Children and Families Bill

Baroness Wilkins Excerpts

Wednesday 6th November 2013 Grand Committee

[Baroness Wilkins (Lab)]

My Lords, I add my strong support to Amendment 181. My noble friend Lady Hughes has just refereed to Jane Raca. Anyone who has read her book, Standing Up for James, will know that there is an urgent need to improve the current system of support for families with disabled children. However, the Government’s proposals for appeals risk creating an even more complex system than already exists, with different appeals or challenges having to be made simultaneously, as we have heard, about different parts of the EHC plan to different bodies.

In her book, Jane Raca recounts the situation of her local vicar’s family. The Tomlinsons have six children, including Edmund, who is 14 and severely autistic. Ed does not speak and has no sense of danger or of what is socially appropriate, He is very often awake at night, meaning that Matthew and Joanna, his parents, have very little sleep. Although Ed’s statement provides for him to attend a weekly boarding school for autistic children, he is at home every weekend and all school holidays. Despite that, his parents receive just 27 nights’ respite a year, which they try to eke out during the school holidays. They got that only when they broke down completely in front of their GP.

That is far too little support but, as Joanna Tomlinson says, she just did not have the strength to fight for what the family needed and for Ed’s needs to be looked at holistically. The Bill holds out hope for that. Joanna knew that her local authority would not have agreed to fund both the education and the social care provision, and that she would have had to fight to appeal on both fronts. The Bill will perpetuate that unless we accept these amendments. If we do not, parents will still have to face three different processes if they wish to challenge the content of EHC plans. I urge the Minister to accept this amendment.

[Lord Touhig (Lab)]

My Lords, I will just add a few words. This multilayered system of appeal is absolutely insane and crying out to be altered. In Wales, we have a word, “dwp”, which means stupid or daft in the head. If a Nobel prize were awarded for daft bits of red tape, this would get it. Surely the Government must see the common sense and logic of reducing this down to one system of appeal and stopping all the battles that people who have children with special educational needs or disabilities, or children who are autistic, must have to appeal a decision that they think is not just, right or in the interests of their child.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Countess of Mar (CB)]

My Lords, I, too, support the noble Lord, Lord Addington. The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, hit the nail on the head when she said that she has relatives who have been to university and got degrees, with assistance, because they are dyspraxic. My granddaughter has dyspraxia. She is at the University of Lincoln at the moment and doing very well. She is getting “ones” right across the board because she is given extra time to do her written work. That has been accepted. Why do we not do it with apprenticeships? It seems ridiculous that we are putting these kids on the scrapheap. We criticise young people for not going out to work, and when they try to get qualifications, we fail them. To fail is disillusioning for these youngsters. They will not want to go to work if they think nobody wants them. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, and the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, have a very valid point.

[Baroness Wilkins]

I support this group of amendments. I am mildly dyslexic, and I assure noble Lords that in terms of daily frustration, it is a million times more frustrating than being in a wheelchair. There is a great deal of support for being in a wheelchair, but there is very little support for being dyslexic. The Government are to be admired for their commitment to apprenticeships, and it seems a tragedy that it should be undermined in this way, so I beg the Minister to accept these amendments.

[Lord Low of Dalston]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Addington, has had a pretty good run for his money and has got not only unanimous but very voluble support from the other Members of the Committee. I would not detract from that one whit. I support every word he said and what others have added, but I wonder whether I may crave the Committee’s indulgence to make a slight change of subject.

I shall speak to Amendment 192 in this group, which is tabled in my name and the names of the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, and the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp. It is a probing amendment which would require schools to retain the current system of school action and school action plus. We may not have formulated the amendment perfectly, and I am sure there is room for plenty of discussion about how it might be focused or targeted more precisely. I am anxious to learn more about the Government’s thinking in seeking to abolish the current stages of school action and school action plus. As we know, the Government are replacing that graduated approach with a single SEN category. The amendment refers to schools, but my concerns also relate to how early years settings and post-16 institutions will meet the needs of children and young people with SEN.

My reason for tabling this amendment is that, like the Government, I believe that policy should be developed on the basis of robust evidence. Changing the way the SEN system operates in every English school and early years setting could be very disruptive. We need to be sure that any change will genuinely improve outcomes for children and young people before we embark on what is quite a major change. From what we have heard so far, it seems that the Government’s intention here is to improve the identification of special educational needs. The Ofsted report, A Statement is not Enough, published in 2010, suggested that some children and young people were being wrongly identified as having special educational needs.

Improving the identification of special educational needs is a goal everyone would support. However, my understanding is that the Ofsted report did not in any way indicate that the problem resided in the graduated approach of school action and school action plus. The same is true of the Lamb inquiry, which also picked up on the issue of identification, but did not indicate in any of its 51 recommendations that the problem arose from school action and school action plus. Neither of these important investigations proposed the removal of the current system, so I wonder on what evidence the Government are basing their decision to move to a single category of SEN. Everyone has been encouraged by the reference in the recently published draft code of practice to “a graduated response”. Since the Government remain committed to a graduated response, which is provided by school action and school action plus, one wonders why they are so insistent on the need for this change.

I should also like to pick up on the fact that the draft code of practice removes guidance on the use of individual education plans. IEPs were a key feature of the school action and school action plus system. They set out educational targets, the agreed SEN support and how progress would be measured. They require schools to involve children, young people and their parents in the process and are vital for parents when holding schools to account. When used properly, IEPs are a simple and effective way of recording targets, putting support in place and tracking the child’s progress. While they might not always be used as effectively as they might be, would it not be better to seek to improve the way IEPs are used than to scrap them altogether?

The Government are not opposed to schools retaining these types of records. The draft code says that schools should keep records and that these can be shared with parents. Again, therefore, one is prompted to ask why the Government are getting rid of something so valued by parents when they continue to support the principles behind it. I would be extremely grateful if, when he responds to the debate, the Minister could set out the Government’s thinking and give us the rationale for these changes and, in particular, the evidence on which they are based. It seems that the Government still support the principles of a graduated approach and keeping good records, so it is important that we understand why we need what is really quite a major change.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Howe of Idlicote]

My Lords, this amendment would insert a new clause imposing a duty to secure sufficient communication support for parents of children with hearing loss. The amendment would create a new duty on local authorities to ensure that families with deaf children have access to communication courses on communicating with their children. Some 90% of deaf children are born to hearing parents, many of whom have little or no prior experience of deafness. As well as the usual emotions that parents face when they learn that their child is disabled, parents of deaf children face a battle in learning how best to communicate with that child, particularly if they need to learn sign language.

Of course, sign language will not be appropriate for all families and children, but that option must be there if parents are to be able to play their important role in developing their children’s language and communication skills. I do not need to stress to the Minister how important and fundamental communication within the family is. It is the strongest influence on language development at age two. Money spent here to achieve those skills can be an absolutely invaluable investment. Indeed, failure to support communication within the family is a false economy. It condemns deaf children to a life of frustrated potential. We already know that by the time they start school, four out of five deaf children have failed to achieve a good level of development within the early years foundation stage.

The National Deaf Children’s Society believes that supporting families with deaf children on communication is more than just common sense and should be regarded as a basic human right. We must do more to ensure that families with deaf children can communicate with those children. Sadly, at present, I do not believe that we are doing enough. In a survey in 2011, the NDCS found that more than half—56%—of local authorities did not provide any support to families who needed to learn sign language to communicate with their children. The other half were found to be patchy and uneven in terms of exactly what they provided.

Some families have faced an agonising choice of deciding whether the mother or the father would be able to learn sign language, because local authorities have made funding available for only one person or because there is no childcare funding available. When this matter was raised elsewhere, the Government, alas, left it to the local authorities, saying that it was a matter to them to decide. Is the Minister confident that local authorities understand how important communication support for families is? Is he as concerned as I am, and as many others are, that more local authorities do not already make it available?

I acknowledge that the department has funded a range of projects to improve sign language provision to families, including the I-Sign consortium. That is welcome and certainly much appreciated. I also acknowledge the department’s hope that the Bill will address some of these difficulties, particularly through local offers and personal budgets. However, I would welcome the Minister’s views on whether he thinks this is likely to lead to the step change in provision that deaf children badly need—not in the future but here and now.

Is he confident that sign language courses will be included in local offers? Is he confident that courses would even be available to families should they wish to use their personal budgets for this purpose? Is he confident that local authorities will engage with, and listen to, families with deaf children on this matter? We must remember that deafness, as we have already heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, is a low-incidence disability. Many local authorities are unlikely to be familiar with the needs of deaf children, who will always be one of a range of competing needs. Therefore, without a clear duty on local authorities, I and many others are concerned that sign language provision for families will continue to be patchy and progress will continue to be piecemeal. Surely, deaf children and their families deserve better and I hope that the Minister will seriously consider this amendment and its implications. I beg to move.

[Baroness Wilkins]

My Lords, I will speak briefly to support the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Howe. She has made a strong and clear case for action. This issue has been raised elsewhere several times and the fact that it continues to be raised must show the Minister the strength of feeling on it. The current approach of asking voluntary bodies to support improvements in individual local areas is just too piecemeal. The progress being made is far too slow, and deaf children are suffering because of it. Access to communication support for families with deaf children and young people is fundamentally important; the Government must send a clear signal to local authorities that it should be provided where needed. Otherwise, we will be here in 10 years’ time, still having this debate about the lack of sign language provision for families. I beg the Committee to support this amendment.

[Baroness Walmsley]

My Lords, I, too, rise to support the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, and agree with the points that she has already made. In July 2011, the Prime Minister said in response to a Question from my right honourable friend Sir Malcolm Bruce MP:

“We do a lot to support different languages throughout the UK. Signing is an incredibly valuable language for many people in our country. Those pilot schemes were successful”.—[Official Report, Commons, 13/07/2011; col. 308.]

The scheme that the Prime Minister was referring to was the I-Sign consortium, which has piloted family sign language classes in two regions. NDCS, with support from the Department for Education, continues to work to support the development of sign language courses. However, local authorities cannot be compelled to provide sign language support because there is no duty to do so. As has already been outlined, a very high percentage of deaf children are born into hearing families who have no previous first-hand experience of deafness. These families really need support to communicate with their child, particularly where sign language is chosen.

It has been estimated that where deaf children need to communicate in sign language, eight out of 10 parents of deaf children never learn how to communicate with their child through sign language. Without the right support from the start, deaf children and young people are vulnerable to isolation, abuse, bullying, poor self-esteem and low levels of attainment. We have already heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, how local authorities are very patchy in their provision of sign language services.

The SEN reform in this Bill offers the potential to generate a step change in the provision of sign language courses for families. For example, personal budgets may enable families to pay for this support themselves. However, while SEN reform might generate more demand for sign language courses, it really will be useless while local authorities can walk away, which is very damaging to deaf children and their families.