing her concerns.
Baroness Barran (Con)
The noble Viscount will have to forgive me; I am not familiar with the details on that, but I would be happy to write to him.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that, to develop nuclear technology—including fusion technology—we need many more PhD students working in postgraduate degrees, as well as more funding for those PhDs? Furthermore, as we are now not going to join Euratom and we do not have a prototype fusion reactor, what plans do the Government have to rejoin the ITER—International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor—programme?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The noble Lord is right that we need more PhDs, but we need skills at every level. That is where the Government’s strategy is focusing, starting in schools and building through T-levels, then to high-quality advanced levels up to PhD. The Government are very open to exploring international co-operation in this area—less on the research side, but the AUKUS agreement was a sign of that.
Education System
Lord Patel Excerpts(2 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Barran (Con)
I will be able to update the House on the progress of the Schools Bill in due course, but I agree with the right reverend Prelate. The Government are very supportive of the faith sector, the schools within it and their wish to academise in the most constructive way possible.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, is the Minister aware of the Law Society report calling for a greater uptake of mathematics teaching to over-16s, only 15% of whom take mathematics? The same applies to science subjects, where there is poor education for over-16s. If this country has ambitions to be a science superpower, the teaching of these subjects to over-16s is important.
Baroness Barran (Con)
The Government are aware of the report and are committed to developing all aspects of the STEM subjects. We are doing that particularly in areas where recruitment is difficult, through the provision of significant, £27,000 tax-free bursaries and levelling-up premiums for staff working in those areas.
Social Care: Children
Lord Patel Excerpts(2 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, in the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, the Minister suggested that there would be two national children’s identification numbers. Is that correct? Can that be right?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I apologise to the House if that is the impression that I gave. I am happy to write to set out the Government’s position in detail.
Higher Education and Research Bill
Lord Patel ExcerptsTuesday 6th December 2016
(8 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Higher Education and Research Act 2017 View all Higher Education and Research Act 2017 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 21 November 2016 - (21 Nov 2016)
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, the first reading of the Bill makes me ask the question: what is broken that we are trying to fix? But before I start, I will concur completely with what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, had to say about the Scottish dimension and the implication of the Bill for it. If he had not said it, I would certainly have done so; if he puts down amendments, I will back them; if he does not, I will put them down myself. I make that quite clear. I see that the noble Viscount, Lord Younger of Leckie, has just left his place, but I was going to say to him that, having the same alma mater as him, the University of St Andrews, I am sure that he understands the need to make sure that the Scottish dimension is addressed.
I have concerns about the autonomy of the universities, the teaching excellence framework, the probationary degree-awarding powers, the Office for Students as a validator of degrees, and, in Part 3, the autonomy of the research councils. I declare my interests: I have been a member of the Medical Research Council for several years, I am the chancellor of the University of Dundee and I am associated with several other educational institutions.
I have a problem with the role of UKRI, Innovate UK and Research England, which have already been mentioned. It is imperative that the Bill does not serve to undermine institutional autonomy, which has been key to the global success of our higher education sector. Universities need to be able to take their own decisions in order to be flexible and responsive to the needs of their students and employers, and to think long term about global challenges. Research has shown that reducing autonomy is linked to lower performance. The ability of every institution to make decisions about the courses it provides—what it chooses to open or what it makes the difficult decision to close—should be made free from government interference. It is therefore very welcome that the Government amended the Bill in the other place to address this concern. However, autonomy is such a fundamental principle of the UK higher education system that the Bill ought to go further.
Central to the potential erosion of autonomy in the Bill is the Government’s approach to standards. Universities UK and others have highlighted that the Bill conflates quality and standards, which we know are two very different things when it comes to higher education. While there may be a legitimate role for the OfS in assessing quality, as defined by the quality code, standards must be the preserve of independent academic institutions. I hope that we will come back to this in Committee—I will certainly table an amendment to explore it.
For students, choosing to go to university represents a significant personal and financial investment. In that context, new providers must demonstrate that they can provide high-quality education. Surely any provider awarding its own degrees or calling itself a university must meet the same high standards. Therefore, it is a particular concern that the Bill allows for the Office for Students to grant probationary degree-awarding powers and test entry into the market. How do you test entry into the market if you do not know what the subsequent quality will be?
I also have concerns about the OfS as a validator. Clause 47 gives the sector’s regulator, the OfS, the ability to validate degrees. This appears to be a clear conflict of interest. It seems wholly inappropriate for a regulator to participate in the market that it regulates. I know of no other regulator that is empowered to act in this way.
With regard to Part 3 of the Bill, I have a greater concern about the autonomy of the research councils. Let us take as an example the Medical Research Council. It is allowed to enter into partnerships, as it does with AstraZeneca to develop drugs and with Marks & Spencer on food security. I also have a problem with how UKRI will relate to councils when those councils have their own research institutes, such as the Medical Research Council Laboratory of Molecular Biology, where several of our Nobel prize winners have come from. If UKRI is the employer, the council must have the relationship with, and must fund, the research workers. We will have to explore that in Committee. It will be important to preserve the autonomy of the research councils.
I have concerns, too, about the Home Secretary’s proposal that different visa rules for “lower-quality” universities and courses will be awarded. What kinds of universities, which have all gone through rigorous quality testing, will be deemed as low quality? Some UK universities ranked most highly in the world may not score particularly highly in the Government’s proposed teaching excellence framework as it currently stands—so will these universities be affected by the new visa regime?
While the policy development is independent of the Bill, any strengthening of the higher education system through this legislation will be undermined if it is coupled with a punitive set of policies when it comes to international students. As other speakers have already asked, how will this affect the recruitment of international students? I think that we will have to explore many of these points in Committee, for which I hope the Government will provide enough time.
Child Exploitation in Oxfordshire
Lord Patel Excerpts(9 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, we all agree that we have to protect vulnerable children and young people. The UK is a signatory to the Lanzarote convention. Why has it not ratified it in legislation when 38 other countries, including most European countries, have done so and have brought forward legislation?
Children and Families Bill
Lord Patel Excerpts(11 years, 2 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Patel
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to kick off today’s procedure rather than waiting all day and your turn not coming. It gives me an opportunity to begin and I will try not to be long. Perhaps I may put my amendment in the context of the debate that we have had. First, many times in Committee we have heard that this Bill is all about improving education for all children. I am encouraged by and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Nash, and the Government, for their amendment related to the education of children with cancers and other long-term diseases.
I also thank him for his response to the amendment in the names of my noble friend Lord Kennedy and myself about children with cancers, their education and alternative provision. Putting that into context with this amendment makes this amendment crucial to complete the circle. I say that because my amendment provides a simple insertion to Clause 36. It would ensure that “providers of alternative provision”, including hospital schools and medical pupil referral units, would be able to request an education, health and care—the so-called EHC—needs assessment for pupils who need it. It is necessary because the Bill states that the request for,
“an EHC needs assessment for a child or young person may be made to the authority by the child’s parent, the young person or a person acting on behalf of a school or post-16 institution”.
I believe that what is lacking is that the providers of alternative provision should also be able to request an assessment.
Research carried out by charities such as CLIC Sargent has found that many parents did not think that their child’s educational needs were adequately assessed after their child’s initial diagnosis of their condition, including cancer. That adversely affected the education of the child. Alternative providers are well placed to request and feed into the needs assessment, as they have better knowledge of the child’s needs and have been involved in the child’s education over a period of time. Importantly, the limitations that, for example, the child with cancer still undergoing treatment might have can last several years.
Although some children with cancer go through treatment with minor disruption to their education, some find that they are disadvantaged for years as a result of aggressive and debilitating treatment and have huge gaps in their education. Their needs are very different. Some would be able to return to school with minimal extra provision, while others may require significant additional support. In some cases, that may be during their whole school career to enable them to catch up with their peers and to achieve their potential.
Often, awareness on the part of the school is key, which is not surprising considering that such children and young people are few in number. About 3,500 new cases of child cancers are diagnosed every year and a similar number of other children have other long-term diseases. Because of the variety of conditions, each school will not have the necessary experience. The issue is further exacerbated by the fact the child’s needs will often not be immediately apparent, but learning can still be affected in the longer term as a result of chronic fatigue, attention and concentration difficulties and even psychological and emotional problems. These issues can all directly impact on a child’s ability to learn.
There are, therefore, other benefits in involving hospital school staff and other professionals such as clinical nurse specialists in the process, as they are much more likely to have specialist knowledge about the impact of the child’s cancer and the support required. The amendment has the support of the National Association of Hospital and Home Teaching, a professional association for teachers and staff in the UK who work with children and young people whose medical needs prevent them from attending school.
The Minister has been very considerate in the amendments we debated before, but this amendment is the one missing notch that will help the education of children not just with cancers but with other long-term diseases. It would recognise the important role of alternative providers of education, working in a co-operative way with schools, parents and local authorities. Furthermore, including them in the EHC planning of these children values them as teachers. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Nash, will be sympathetic to the amendment. I am not seeking for this to be in the Bill—although I do not see why not—but I would be content if the guidance could be strengthened. I beg to move.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendments 129, 131, 133, 136, 139, 140, 141 and 142 standing in my name. These amendments focus on the mechanics of the process for determining education, health and care needs, the rights of appeal and the support for families which need to be factored in during the assessment process.
First, Amendment 131 specifies that, when making a decision as to whether special educational provision should be made for a child or young person, the local authority should have,
“regard to the competencies and needs of the child or young person’s parents and immediate family”.
This whole-family approach is an essential feature of the Bill. It should place the child’s or young person’s family at the heart of the assessment process. This is important in informing the provision to be specified in an EHC plan and would provide a much more rounded and personalised programme of support. This is consistent with our approach to previous parts of the Bill which sought to involve families more in the process. I know, from discussions we have had about young carers, that the Minister is sympathetic to this approach.
It is important that family life and home life are considered as part of a support package. Families are key to the well-being of children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities and to ensuring that they have every help to achieve their potential. The draft code of practice is very light on the scope to include families in assessments. The emphasis is on parental involvement in discussions and decisions, which is fine, but we are making a different point: families do not just need to be consulted; their own needs for help and support also need to be assessed. This whole-family approach is a fundamental principle which should thread through the clauses and be spelled out in the Bill. I hope noble Lords will support this amendment.
Amendments 129, 140, 141 and 142 deal with timescales in decision-making. Clause 36 specifies that parents, young people or educational establishments can request an EHC assessment. Our amendments would add a six-week time limit for responding to such requests. We feel that this is a reasonable timeframe, given that such requests would not be made unless there was a view that a child’s education was suffering in some way, so early intervention and action for the sake of the child are obviously important at that point.
We are aware that this requirement is included in the draft code of practice, but we feel that these rights are so fundamental that they should be spelt out clearly in the Bill. We feel that clear timescales would give added reassurance to parents and children alike, and would ensure that local authorities had clear and responsive processes in place to comply with the Act from its commencement, which would make these timescales a reality.
Amendments 133 and 136 deal with the right of appeal. As it stands, Clause 36(5) states that where a decision is taken by a local authority that no special education provision will be made, the local authority must notify the child’s parent or the young person of the reasons for that decision. So far so good, but our amendment would go one step further and ensure that parents are informed of their right to take the decision to appeal as a matter of course. This matter is covered in the code of practice, but we feel that it is better placed as an absolute right in the Bill.
We would go one stage further and argue that all appeal rights should be brought together as one single seamless set of rights spelt out in the Bill. We have separate amendments in a later group that address that point. We believe that a robust appeals process will ultimately be a guarantor of quality and will help to make the EHC system a success. I hope noble Lords will listen carefully to the points that I have made and will feel able to support the amendments.
Lord Patel
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his comments on my amendment. I did not think that the earlier provisions he referred to made it clear that alternative providers of education could initiate an EHC plan, but if his reassurances confirm that, then I am content. I will, however, read exactly what he said and look at the clauses again. I felt the earlier clauses did not clarify that, which is why I tabled the amendment.