Children and Families Bill

Lord Storey Excerpts

Tuesday 7th January 2014 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Eaton (Con)]

My Lords, I can understand why the noble Lord, Lord Low, tabled Amendment 33D, which would regulate the special education provision to be provided by local authorities. That sounds sensible and reassuring. However, the practicalities of regulating provision in such a way would, despite what has been said in the contributions from noble Lords, cause unnecessary restrictions on provision and prevent innovation and creativity that could bring about new and supportive services.

The duties on local authorities and other bodies to assess needs and secure provision are already set out elsewhere in the Bill. There are already some excellent examples of local offers—for example the pathfinders in North Yorkshire that worked with parents and young people to produce an interactive map and colour-coded diagram, including a version for children and young people, showing precisely what the local offer would be.

Funding allocated to councils by the Government for education, including SEN provision, can vary greatly, even for similar or neighbouring local authorities. That is one reason why provision may vary between areas. We know that the new national funding formula will not be introduced until after the next election. SEN provision also varies from one local authority to another because of the nature of the population. There are higher levels of need in some areas, which require the local authority to provide more specialist services than in others areas that may have no such requirements or quite different needs.

Defining in law a minimum level of provision may actually mean that resources in some authorities are diverted from other areas of special need simply to meet a legal requirement. Health needs also differ between local areas. That is reflected in the local joint strategic needs assessment, which is based on the needs of the local population. Surely the key purpose of the local SEN offer should remain as a source of information to parents and young people, developed by local authorities working with them to reflect their choices and preferences.

[Lord Storey (LD)]

My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, that parents have fought for years to get resources and what some might call justice for children with special educational needs. That is why the Bill is so important: it is a progressive piece of legislation that we can all be proud of. It will mean that, for the first time, local authorities have to spell out clearly and precisely what is available in their area and how that can be accessed. As we know, people with special educational needs will, for the first time, have a plan that joins up health, education and social care.

The giveaway is in the title: “local offer”. It is not a national offer but a local one. I suppose the Government could have said, “Nationally, we have decided that this is what you will do”, but I am quite sure that there would have been screams from local authorities that this was national government again dictating exactly what should happen. The local offer is important.

I was grateful for the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Low, in Committee but I still have grave concerns about creating a minimum requirement. We have seen what happened in care for the elderly: if you have a minimum requirement, councils under financial pressures jettison what they do not need to provide. If you have a minimum offer in terms of special educational needs, you will find that those authorities that my noble friend Lady Eaton so eloquently described, the ones that are progressive and look at new ideas, will say, “Well, if there are some savings to be made, we do not need to do that”. So I am not in favour of a minimum offer.

I am in favour of what the Government have reflected on and come back to at Report with Amendment 33C. Let us never underestimate the power of local people. If the local offer is not meeting the local requirement, you can bet that local people will say that they want something extra. Cases will make that happen. That is why the government amendment is so important. Let us celebrate where we are at so far, because it is important for children with special educational needs.

[Baroness Morris of Yardley (Lab)]

My Lords, I support the amendments and, in particular, will comment on Amendments 30, 31, and 33D.

The amendments tabled by my noble friend Lady Jones, which deal with the “expects to be” versus “which is” dilemma, just make sense, as I do not think that anyone here would not want parents to know what is being offered rather than what might be offered. The Government’s concern appears to be that something innovative might happen during the year that could be added to the offer, but the Minister might reflect that, if the offer was a living document so that it could be updated as an innovation came through, was proven to work, accepted as best practice and added to the local provision, in a digital age it would not be difficult to update the offer. The notion of “which is” gives far more certainty to users of the service than the words “expect to be”. In that respect, I very much support those amendments.

I just want to comment on the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Low. I see both sides of this argument. We want local authorities to be free to innovate, to reach for the stars and to be the best they can, and we do not want the local offer in every local authority area to look exactly the same regardless of where you are in the country. Neither do we want to give permission to local authorities to go for a basic minimum standard. I accept the concerns laid out by the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, and the noble Lord, Lord Storey, but we are still left with a problem.

The code of practice talks a lot about the quantity that should be in the local offer. There is a whole list of things that the code of practice guarantees will be there. What is missing from the whole debate is something that guarantees quality. Amendment 33D attempts to do that, and I want the Minister to respond to it. None of us wants poor quality, and I do not think that we would be in politics and would certainly not be legislators if we did not know that we have to ensure quality. It does not happen by itself or through a free-for-all, and it will not happen if we just leave it to local authorities to do their best. We want more than that. Minimum standards are not in the amendment. I do not want to fetter those local authorities who will provide very well; I want to protect those people who live in areas where the local authority does not do very well. I am concerned about how we protect people against poor provision falling below those minimum standards.

Normally, government takes one of three actions. It leaves it to the market—the noble Lord, Lord Storey, mentioned just now that if people do not like it, they will complain and changes will be made. I do not think that that will happen with the local offer. The only way that the market usually works is if people are free to go elsewhere. Then the poor provision that they did not want withers on the vine, vanishes, closes down and gets off the playing field. That is not what we want here. We do not want a local offer to be squeezed out of the market so that people have to go over the local authority borders. I cannot see how the market works as a regulator of standards for the local offer.

Secondly, we inspect. That is another way to guarantee quality. I would be grateful if the Minister would give us an update on where the department is with Ofsted inspecting the local offer. In Committee, he undertook to write to me, and I must admit that I am not sure whether that letter has been sent; I have not seen it. I would accept it if the Government have decided to inspect the local offer to make sure that people are protected against poor provision.

If they do not want to do that, the next action is regulation. Amendment 33D, as tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Low, would put in regulation to protect people against poor standards. It really does not matter whether it is inspection or regulation—but I do not want it to be the market, which I think is where the Government are headed with this, because that will not work. We have to get the balance right between protecting people in areas where a local authority does not deliver the goods and leaving local authorities that are good, free to excel.

This is not just about safeguarding against low-quality provision: the Government should, equally, be incentivising innovation and high standards. If you only dampen down by inspecting, you will not get the high standards and innovation to which the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, referred. We have had so many decades of experience in the delivery of public services, and there are good ways of incentivising innovation, rewarding high standards and making sure that those high standards are spread to include everyone else. That is my ideal— to do both. I think that we will see the good quality provision in the local offer to which the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, referred, and that we will find ways of making sure that other local authorities know about it. Equally, for balance, we need something to set a basic standard below which local authorities’ local offer should not fall so that as regulators and legislators we can say that everybody, no matter where they live, is protected from a poor standard of provision. In that respect, I very much support the amendments that we are considering in this group.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Warnock (CB)]

I support everything that my noble friend Lord Ramsbotham has said. This is an enormous opportunity and it would be disastrous if the Government did not seize it. It has long been an outrage that there is a large number of young people with special educational needs in places of detention. Nobody disputes the evidence that there is a huge number of such young people, and this is an opportunity to remedy the neglect that these children have had. I entirely agree that the present wording is such that local authorities may very well make no changes whatever, and the Ministry of Justice has no power to compel governors of such places to do what urgently needs to be done. I do not think that there can be any dispute about that, and I implore the Minister to come back with wording which is a great deal tighter and which will make the change that we all know has needed to be made for a long time.

[Lord Storey]

My Lords, we all know that 70% of these young offenders have special educational needs. We also know that 10% or 20% of them have statements. We know, too, that a huge number of them—I do not know the exact figure but 70% or 80%—will go on to reoffend. Therefore, it is really important that this group of young people gets the best possible special educational needs support. When this Bill first came out, I found it unbelievable that EHC plans would not be going with these young people into their institutions.

One of the hallmarks of the Bill has been the Minister’s desire to discuss, consult and listen to what people say, and I pay tribute to him for doing that. During the discussions on this matter, it has become clear to all of us that the number of young people in these institutions is declining, as is the time that they spend in them—thank goodness. The practicalities of getting their EHC plans to go with them becomes very difficult, particularly if you are talking about different local authorities, and therefore what the Minister is proposing seems sensible.

I also pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, for his remarkable knowledge in this area. I agree with him, and I hope that when the Minister replies he will be able to refer to the concern that a lot of us share about the words “best endeavours”. Sadly, the justice system is not an educational system, and “best endeavours” is too wide a hope—for example, “I use my best endeavours to get up early in the morning but I don’t”. I hope that noble Lords can see the point that I am making. The use of this phrase is a recipe for not doing the sorts of things that we in this House want to see provided for these young people. Maybe the word to use is “responsibility” or “duty”—I do not know—but I hope that the Minister will indicate that he will look at this again and come back with exact wording to make sure that the special needs provision that we all want to see is provided.

[Baroness Howarth of Breckland]

My Lords, I shall be brief, as I usually am, but I want to say two things. One is that when I read these amendments my heart leapt. I thought that if only the home local authority could be made responsible for every young person in secure provision on this basis with a proper plan for seeing them through—as I remember, and as I am sure my noble friend Lord Laming will remember, was the case in children’s departments, where someone was responsible for a young person, with a plan, wherever they were—that would be absolutely wonderful. Of course, at that time there was much more focus on education in the institutions, as childcare establishments, than there is in some of the more penal establishments that exist today.

So I was utterly delighted and was going to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, whose tenacity of purpose has taken this through, until I realised, as he did, the key flaw in this piece of legislation. That flaw is that those who wish to take the plans through are not the people with the capacity to provide the resource in order for it to happen in the place it needs to happen. As I am always interested in implementation, I thought about how this would work. There has to be a further step somewhere, either in some sort of regulation or a change in the legislation, that ensures that these plans are formulated into the institution—because, remember, these are individual plans. In the institution they have to be put together into programmes for groups of young people; it is not as easy as simply saying that you can carry each plan through as it stands without extra provision being brought in, with all the problems with that in terms of financing.

I hope that the Minister will look at this, take heart that many of us have been very impressed with the way he listens, and take it forward. Many of us are very concerned about young people in detention who have been failed by everybody by the time they get to detention, particularly those with special educational needs who should not be in this form of provision at all. Surely they can get the right education through this legislation, but they certainly will not with this flaw.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Lord Bishop of Ripon and Leeds]

My Lords, I, too, add my support for the amendment and my gratitude to those who have fought so hard to bring it forward. For reasons that have already been expressed in terms of the parity between the three elements of education, health and social care, there is a continuing danger, time and again, in our legislation and in our thinking, that social care becomes an orphaned right—to take an analogy from another area.

I want to push Minister a bit further on the argument that has been put forward that if we pass an amendment such as this, other areas will thereby be deprioritised. I simply fail to understand, despite having read a good deal about it, how that can possibly be so. It seems to me that equality in this area is crucial, and therefore that we ought to pursue an amendment such as this.

[Lord Storey]

My Lords, if you are going to agree an education, health and care plan, it is clearly important that all elements have to be provided. That is agreed. I understand that there are complex difficulties here. I have spoken to the Local Government Association, which recognises those difficulties. I know that the Minister himself is—perhaps “wrestling” is too strong a word—looking in detail at how we can get what we all want. I hope that your Lordships will be patient on the issue, because I am sure that with good will on all sides we will eventually get there.

[Baroness Hughes of Stretford]

My Lords, my name is also attached to the amendment and I respectfully suggest to your Lordships that this is one of two outstanding, key issues on which the effective implementation of the Government’s welcome approach to integration of education, health and social care depends.

Clause 42 states that where a local authority maintains an ECH plan it must secure the special educational provision. Where the plan specifies healthcare provision, the responsible commissioning body must provide the healthcare. The amendment would simply place a parallel duty on local authorities to provide the social care that is outlined in the plan. This is a key issue for parents as well as, obviously, for many noble Lords in this House. As the legislation is currently drafted, the ECH plans would offer no more legal entitlements to support from social care services than current statements do at the moment. Let us remember that social care provision can be detailed in those statements in a separate section from educational provision. However, the aim of these reforms and the Bill is to provide a simpler system for disabled children and young people, and those with special educational needs and their families, that integrates the different forms of provision into one piece of legislation. One assessment and one plan is what the Government are trying to achieve for those families. There is an opportunity in the Bill to bring everything together. One of the main aims of the Bill is to provide clarity, transparency and integration, as the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, so eloquently identified.

In Committee and at the various meetings that we have had on this matter, while the Minister has been trying to listen, I do not think that so far the Government have provided any coherent reason for excluding the local authority from the duty to provide the social care specified in the plan. As the noble Lord, Lord Low, reminded us, the first argument put by the Government was that other legislation—the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act together with the Children Act—already provide for that duty. A second argument deployed at later meetings was that placing such a duty in this Bill would give disabled children an unacceptable priority in law above other children in need.

The debate has been rather clouded by well meaning but exceedingly technical legal opinions on both sides. However, the clearest and most helpful opinion has come in the further opinion, dated 13 May 2013, from the lawyers commissioned by the sector. This asked the crucial question in relation to these different arguments as to whether placing local authorities under a duty to deliver the social care set out in the plans would represent a significant change to local authorities’ legal duties under that existing legislation. The crucial question is whether it would represent a significant change. The answer in the opinion is emphatically no. If noble Lords will bear with me, it is worth putting this opinion on the record.

The crucial question asked is whether placing local authorities under a duty to deliver the social care provision set out in the EHC plans would represent a significant change to local authorities’ legal duties in other legislation. Paragraph 13 of the opinion states:

“No. If there were to be a specific duty to provide the social care provision set out in an EHC Plan, this would simply mean that the Local Authority would be discharging its CSDPA 1970 duty (either wholly or in part) by providing the provision set out in the Plan. Indeed, for children who qualify for an EHC Plan the inclusion of social care provision within the Plan is a helpful way of determining that the Local Authority considers that this provision is necessary to meet their needs—in other words that the test for the 1970 Act duty to arise is met”.

The opinion goes on to say:

“This is very similar to the approach that the Government has adopted in relation to the duty to arrange health care provision … the Government accepts that in arranging the provision specified in the plan a CCG”—

a clinical commissioning group—

“will be discharging its existing duty pursuant to section 3 of the NHS Act 2006”.

This was a question that we asked in Committee: why the difference between social care and healthcare? Paragraph 14 states:

“Any concern that this would involve treating disabled children more favourably than other groups of children ‘in need’ is misplaced. Firstly, disabled children have already benefited”—

for more than 40 years—

“from the specific duty … in the CSDPA 1970 to provide them with support, a benefit which other children ‘in need’ do not enjoy … Secondly, it is a well established tenet of discrimination law that reasonable positive measures intended to correct significant disadvantage experienced by a particular group are unlikely to be discriminatory. Indeed Equality Act 2010 … provides that compliance with the public sector equality duty … ‘may involve treating some persons more favourably than others’”.

Therefore, in this view, the inclusion of social care under the duty to provide the services specified in an EHC plan would not make a significant difference to existing entitlements in social care and, indeed, is simply consistent with local authorities’ current duties.

However, there would be a number of significant advantages to putting this duty into this Bill as well. A main advantage is that it would clarify for parents the responsibilities of the three agencies together regarding what must provided—in other words, everything in the plan—and that would be a very big benefit for parents. Secondly, it would consolidate the integrated approach that runs right through this Bill until we get to social care. Thirdly, it would give children under 18 the same demonstrable, enforceable rights that adults already have under the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, and thus there would be a seamless and equal status for disabled children from birth to 25. Those are the simplest legal arguments in favour of the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hollins]

My Lords, I, too, added my name to this amendment. My noble friends Lord Rix and Lord Low have eloquently set out the logical intention behind the request to create a single point of appeal across education, health and care. If we are to create a truly joined-up system that really works for children, young people and their parents, this seems to be an absolute necessity. I speak as a parent who has worked hard to get the right support across all three systems and cultures for my son. The Government propose a single point of assessment, but the same old separate routes for redress and complaint, which will continue to bewilder and confront parents. We should aspire to more.

To focus on health needs for a moment, there are significant concerns among those in the sector that the health service is far from prepared to deal with appeals for the new plans when they are introduced from September this year. We should be mindful of the culture in which complaints and appeals happen in the NHS, and it is not quite clear where parents who are concerned about the health component of the plan would start. Ann Clwyd’s excellent recent report concluded that the NHS complaints system was confusing, lacked accountability and was subject to often long and frustrating delays. The system has been particularly unsatisfactory in the face of complaints from families of people with a learning disability.

Prior to a debate that I secured last year on the premature deaths of people with a learning disability, I met with a number of families who had lost loved ones to neglect and discrimination within the health service. Their experience of going through the NHS complaints process was that, in addition to being overbureaucratic and time-consuming, it was very defensive. They explained that it took years in many very serious cases to receive any sort of answer. A single appeal process for a single education, health and care plan might help us move closer to the joined-up system we are looking for, and ultimately help parents get what is needed for their sons and daughters.

[Lord Storey]

My Lords, I, too, moved an amendment in Committee on a single point of appeal. It beggars belief that you would have progressive legislation that creates for the first time a joined-up approach to education, health and social care but not a joined-up approach to an appeals mechanism. Everybody I have spoken to agrees with that.

Of course, the problem is the current systems that we have, so the notion is that we establish a Bill that creates single education, health and social care plans but then the appeals mechanism is threefold. We expect in this child and family-friendly approach for parents then to navigate their way through these different systems. Currently, the health appeals mechanism is not very transparent and on patient or family satisfaction ratings is very low indeed. Local authorities, as we know, vary.

What do we need to do? First, the code of conduct very much highlights the need for mediation—but it talks about mediation in terms only of education, not on the health and social care side. I hope the Minister might respond by telling us how we bring the mediation together for all three strands of the plan. In my view, mediation could considerably reduce the number of people wishing to appeal.

Then you come to the appeals mechanism itself. Whatever happens here today, I am utterly convinced that, in the years that follow, there will be one tribunal for these plans. The difficulty is the bureaucratic systems, as eloquently extolled by the noble Lord, Lord Low. Currently, the bureaucracy is not fit for purpose. My great fear is that we push the bureaucracies to agree one tribunal, they go kicking and screaming, and the whole thing does not work. We have to negotiate and make sure that everybody is on board to make this happen. Having talked to Ministers in health and education—though having been slightly disillusioned by officials—I am sure that we can achieve that eventually. We need to give my noble friend Lord Nash more time to continue those negotiations. Again, as has been said, I am sure that on the education side we all agree.

[Baroness Hughes of Stretford]

My Lords, I support Amendment 40A moved by the noble Lord, Lord Rix, and colleagues. We supported him on this in Committee and it would still be our first preference as it would add health and social care provisions to the list of matters in respect of which children, young people and families could appeal to the First-tier Tribunal.

This was first moved in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Storey, as he just reminded us. I recall that he subsequently said, as he has just done so, that he was unsure as to the feasibility of this approach in terms of the technicalities. For that reason, because we may not be able to evaluate those technicalities at this point, we have tabled Amendment 40B, which I will refer to in a moment. I do not know if the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Storey, mean that he would support that amendment but it has the intention of giving the Government time to resolve whatever the issues are.

As other noble Lords have said, the issue is simple: the Government want to establish an integrated system for meeting better the needs of disabled children and those with special educational needs. That integration would be at the point of assessment and planning education, health and social care. However, as the Bill stands, that integration is blown apart at the point of appeal. As we have heard, parents and young people would potentially have to go through three different routes of appeal simultaneously for the three different elements of their plan. Like the noble Lords, Lord Low and Lord Rix, I sense that behind this is the considerable resistance from the Department of Health and the Department for Communities and Local Government to any change.

Having previously been a Minister for some time, I feel quite strongly that agencies should bend for the benefit of families. Families should not be imposed with the burden of mobilising three bureaucratic systems that just happen to exist. It is the job of all of us, particularly the Government, to make those agencies bend, albeit by negotiation and discussion, to make the system work for the people that we are here for.

In a letter to noble Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Nash, said that the tribunal is only for special educational needs, and that, as we have heard:

“There are established routes of complaint about social care through the local authority complaints procedures”,

and, for health, to the health complaints procedure and the health ombudsman. That is not adequate, even if local authority and health appeals systems were simple—and they really are not, even for a Member of Parliament. I see the Minister for Children at the Bar and I am sure he will have tried to mobilise those complaints procedures on behalf of his constituents. It takes for ever, it is labyrinthine, it is completely not transparent and it is very bureaucratic. The idea of parents doing that on three fronts at once is simply unimaginable. There should be a single point of appeal and we support Amendment 40A.

However, should that not prevail tonight and the Government not accept it, we have tabled Amendment 40B which would require the Government actively to seek a way to secure a single point of appeal and to report back to Parliament within a year. That would keep the possibility alive. It would require the Government to do what they have not done and maybe have not had time to do so far: namely, to find a way to make this work for parents and families, to take on the resistance of those agencies and, if necessary, to change the law to establish a single point of appeal.

I am afraid that I do not share the optimism of the noble Lord, Lord Storey, that without anything done this evening there will at some point in future be a single point of appeal. I was constantly surprised and depressed by the inability sometimes to change some of our big public organisations. Without the drive and initiative from this and the other place, I do not think that will happen. I hope the Minister will take that on board.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Addington]

My Lords, the three amendments in my name—Amendments 45A, 46A and 46B—all have at heart addressing the idea of training for teachers in the skills required to deal with special educational needs. This is primarily inspired by my work with the British Dyslexia Association; I draw the House’s attention to my interests in this area. I am trying here to clarify how the Government propose using the code, and the ongoing need to train teachers in how to deal with the issue.

The first amendment is about the whole school: what basket of skills is required to deal with these people? Identification is an important part of this. Unless you know what you are looking for, hidden disabilities—dyslexia, dyspraxia—are quite easy to miss. I do not really have to draw on much evidence to say that it has happened throughout the history of organised education. We have got it wrong, and inappropriate training often leads to very negative results for those concerned.

I appreciate that the Minister—my noble friend Lord Nash—has given me some assurances, particularly for the amendment that deals with SENCOs, but actually there I suggest that the person in charge of the overall position get a bit more specific knowledge. The Minister has moved quite a long way already on this, and I thank him, but a little more specific knowledge about the actual nuts and bolts of the subject would be helpful.

The really beneficial provision here is on something that I think will come back, if we do not get it through today: initial teacher training. Some 10% of the population of any school, and indeed of the population as a whole, is dyslexic according to the British definition; you can stick in 3% for dyscalculic and dyspraxic, and you can stick in ADHD and one or two other problems. Those are the hidden problems. If you know what you are looking for, you have the opportunity to call in help and support, and not to make the classic mistake of saying, “Work harder”, which leads to a very negative educational experience. Such an experience invariably leads to the child either being disruptive in the classroom, or doing that wonderful disappearing act into the middle of it and making damn sure that they do not pay any attention to the class and that the class pays no attention to them.

If the Minister can assure us how the Government will work towards the goal of making sure that the entire establishment, and the individuals themselves, are better prepared to provide the help and support that will lead to better outcomes, I will be very much reassured. I beg to move.

[Lord Storey]

I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Addington. I used the expression “a dog with a bone” in Committee. He has stuck with this issue and made real progress on it. I also congratulate the Government, because we have now seen real movement: there have to be properly qualified special educational needs co-ordinators in schools. That is real progress, and the Government are to be congratulated on taking that important step.

My noble friend rightly points out two areas. One is the need to ensure that all teachers, particularly those in primary education, have training—perhaps a unit of training—in special educational needs. Every report has shown that the two crucial elements are early identification of a problem and providing the resources to deal with it. I hope that we might see movement on that. Maybe we can move towards a road map for how we ensure that all teachers going into our schools have an understanding of—maybe a qualification in—of special educational needs. I have forgotten the second issue, so I will sit down.

[Baroness Howe of Idlicote]

My Lords, I very much support the noble Lord, Lord Addington, in his pursuance of the subject. He obviously is an expert and is quite right to pursue the area, one of growing need—and not just need, but growing complexity as we begin to understand the various subsections of need that there are in SEN.

SEN co-ordinators are a good new grouping, but there is an important role for school governors. I would like to see a member of the governing body take on a genuine responsibility in the area. That would be a practical way to deal with it, not least when we have a range of education provision with rather different requirements.

I hope that we will see rather more happening in the area, but we should not forget the importance of ensuring the early intervention that has already been mentioned, and on which there was an interesting question today during Questions. It indicated that the earlier you can get to grips with this, the better. There must also be areas of retraining for teachers—not just initial training, because it will take a long time for that to infiltrate right across the spectrum. With retraining, teachers can be made much more up to date in the current needs of this vital area.