The following Statement was made in the House of Commons on Tuesday
29 March. “With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a Statement
about our mission to level up opportunities for children and young
people with special educational needs and disabilities in England.
Before I do, I want to praise my honourable friend the Member for
Colchester (Will Quince), the fantastic Minister for Children and
Families, who has been supported by my honourable friends the
Members for...Request free trial
The following Statement was made in the House of Commons on
Tuesday 29 March.
“With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a Statement about our
mission to level up opportunities for children and young people
with special educational needs and disabilities in England.
Before I do, I want to praise my honourable friend the Member for
Colchester (), the fantastic Minister for
Children and Families, who has been supported by my honourable
friends the Members for Hyndburn () and for Wantage (). I thank them for the
level of engagement they have had with Members across the House,
as well as with many wonderful people from across the SEND and
alternative provision system. I also thank all those working in
early years, schools and colleges, including specialist and
alternative provision, for their dedication to service in the
face of ongoing Covid difficulties. I am sure my gratitude will
be echoed across the House.
This review has been shaped by children with special educational
needs and disabilities and in alternative provision, by their
families and teachers, and by the committed workforce across
education, health and care sharing their experiences and stories.
I send them huge thanks for their openness in sharing emotional,
and sometimes difficult experiences with us. We have listened,
and in response today I am publishing for public consultation the
Government’s special educational needs and disabilities and
alternative provision Green Paper.
In schools in England alone there are 1.4 million pupils with a
diverse range of special educational needs, and too often they do
not get the support they need. In 2014 we made far-reaching
changes to support children with special educational needs and
disabilities, and their families—indeed, in 2016 I was the
Minister for Children and Families. Those reforms gave critical
support to more children, but in reality the system is not
working as it should. Too often decisions about support are based
on where a child lives, not on what they need, and many have lost
confidence in the system. On top of that, the alternative
provision system is increasingly used to support children with
special educational needs, but the outcomes for many of those
children remain shockingly poor. We have therefore considered
alternative provision within this review.
Despite unprecedented investment through a £1 billion increase in
high-needs funding, taking total funding to £9.1 billion in the
coming financial year, on top of the £1.5 billion increase over
the last two years, the system has become financially
unsustainable. Local authorities are in deficit and overspending
on their dedicated schools grant, with total deficits now
standing at more than £1 billion. The publication of the Green
Paper is long awaited, and I am proud to announce that our
proposals will build a more inclusive and financially sustainable
system, where every child and young person will have access to
the right support, in the right place, at the right time.
To meet our ambitions, and the ambitions of so many children and
their families, we propose to establish a new single, national
special educational needs and disabilities and alternative
provision system across education, health and care, setting clear
standards for how children and young people’s needs are
identified and met. To enable effective local delivery, we
propose establishing new statutory SEND partnerships, bringing
together education, health and care partners with local
government, to create a local inclusion plan. That plan will set
out how each local area will meet the needs of children in line
with national standards. We will also clarify the roles and
responsibilities of every partner in the system, with robust
accountabilities to build confidence and transparency.
Locally and nationally published inclusion dashboards will
capture and track metrics to drive system performance and will
mean that areas respond quickly to emerging local needs. Data and
transparency are our allies on this journey. Parents should not
need to fight the system; the system should be working and
fighting for them. The proposed changes will help parents know
exactly what their child is entitled to, removing their need to
fight and guaranteeing them access to mediation, leading to
better, earlier and more effective interventions for their
child.
I will always be on the side of children and parents. Wherever
possible, I want our children to be educated close to home, near
to friends and within local communities. Frustratingly for
families, that is not happening consistently enough. Today,
building on the schools White Paper published yesterday, we are
committing to improve mainstream education through early and
accurate identification of need, through high-quality teaching of
a knowledge-rich curriculum, and through timely access to
specialist support, where needed. Change will be underpinned by
the increase in our total investment in the national schools
budget. As set out in last year’s spending review, we will invest
an additional £7 billion by 2024-25, compared with 2021-22,
including an additional £1 billion in 2022-23 for children and
young people with high needs.
I recognise the importance of a confident and empowered workforce
with access to the best training to support this cohort of
children, and many of my colleagues have made representations to
me on that. We will consult on the introduction of a new special
educational needs co-ordinator national professional
qualification for schools and increase the number of staff with
an accredited level 3 SENCO qualification in early years
settings.
For some children and young people, specialist provision will be
the most appropriate place for them to be able to learn and
succeed. For those requiring specialist provision, whether in a
mainstream or special school, we propose a simplified process. We
will support parents to make informed choices by providing them
with a list of appropriate placements tailored to their child’s
needs, meaning less time spent researching the right school. To
prevent needs from escalating, for children with challenging
behaviour we want to use the best practice of alternative
provision to intervene earlier so that children and young people
are supported to thrive, and that the risk of these vulnerable
children and young people being exploited or, sadly, involved in
serious criminal activities is minimised.
At last year’s spending review, we announced an investment of
£2.6 billion over three years, delivering tens of thousands more
specialist places and improving existing specialist and
alternative provision. Today, I can confirm that £1.4 billion of
that funding will be capital spending for high needs for academic
years 2023-24 and 2024-25, to help local authorities deliver new
places quickly. We cannot wait for the Green Paper consultation;
we need to do that now for those with additional needs. That
means up to 40 new alternative provision and specialist settings.
Taken together, these proposals will improve the special
educational needs and disabilities and alternative provision
system, delivering the right support in the right place at the
right time for children and young people.
Today, I am launching a 13-week consultation on the proposals set
out in my Green Paper. This is the opportunity for children and
young people, their families, and those working across the
special educational needs and disabilities and alternative
provision sector to help shape the next stage. We will pay close
attention to implementation so that the mistakes of past reforms
are not repeated. These reforms are about outcomes, but they are
also about fairness: fairness to families who have struggled to
get support for their children, to the sector which has gone
above and beyond for years, and to children and young people who
deserve excellent support to achieve their ambitions. I commend
this Statement to the House.”
5.44pm
(Lab)
My Lords, the noble Baroness the Minister may be surprised to
hear that, having read the review, my initial thoughts are
positive—a view that echoes what many in the education, care and
children’s charity sectors are saying. She knows that there is a
“but” coming, but I will delay that for the moment.
The Statement says that it is proposed to establish a new single,
national special educational needs and disabilities and
alternative provision system across education, health and care.
That is welcome. But there is not a great track record of
government departments working together. Too often, there is a
silo mentality in the Civil Service, which is long established
and often insurmountable. That cannot be the case in terms of
this review or it will fail in its aims.
There are three key challenges that the SEND reforms need to
address. The first is poor outcomes for children. The second is
that navigating the system is often a traumatic experience for
families, with many left to reach crisis point before getting
meaningful support. The third concerns not delivering value for
money. How was it that the £1 billion deficit in the dedicated
schools grant, referred to by the Secretary of State yesterday,
was ever allowed to happen? He spoke of being ambitious for young
people, but where has that ambition been for the past 12 years?
Where was that ambition when he was Minister for Children and
Families? The Secretary of State cannot disown the legacy of 12
years of Conservative Governments, which have left us with a
broken, adversarial and aggressive system that is letting down
young people and often leaves families in despair.
So who is responsible for the £1 billion shortfall? The answer is
central government, which I suspect is why the DfE appears to
want to introduce a funding agreement, or contract system, with
local authorities to secure provision. Where else have we heard
about funding agreements with the DfE? With academies, of
course—so this would be more of the inflexible rod of central
government. Will any new system be successful if local endeavour,
creativity and innovation are ironed out of it?
A vicious cycle of late intervention, low confidence and
inefficient resource allocation is driving the challenges for
effective SEND provision. The current system does not prescribe
in detail exactly who should provide and pay for local services,
leaving it to local agreement and First-tier SEND Tribunals.
Similarly, delivery of alternative provision is inconsistent
across areas and schools. As a result, parents, carers and
providers feel that they have no choice but to seek EHCPs and, in
some cases, specialist provision, as a means of legally
guaranteeing the right and appropriate support for children and
young people. The Government’s reform simply must do much better
than this in terms of the support given to parents of children
with special educational needs.
It may or may not be a coincidence that the 13-week consultation
that the Secretary of State launched yesterday will reach its
conclusion at the end of June, which is around the time when the
independent review of children’s social care is due to report.
That would be entirely appropriate, as the SEND review cannot be
seen in isolation—and I do not believe that the Government do see
it in isolation.
Early intervention is essential in correctly identifying needs,
but the current system often prevents that. All too often, local
authorities need to spend on non-discretionary services, such as
child protection, taking money away from preventive services like
children’s centres. The barriers that prevent children from
having their needs met as early and as close to home as possible
must be removed.
We welcome the recognition in the Green Paper of the importance
of building expertise and leadership in SENCOs. This would
dovetail with the Government’s proposals in the skills Bill for
SEND to be an integral part of initial teacher training. Perhaps
the Minister could confirm that that is how she sees it as well.
However, many children with complex and interrelated physical,
health and learning needs, such as those with cerebral palsy,
autism or communication difficulties, require a specialist
approach to education which is provided by professionals with
expertise and a deep understanding of their condition and how it
impacts on their learning and development.
The reforms that emerge following the consultation should ensure
that the best possible use is made of prompt specialist expertise
to enable vulnerable children with disabilities to be identified
and assessed early, opening the way to delivery of the optimum
level of support throughout their education so that they can
reach their potential. It is important that alternative
provision—too often hidden away—is included in the Green Paper.
We also welcome the integrated role and the recognition of the
need to improve oversight of AP placements.
The role of colleges in supporting SEND students is understated
in the Green Paper, which is contradictory given that the aim of
the reforms is to create a system that serves young people all
the way through to age 25, from childhood to adulthood. Colleges
are a lifeline for students with SEND, many of whom have
struggled at school but thrive in a college environment. Many
students with EHCPs progress to their local college where they
are supported into independence and often into work. Can the
Minister say what the DfE sees as the role of colleges in their
provision for SEND students and what resources will be made
available to support that role?
Resources is, of course, the but. All of this is dependent on the
provision of adequate resources and on that score, I fear the
mood is more downbeat. I have already mentioned the DSG deficit;
the Statement mentions £1.4 billion of capital spend on high
needs between 2023 and 2025. Presumably, this is to increase
capacity and places within schools. It averages out at roughly
£60,000 per school on a one-off basis. Will the Minister say how
the Government imagine that capital spend flowing?
Finally, the Secretary of State also says in his Statement that
there is to be an additional £1 billion in the current financial
year for children and young people with high needs, but then
what? Is that figure to be consolidated in the high needs budget?
The families of children with special needs of all kinds deserve
to be told.
No matter the Government’s good intentions in terms of SEND and
AP provision, without the resources to ensure a system that is
fair, joined-up and effective from an early point in a child’s
life, little will change for those families that so desperately
need support for their children.
(LD)
My Lords, first I remind the House of my declared interests in
this field: I am dyslexic; I am president of the British Dyslexia
Association; I am a long-established user of assistive technology
and chairman of a company that provides that across the education
and working sector.
The best thing about the system is acceptance of the problem. In
the current system, you are advised to get legal advice to get
the best results. If ever there was a definition of failure, that
is it: people cannot get the help they need from the mainstream
system which the law dictates unless they have legal support.
There really is no bigger condemnation, and I congratulate the
Minister on bringing forward something that recognises that. The
system we have has not worked. It has not worked for a variety of
reasons, mainly, I feel, because the school process, whereby
schools take money out of their budgets to support individual
pupils, is counterintuitive to the school. They can take £6,000
out of their mainstream budget to support a pupil, but not put
£6,000 into training staff to meet the recurring needs.
We talk about pupils with a commonly occurring condition, but I
agree that this is not the full package: there is a range of
subjects and most people who come into this category have a
cocktail of conditions. If they are lucky, with good parents—the
tiger parent—fighting for support, a bit of resource, they
generally get a decent result, even if they have to pay lawyers.
If they do not have that, they get a bad result and will end up
in alternative provision. Can the Minister give me some idea
about how those who will initially be below the threshold for
intervention needed for the plans will get help and support? I
cannot see how that will occur.
The noble Baroness will say something positive about SENCOs,
which is good, but it requires more than that. It requires a
recognition strategy caused by having good teachers, teachers
with knowledge, in place to identify and get help in early.
Because we all know that is the way it works: identify early, get
strategies in place, get structure, and there is less resistance
from the pupil. How will we do that with this system? How will we
make sure that the system knows what it is doing when somebody
starts to fail? Are we going to have a degree of flexibility
built into this national plan?
Why can I never remember the exact name of the phonics system? It
is specialist synthetic phonics. The Government say that the
phonics system is suitable for everybody; guess what? The British
Dyslexia Association, the biggest individual group, says it does
not work for dyslexics, so we will need an alternative provision
of teaching and how to implement that throughout the system to
get the best out of the biggest cohort. It is not the only
cohort, but it is the biggest. How will we do that? How will we
make that work if we do not have a degree of flexibility built in
and do not address the fact that certain people will always
struggle?
We cannot ignore what happened yesterday. Apparently, 90% of
pupils in this country are going to reach literacy standards. I
have already identified 10%—and that is a conservative
estimate—of those who will have extra problems with reading and
writing. We can also stick on 5% or 6% who are dyscalculic. But
wait, look at the good news—some of them are included in the
first 10%, so they actually have multiple disability problems. It
is called “comorbidity”, but I think that “co-occurring” sounds
better. You can stick dyspraxia and autism in there, and they are
just the hidden disabilities. How will we achieve this unless
there are people who can identify early, and not take it to this
system of struggling identification? I quite understand that the
Minister may well be able to make it less legally driven, but
there is a danger that it will go back there.
I hope that the Minister can give us some idea about guidance. If
the Government want to achieve their high literacy levels, how
about someone who word processes by talking and listening to
their computer, as opposed to just tapping the keyboard? That is
available to everyone. I know that the Minister has had some
experience with this; she is the first Minister I did not need to
show this technology to.
A slightly more flexible approach will get far better results
here. If the Minister can assure us that, with guaranteeing
standards, they agree with that flexibility, all things are
possible. If we go back to saying, “No, this is the way we should
do it”, and having conflicting stories, we will just have
failure—it may not be quite as bad, but we will still have
failure.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of
Education () (Con)
My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for their remarks and
acknowledge the opening positivity of the noble Lord, Lord
Watson. I genuinely believe that the reason his initial response
to the review was positive—“buts” permitting—was because my
ministerial colleagues and officials in the department have
worked really closely with parents, carers and young people with
disabilities. This review has been co-created with them, and we
thank them enormously for their time.
The noble Lord, , rightly highlighted the
adversarial system which we face today, with parents feeling
forced to go to a tribunal to get suitable provision for their
children. We really believe that our plans will lead to much
greater transparency about what is available for their child in
their local area, and much great clarity about how it can be
provided. We very much hope that, combined with our offer around
mediation, parents will feel that their voices are heard—and
heard early—and that their child’s needs can be met, ideally, as
close to home as possible.
Both noble Lords rightly stressed the importance of early
intervention, and I am sure that they also share our aspiration
in terms of quality and consistency of provision. It is really
striking—for example, when comparing local authorities and the
percentage of children with an education, health and care plan
who end up in a specialist setting—that the same child is six
times as likely to end up in a specialist setting in one part of
the country, compared with another. That spreads through the
system, including those without an EHCP. We hope that one of the
building blocks for earlier intervention will be clarity. This
clarity will be achieved through new national standards which
will set out which needs can and should be met effectively in
mainstream provision, and the support which should be available
there without the need for an education, health and care plan. It
will also provide guidance on when a child or young person does
need an EHCP and whether they need a specialist placement. I am
sure that the House shares our concern not just for those
children who are diagnosed late, but those children who are never
diagnosed at all and do not get the support they need.
We also hope that reinforcing the provision that exists in
mainstream schools for children with special educational needs
and disabilities will help with early intervention. Our ambition
is that we should have a truly inclusive education system so that
mainstream provision, supplemented by targeted support when it is
required—by which I mean those specialist interventions for
children but also pastoral interventions—will allow them to
thrive in a mainstream setting. We also want timely access for
those with more complex needs to specialist support or placements
in alternative provision.
We are trying to balance the work we are doing in consulting on
and planning a system that works more effectively for young
people with not waiting to make sure that the funding that the
noble Lord, Lord Watson, referred to, gets to young people
through their local authorities as quickly as possible. We are
investing more in this system than we ever have. In 2022-23 the
high-needs budget will be £9.1 billion, and it is set to increase
further over the coming years. Therefore, we have made our
commitments in revenue funding but also, critically, in capital
funding, providing up to 33,000 additional places for children
requiring specialist provision.
Looking to the future, the review proposes a system of funding
bands and tariffs so that people better understand the level of
future funding they can expect to receive. We will move to
arrangements for funding schools directly, rather than through
the local authority funding formula, but that will obviously take
some time to implement. We also think that improvements in the
quality of provision will be driven by the local inclusion plans,
which every area will prepare in a multiagency way with their
health and social care and education partners, and, critically,
with parents and carers. That in turn will be reinforced by local
dashboards, so that we have real transparency across the country
about what is working, what needs more attention and how we can
learn from one another.
The noble Lord, Lord Watson, referred to the 2014 reforms and the
need to have really effective implementation. We are absolutely
aware of the need to learn lessons from 2014. We are setting up a
special delivery board, which will oversee the rollout of these
policies. We are also establishing a £70 million change programme
for this work so that we can test and refine proposals before we
scale up.
In response to the noble Lord’s question about further education
settings, we absolutely agree that they are an incredibly
valuable resource for young people with special educational
needs. Our proposals will allow FE settings to be absolutely
clear about the support that they are expected to deliver for
young people. We continue to work with stakeholders in that
sector so that our proposals are shaped by their expertise.
On the questions from the noble Lord, , regarding dyslexia more
broadly and the use of technology, it is fair to say that there
is a range of views about the use of phonics for children with
dyslexia and the right place for technology. I would be very
glad, if the noble Lord would be interested, to arrange for him
to meet colleagues in the department so that we can give the
points he raised the time that they deserve.
In closing, the Government are ambitious for all our children.
For children with special educational needs and disabilities, as
for every other child, we are determined to build an education
system where they can get the right support, in the right place,
at the right time.
(Con)
Can I ask my noble friend the Minister what the plan is for
teachers to be able to identify children with special needs,
particularly at an early age—as early as reception, where I feel
things often start going wrong? It is also about being able to
give parents support when they come forward, when they feel that
there might be a problem with their child.
(Con)
My noble friend raises an important point. She is right that
early years education, even before reception, has consistently
been proven to be absolutely fundamental to strengthening a
child’s readiness for school and educational potential over their
life, as well as for wider educational outcomes. We propose to
increase the number of staff with an accredited level 3 SENCO
qualification in early years settings to improve the special
educational needs and disability expertise in those settings by
up to 5,000 additional practitioners.
(Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Watson has had a good deal more
time to look in detail at this Green Paper than I have, but I
look forward to some conversations about it with the Minister. My
question follows rather well from those of the noble Lord, , and the noble Baroness
opposite. One issue about early intervention is that there is a
paucity, not to say an absence, of the study of child development
in the initial stages of teacher training and education. Frankly,
if teachers are not exposed to that in their period of training,
they will be ill equipped to recognise these difficulties early
in their career. I implore the Minister to have a little look at
initial teacher training and education, just to make sure that
everything that we are saying is consistent, so we really can
address the needs of all children.
Having said, that, we have had two Statements on education in two
days—it is great, is it not—and there is a great deal to welcome
in this Green Paper. However, we must all acknowledge that there
is much more to do for children and young people with special
needs and disabilities. We all, I hope, acknowledge that the
challenges are not new. As it says in the Green Paper, the
pandemic has exposed and exacerbated pre-existing difficulties.
Some of us in this Chamber who have been teachers will know, and
will have been having an uphill struggle in saying, that there is
enormous unmet need and enormous challenges. However, the Green
Paper also helpfully says, on page 13, that
“We need a system where decision-making is based on the needs of
children and young people, not on location”.
That is absolutely right. If a child has a need, it should be
met.
It may be that the standardisation of the education and
healthcare plan will help with that, and it may also help, as I
think it suggests in the Green Paper, with some elements of
reducing staff workload. But however much we have the ambition,
the lived reality for children and young people has to be, as the
book says, that they get the right support at the right time, so
I applaud that.
(Con)
Perhaps the noble Baroness could come to her question.
(Lab)
Is the Minister absolutely confident that there will be
sufficient funding going forward? I have one specific question.
Why is it that the special schools with alternative provisions
will be free schools, when it is very clear that local
authorities will have a significant role to play in the delivery
of these improvements? Why can they not be commissioners of
providers of schools?
(Con)
In answer to the noble Baroness’s second question, they could
potentially be presumption free schools. However, as she knows,
all new schools are free schools. On early childhood
development—this was not her question, but just to
clarify—content on special educational needs and childhood
development is part of the initial teacher training curriculum. I
am extremely interested in early childhood development. As the
noble Baroness knows, I ran a domestic abuse charity for many
years, so I am looking forward to a longer conversation with her
on that.
In relation to funding, the noble Baroness will know that we have
moved fast to try to meet the increase in funding needs, which
have gone up by 40% over the past few years. It has been an
unsustainable situation, and we have worked hard with local
authorities to try to manage the pressures they are under. We
hope that this approach will mark a step change in the funding
that is required and how it is spent.
(CB)
My Lords, I should declare an interest having chaired the
National Mental Capacity Forum in recent years; I have just
finished doing so.
I want to ask about the children and young people with severe
learning difficulties. I seek assurance that their plan towards
adulthood includes looking at the strengths they have to
maximally support them in their own decision-making and, where
possible, ensure that they have adequate capacity to choose
someone to hold lasting power of attorney in future for
financial, health and welfare decisions. It is awful when they
suddenly reach their 18th birthday and their parents find that
they can no longer take decisions and have not made adequate
provision ahead of time. Many of these young people have enough
capacity, when carefully supported, to take the decision because
they know what they need and who they trust to take decisions for
them. It is much safer than leaving it up to fate later on.
(Con)
The noble Baroness makes a very good point. Given that this is a
consultation, I really encourage her to share that as part of her
consultation response so that we can take it into account in our
plans going forward.
(LD)
My Lords, following on from the noble Baroness, I do not think
that the Minister entirely answered the point about initial
teacher training. What is being done in such training to ensure
that every new teacher is equipped to recognise special
educational needs? There is early and accurate identification of
need, but they can do that only if they are trained to recognise
the different types of disability that children might have.
The other thing I want to ask about concerns the new statutory
SEND partnership. How will this plan differ from the plan that is
in existence at the moment for children’s health and care plans?
Can the Minister explain that too?
(Con)
I understand why the noble Baroness talks about initial teacher
training, although she will be aware that it is outwith the scope
of this Green Paper. Our wider vision for teachers is that they
should have opportunities for professional development at every
stage of their career, whether that is initial teacher training,
early career development or beyond. We will consult on creating a
SENCO NPQ, which will give teachers who wish to develop in that
area an opportunity to do so.
The noble Baroness also asked about the new approach. Some of the
difference will be around clarity. First, the new approach brings
together special educational needs and disabilities and
alternative provision. As the noble Baroness knows, one of the
things the pandemic high- lighted was the number of children in
AP with special educational needs and disabilities, so we want to
bring those together. We want absolute clarity around standards
of provision and on roles and responsibilities. We also want much
clearer accountability and the partnership to work in a coherent
way, including with the partners I mentioned in response to an
earlier question.
(GP)
My Lords, returning to a theme that has been at the centre of our
discussion, the Early Years Alliance did a survey of its
providers in preparation for the Green Paper. It found that
three-quarters of them had seen an increase in the number of
children with formally defined SEND over the past two years,
while even more—84%—believed that they had children whose needs
had not been identified formally but were clear to them. The
survey covered a really disparate group of nurseries, pre-schools
and childminding professionals. Some 40% of them said that they
get no extra funding now; 87% of them said that they do not get
enough funding to meet the quality of care they believe is
necessary; and 56% of them said that they had had delays in
getting funding. Is the Minister really confident that there is
enough in this Green Paper, with the reorganisation and redrawing
of boundaries and responsibilities being put on local
authorities, to address these issues? Do we not need massively
more resources to be put into this stage, which the paper
identifies as absolutely crucial?
(Con)
The Government are putting significantly more resource in. I
absolutely hear what the noble Baroness says but I hope she also
accepts that we have little consistency in how we identify
children with special educational needs and disabilities. Of
course, their needs are at varying levels and require varying
levels of funding to address them. Just from visiting mainstream
schools, I know that there will certainly be great variations in
the percentage of children identified with special educational
needs. Sometimes that is because of great early intervention that
has addressed and dealt with their needs; other times, it is
because of poor intervention; other times, there are different
reasons. However, every local authority will attract a funding
increase of at least 12% per head for their two to 18 year-old
population in 2022-23, with some local authorities seeing
increases of up to 16% compared with the previous year. I hope
the noble Baroness acknowledges that we are really committing
money to sort this out.
The Lord
My Lords, I declare my interest as chair of the National Society,
which leads the Church of England’s education work.
I hope the Minister will be pleased to hear that, in response to
yesterday’s Green Paper, the Church of England has established a
national network for SENCOs at primary and secondary levels,
partly to get their opinions on how we should respond but also to
offer development in future. However, I want to continue to
pursue the early years question. Understandably, this is about
education and social care. The first 1,001 days of life are the
most crucial. Nothing here refers to the development of family
hubs and the work of health visitors in the pre-two context,
where some discernment ought to be available. Can the Minister
comment on the join-up between the development of family hubs and
the really early years?
(Con)
I start by asking the right reverend Prelate—I am sure I speak on
behalf of my ministerial colleagues as well—to share how warmly
we welcome the creation of the networks. We very much look
forward to their contributions to the consultation. In relation
to family hubs, he is absolutely right that they are critical to
this task of early identification. Obviously we have already
announced our plans on family hubs; we are excited at the
potential for multiagency working so that we can identify and
support as early as possible. As the right reverend Prelate
knows, family hubs support the whole family through to when the
child reaches maturity; whether it is early or a bit later, they
are there to help.
|
