Asked by
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of
the barriers preventing families with disabled children from
adequately receiving support services.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for
Education () (Con)
My Lords, we recognise the challenges that families of disabled
children face in getting the right support. In the past three
months we have published the special educational needs and
disabilities and alternative provision Green Paper, and the
independent review of children’s social care published its final
report. We will publish proposals to improve support for young
people with disabilities and their families. Investments in
family hubs and local health join-up will all improve support
services for families of disabled children.
(Lab)
My Lords, many of the ambitions in the SEND Green Paper are
welcome and offer real hope to those of us who want reform.
However, the proposal to allow parents of disabled children to
pick a school only from a pre-defined list, rather than allowing
them to specify one that meets their child’s needs, is plain
wrong. I know many carers who have had to fight tooth and nail to
get the right school for their child and this change will make it
harder. I will ask the Minister one specific question: have the
Government made an assessment of whether this policy, if adopted,
could create even more barriers for families with disabled
children than exist already?
(Con)
I understand the spirit in which the noble Lord asked this
Question. It is an extremely important one that families with
disabled children all around the country are asking. He also
hinted at the very confrontational system that we have at the
moment. The point of our consultation is to understand and listen
to families with disabled children. We have a big hill to climb
to build trust and confidence with our families but we are
absolutely committed to doing that.
(Con)
My Lords, by key stage 2, at the age of only 11, only 22% of
children with special educational needs or disabilities achieve
the requisite levels of literacy and numeracy. What is the
Government’s plan to address this iniquitous situation and close
the SEN and disability attainment gap?
(Con)
My noble friend rightly points to the gap in outcomes for
children with special educational needs and disabilities. He will
be aware of the proposals we set out in the schools White Paper,
with the aim that 90% of children should leave primary school
with the required standard in reading, writing and maths. That
can happen only if children with special educational needs see
much better outcomes. That is behind the commitment that we set
out in the Green Paper, but also the financial commitments we
have made in terms of capital and revenue for those children.
(LD)
Does the Minister agree—I think she has—that the current system
is overly legally confrontational and has primarily benefited
lawyers? Having said that, what is the Minister going to do to
make sure that those with low frequency problems or high needs—by
definition there are few places that can support them—can travel
in the new regime or have their needs met by people coming to
them? That is a real problem for a very few and one that the
Government must deal with if they are to get this right.
(Con)
I absolutely agree that the system is overly confrontational. I
cannot comment on the benefits to lawyers, being surrounded by so
many of them. Parents tell us that it is overly confrontational.
The noble Lord makes a good point. It will be important, and I
invite the noble Lord to hold us to account on how we address
those issues when we report back on the Green Paper.
(Non-Afl)
Short and long-term care services are broken according to
organisations led by the Disabled Children’s Partnership, which
is reporting families suffering a litany of physical and mental
health issues as a result of the adversarial system we have
talked about. Can the Minister assure the House that parents will
not be forced to supplement health authorities and local
authorities with funding of the advocacy services during the SEND
process?
(Con)
I am not able to reassure the noble Baroness at the Dispatch Box
because her question covers such a multitude of different
potential situations, but the spirit of our reforms is that we
have heard loud and clear from parents about the stress and
pressure that this causes them, sometimes including financial
pressure, and we are absolutely committed to addressing it.
(CB)
The Minister will be aware that in April the Down Syndrome Bill,
promoted in another place by the right honourable MP and promoted here by my noble
friend Lady Hollins, completed all its stages. What progress is
being made on implementing the terms of that legislation, and
will there be an opportunity for the House to be properly advised
about that progress?
(Con)
I will have to write to the noble Lord setting that out, together
with my colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care.
(Con)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on the respite
innovation fund, which is an excellent example of the right way
of tackling the challenges faced by families with disabilities.
Can she reassure me that it will be evaluated to high standards,
that families will not be allowed on to the scheme unless they
understand that evaluation is an important part of it, and that a
comprehensive survey will be conducted by a reputable
organisation at the beginning, at the end of the intervention and
six months later, so that we can learn from this and build on it?
(Con)
As my noble friend knows, my right honourable friend is a great
fan of data and transparency. We have commissioned an independent
process and an early outcome evaluation of the first year of
delivery to assess the impact of the scheme. It will obviously
seek the views of parents and children who are in receipt of the
support, as well as those of local authorities and other delivery
partners. The evaluation will assess the feasibility of
conducting a robust impact assessment of the type my noble friend
outlined, for years two and three of delivery.
(Lab)
My Lords, I must press the Minister in respect of the answer she
gave to my noble friend Lady Uddin a few moments ago. Surveys by
the Disabled Children’s Partnership found that three-quarters of
parent carers had suffered a deterioration in mental health due
to the fight they were required to undertake to get the right
services for their children. In the light of that, can the
Minister say how the Government intend to use the SEND Green
Paper to reduce the burden of admin and advocacy that currently
rests on the shoulders of parents with disabled children?
(Con)
I think I mentioned our starting point in response to the
original Question asked by the noble Lord, , which is that part of our
challenge is building up trust with parents who have children
with a disability. We believe that by having much clearer
bandings around provision, so that we reduce some of the regional
inconsistencies in the system, and by requiring mediation as part
of this, we will reduce confrontation. That is absolutely our
intention, but we do not have a closed mind on this. We have held
more than 153 consultation events and they are growing all the
time. We are very keen to hear from parents on what they think
will work.
(CB)
My Lords, the Disabled Children’s Partnership, to which many
noble Lords have referred, points out that the Green Paper does
not answer what may be the biggest question for many families:
how will councils, schools, the health service and others be held
to account if they do not meet their legal duties to provide
appropriate support for disabled children and their families?
(Con)
The noble Baroness is right, and she will be aware that just over
50% of councils inspected by Ofsted got written statements of
action, which means they have significant weaknesses in their
arrangements for children with special educational needs and
disabilities. Obviously, we are planning to improve the system,
but we are also planning to improve accountability through new
inclusion dashboards for 0 to 25 year-old provision. We hope that
that will give us a timely picture of performance that can be
used to create a self-improving system.
of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, the Government’s national strategy for disabled people
was described by them as a strategy to remove barriers and
increase participation, but it was judged to be unlawful by the
High Court earlier this year because of the dire state of the
consultation. Does the Minister agree that overcoming barriers to
access is best achieved alongside disabled people, with their
full involvement? What is she going to do to make sure we never
get into that situation again?
(Con)
Many disabled people’s groups welcomed the strategy at the time,
and we are deeply disappointed and strongly disagree with the
finding of the court. The Secretary of State concerned has sought
permission to appeal the High Court’s decision. In relation to
the Department for Education, the actions that we had in the
national strategy are not impacted by the High Court’s decision
and we are continuing at pace with all of them.
