Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill
Lord Addington Excerpts(1 day, 22 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Addington
“(ba) may provide for exemptions for assistive technologies that are deemed necessary for a student’s education,”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would add assistive technologies that are necessary for students' education, to the list of exemptions that can apply to the prohibition of smartphone use and possession.
Lord Addington (LD)
This is fairly straightforward. There is a bit of passion being stirred up and a nice pace, so let us not delay too long. The reason I am suggesting that we include smartphones as assistance to those with special educational needs is because smartphones fit in your pocket and are a great way of carrying technology with you.
Chris McCausland, who noble Lords have probably seen on “Strictly Come Dancing”, did a lovely little programme showing all the assistance you can get if you are blind that can be loaded on to your phone. I, as a dyslexic, have good voice-operated systems that I can carry with me everywhere and use because they are on my phone. It gives you personal independence. It means that you can operate these systems, and we have only just started to scratch the surface. If there is another personal device that does it, I am all ears. I do not know whether there is another one.
You can block social media so the phone itself can be used for other purposes. It is a plastic and metal box that carries technology; it is not the devil’s passport. If we use it correctly, we can change it so that it actually supports and gives independence to a person who otherwise has it restricted from them. I ask all noble Lords in this Chamber: do we want to give independence to those who have disabilities?
This amendment would not solve everything, but it would address certain things. It would make sure that pupils could interact with lessons more easily. If they are restricted to a computer in front of them, that may well be better, but, for instance, they will not be able to take notes quite as easily—as in my case—or communicate quite as easily. The Carers Trust has been in touch to say that it does not like the proposal and would like an exemption for some of the people it is dealing with. This is moving very fast—there might be other groups.
I appreciate what the noble Baroness is trying to do but let us not be too rigid and throw the baby out with the bathwater. Technology is a way of helping to give independence, allowing people to access education. Please accept the fact that an absolute ban has downsides—downsides we can avoid. I beg to move.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for a very moving speech there, but I will address his point directly.
This amendment does not object to a child having a basic phone for safety. My plucky 11 year-old son travels to and from school every day with a big rucksack and a violin on the Circle line and the Jubilee line, come rain or snow. It worries the hell out of me every time he leaves the house, and I am not happy until he is back home. That is why he has a Nokia dumb phone in his pocket, so he can call me if he needs to. I confess that he sometimes plays “Pong” on a black and white LED screen when he is bored, but that does not damage his frontal cortex or bring him into touch with predators. He does not have a smartphone with all its nasty algorithms. Until they invent such a box as the noble Lord, Lord Addington, quite reasonably described, that is what a smartphone contains.
I do not, for instance, allow my son to go to the local pub, the Westbourne, where he might be beaten up. For the same reason, I do not let him on Instagram, with all its bullying. I do not allow him to go to the Ministry of Sound—wonderful organisation though that is—because he will be confronting sexual predators. For the same reason, I do not let him on Snapchat. I do not give him methamphetamine—whizz—or Es, because they are addictive and would mess with his brain, as do TikTok and YouTube reels. I do not, for instance, allow him on X, where he might see internet filth. For the same reason, he is not allowed to go to Soho to watch peep shows.
Toxic digital platforms are designed for adults and are engineered for addiction, fraudsters and predators—and, I am afraid, they are screwing with too many of our children’s brains. A simple device that makes calls and sends texts poses none of these challenges. That is what children should have. That is why schools should be in a regulatory position to ban smartphones during school hours.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Bull) (CB)
My Lords, I remind the House that the Question before the House is on Amendment 216 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, so we must first deal with that before we return to Amendment 215.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, as it appears that everybody wants to vote on this, I would like Amendment 215 to be in half-decent shape. I think it needs my amendment; therefore, I beg leave to press my amendment.
Lord Addington
“Obligation to deliver the National Curriculum to a child with SENDIn exercising any duty to secure that the National Curriculum is taught to a pupil for whom special educational provision is made, the proprietor of a school must ensure that—(a) there are effective arrangements in place to identify, as early as reasonably practicable, pupils who may have special educational needs or disabilities,(b) for each such pupil, a written SEND support plan is prepared and regularly reviewed, setting out the adjustments, adaptations or disapplications from the National Curriculum, and any additional provision, reasonably required for that pupil to make progress, and(c) teachers and other staff have sufficient time, training and access to specialist advice to implement that plan, and to refine it in response to the pupil’s progress.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would make clear that, in relation to children with SEND, the duty to teach the National Curriculum must be exercised in a way which enables schools to identify needs early and to prepare and deliver a tailored SEND support plan. It is intended to give schools greater capacity and professional agency to adapt or depart from the National Curriculum where necessary, and to ensure staff have the time, training and support needed to act on children’s SEND needs.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, the two amendments in this group were designed to, shall we say, spur the Government to tell us where we are with the developments on special educational needs. Basically, they are saying that we should have a structure you can teach all the way through. I do not think there is much point in saying any more, so I will ask but one question. Is the Minister, speaking on behalf of the Government, in a position to give us a date, preferably not in general terms of “soon”, “possibly” or “imminently”, but a date in time—possibly the number of weeks: let us start low and build up—when we will get the White Paper? When will we start to see what the Government think is appropriate? That is not too much to ask; it is already roughly half a year late. So, just that: I beg to move the amendment standing in my name to try to extract an answer from the Government.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, we thank the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for his two amendments. The establishment of a national body is a factor that needs to be considered in the important and pressing issue of special education needs and disabilities. There is certainly the argument for a National Institute for Health and Care Excellence equivalent for SEND. But the most important point, in our view, is that, whatever the approach taken in the Government’s forthcoming White Paper, it is based upon firm evidence.
The same principle applies to the noble Lord’s other amendment, which would introduce an obligation to deliver the national curriculum to children with special education needs and disabilities. Whatever approach is taken, it must also align with the existing evidence base.
An incredibly diverse and wide-ranging list of requirements is put on schools for children with education, health and care plans. Although it may be possible to deliver the national curriculum in line with these—we note that the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, allows for disapplications—if the Government were to accept this, we would suggest an extensive pilot scheme to undertake a full, top-down and bottom-up approach, ensuring rigorous testing before introduction.
We hope, in line with the request of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, that the Minister will also be able to confirm that curriculum policy will feature in the coming White Paper—and please can we have a date?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
Much as I try to satisfy Members in the House of Lords—for all the good it does me—no, you cannot have a date. Come on—everybody knows that you cannot have a date, even at one o’clock in the morning. But I will try to respond to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, in his amendments.
Just to be clear, as a starting point, we share the noble Lord’s ambition for every child to have an education that meets their needs. We are determined to fix the SEND system and rebuild families’ trust by improving inclusivity and SEND expertise in schools, giving teachers the tools to identify and support needs early, and strengthening accountability for inclusion. The amendments the noble Lord has raised speak to the heart of our vision: an inclusive education system, built on strong leadership, evidence-based early intervention and high-quality teaching for every learner.
Amendment 228 seeks to place a new statutory duty on schools to adapt the national curriculum for individual pupils. We agree that children’s needs must be identified early and met well, but we fear that adding a new statutory requirement risks creating vague expectations around “sufficient” time and training, which could invite dispute rather than help schools.
Since Committee, we have continued constructive engagement with SEND organisations, including on identifying and supporting needs early and consistently, and on workforce development. We have recently announced £200 million to be invested over the course of this Parliament to upskill staff in every school, college and nursery, ensuring a skilled workforce for generations to come. This builds on at least £3 billion for high-needs capital between 2026-27 and 2029-30, to support children and young people with SEND or those who require alternative provision.
Amendment 229 proposes the establishment of a national body for SEND. We are aware of the challenges in the SEND system and how urgently we need to address them. However, as stated in Committee, we are concerned that a new body would simply create unnecessary bureaucracy. Our reforms will be set out in the forthcoming schools White Paper and will be underpinned by principles in line with the concerns the noble Lord has raised, and informed by continuing engagement with parents, teachers and experts, including through the recent national conversation on SEND. We are committed to supporting children with SEND through early identification, access to the right support at the right time, high-quality adaptive teaching and effective allocation of resources.
Noble Lords will not have too long to wait. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord feels able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Addington (LD)
Well, it was worth a try. At least we did not hear that when the moon is full and the wind is high, we shall get a report, but it sounded almost like that. I look forward to this when it happens and beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill
Lord Addington Excerpts(1 day, 22 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 199, to which I have added my name. In this, I am channelling my inner Baroness Wolf of Dulwich—the noble Baroness sends her apologies that she cannot be in her place. This amendment attempts to rectify another example in the Bill in which a well-intentioned idea is turning out to be a mistake. It is a bit of an example of top-down government seemingly punishing a school for being successful. Whereas education is all about nurturing and helping improvement in those who are less successful, this is a cold logic to reduce empty places and surplus capacity.
In an ideal world, the number of children wanting to go to various local schools would fit neatly into the number of places in local schools, but it does not. That is, in part, because parents are now much more aware of the league tables, Ofsted inspections, academy specialisations and all sorts of online opinions. It also reduces the most important incentive for a school to succeed and improve—one that has been at the heart of Labour’s and successive Governments’ academies programme, which has itself been at the heart of 20 years of school improvement, and which threatens to be reversed by this.
If good and oversubscribed schools can expand, and unpopular schools are not filled up with unwilling attendees, all schools would have a strong incentive to be good. When school choice and academisation were introduced, there were predictions that we would end up with lots of sink schools and a significant number of children having an even worse education than before recruitment was freed up. This did not happen. There has been a steady decrease in the number of badly performing schools. Competition works, not by creating a monopoly but by incentivising and driving improvement.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, my Amendment 230 in this group is on off-rolling. Whatever the good points of academisation, there has been a strong suspicion—a fact, in some cases—that certain schools are off-rolling pupils who are seen to be a problem. The best of the academies are probably dealing with this. I remember the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, being impassioned as a Minister in saying that we must stop this. There is a strong suspicion that it goes on, possibly underneath, at a school level, when a teacher or headmaster is worried about personal development. Whether we like it or not, that strong suspicion exists, and there has been a rise in the number of exclusions going on.
When the Minister answers, I hope that she will tell us how this is being dealt with. If it is not being dealt with, it is a problem that we will have to get to grips with. I hope that there will be a coherent look at this, so we know exactly what the case is. There is a strong suspicion that special educational needs is a factor pushing this. I have known people going through this, where it has been assumed that every pupil in a pupil referral unit has at least one special educational need. The Minister has been engaged in these types of areas, and I hope that, when she comes to answer for the Government, she can tell us what the Government are going to do. If there is even a suspicion, we should find out the truth and look at it coherently.
Lord Nash (Con)
My Lords, I will talk to Amendments 198 and 199, to which I have added my name. Inclusion is very important but, at the moment, some children—too many, frankly—who should not be in maintained education are being admitted to maintained schools because of their parents’ wishes. Those parents are making decisions that are not in the best interests of their children. These are often inappropriate settings and it affects the education and resources available to other children in those settings. We need more special schools that are better located, so that children are not spending hours in taxis, and we need better alternative provision. I very much hope that the Government are seized of this issue and that they will allow more special and AP free schools.
On Amendment 199, I find it hard to think of circumstances where it would be a good idea to limit the size of a school that provides high-quality education. I can, however, think of many examples of where it would be a very bad idea. As my noble friend Lady Barran said, we are heading towards overcapacity in schools, and the best way for that situation to resolve itself is by letting the market and parents decide.
Local authorities are understandably reluctant to close schools and there are often many local, political or ward issues in play. We certainly do not want local authorities to reduce the PAN of schools on the basis of political issues overriding the interests of children or parents. I am aware of boroughs that have tried to resist the creation of new free schools based on a lack of demand in their location when, on further investigation, it became clear that many local pupils were actually going to schools in neighbouring boroughs or local authorities, because their local schools were performing so poorly. It is a complicated issue.
My academy trust specialises in taking on failing schools. We have just taken on another secondary school, thanks to terrific co-operation from the Department for Education and a certain amount of money, for which I am very grateful. This is another failing secondary school in Hertfordshire, with only 400 pupils on the roll but with a much higher PAN and substantial local demand. The school had previously had three required improvements in 15 years. As we have taken on a further four failing schools in Hertfordshire and turned them around, and have a very good relationship with the Hertfordshire local authority, I do not think this would be an issue in this location. But if we were in the future asked to take on a similarly failing school in an authority we did not know, the ability of the local authority to reduce the PAN might well deter us, and no doubt others. Reducing the PAN of a successful school to protect a school whose roll is falling is no answer. Students do best in schools which are full or nearly full, and have the resources to provide an adequate education.
Finally, in support of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, while I do not think off-rolling is as frequent as perhaps some people think, it would be better to know the answer and get the facts.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)
My Lords, I shall very briefly add my support to Amendment 243C and, in doing so, declare my interest as a member of the board of the London Marathon Foundation. As we have heard, schools play a crucial role in the formation of lifelong activity habits, but they need to be properly supported, both to provide more opportunities within school and to ensure that what they offer meets the needs of the various interests of young people and children, to make sure that they fully engage with physical education. A national strategy would give schools the structure they need to guarantee consistently high-quality physical education, as well as help them build partnerships with community sports organisations, creating pathways that link school-based activity with accessible opportunities outside school.
In its recent submission to the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee’s inquiry into community and school sport, London Marathon stressed the pressing need for national and local government, schools, governing bodies and charitable and commercial organisations to align behind tangible shared objectives to get children and young people active and, most importantly, keep them active. By mandating the publication of a national strategy for physical education and sports in schools, this amendment will be an important step to delivering just that.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I shall make a couple of brief comments on the amendment that the noble Baroness, Lady Sater, introduced so well. I draw the House’s attention to proposed new subsection (2)(k). If you take part in physical activity only in educational establishments, you generally stop doing it when you leave, so getting in outside bodies to say that playing in a team at the weekend or in the evening is a reasonably normal thing to do means that you are much more likely to do it once you are outside that environment. It is something we have consistently found. It probably applies to other areas as well, but, if we are talking about a coherent sports strategy, that is one thing that the Government really must give more time and thought to.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, I shall speak mainly to Amendment 206, but, as somebody who has taught more PSHE days than he cares to remember, I think I might make a few comments on this one. I have spoken many times about how I think we need to bring PSHE and citizenship much more into the regular curriculum on a weekly basis. To put my noble and right reverend friend Lord Harries of Pentregarth’s mind at ease, his amendment looked to me like a scheme that could work: it is very similar to what we teach. I think that, with all due respect to several House of Lords committees, the subtle differences are not going to filter their way down to schools. I think we need to teach this. We need to make sure it is important. Teachers are very good at interpreting this, schools are very good and the basic subtleties do not really matter to me, I am afraid.
In response to the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Sater, I would say, “Please can I join the school with an hour of sport a day?” And can we hurry up as well? My daughter is in year 10: she is locked in the bathroom, but she would be really keen to hear that. If we are trying to get kids back into school and we have nearly 1 million missing school, might this not be worth trying?
I actually rose to speak to Amendment 208, and will give one quote, from Tender. If noble Lords do not know it, Tender is an unbelievable expert charity that delivers RSE to young people, from primary schools all the way to sixth form. Its CEO, Susie McDonald, said: “We are all too aware that 16 to 19 year-olds are at the highest risk of abuse in their relationships. At this critical age, young people simply cannot be left without the vital education to keep themselves and others safe. We have all seen the horrifying results, from rising levels of coercive control to the murder of teenage girls by teenage boys. We know how to prevent it: with mandatory, high-quality relationship education, all the way to 18”.
Schools: Music and Dance Scheme
Lord Addington Excerpts(1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The fact that dance sits under PE means that it is part of the national curriculum up to the age of 16. However, I take the noble Baroness’s point, which I think she has made previously, that having skilled teachers able to deliver that is important. Considering how we can build support from the specialist schools into our state schools is an interesting idea. I will certainly take that back to my colleagues in the department.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, would the Minister not agree that this is something that is done on a small scale, at a very intensive level, for the elite, and that it is thus incredibly difficult for it to be done in the state system, and we are going to have to work with independent schools? Could the Government give a statement that they will make that reality part of their thinking and tell us how it will be done?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I agree with the noble Lord; that is the whole point of the music and dance scheme. It enables 2,000 young people who might not otherwise be able to get, as he says, that private education at the very highest levels, to benefit from it. This Government have maintained investment in that. I am pleased that 18% of the students who benefit from the music and dance scheme get a full bursary; anybody below a family income of £45,000 gets that bursary. That is what enables entry into these schools, and that is what we will certainly attempt to maintain.
Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill
Lord Addington Excerpts(3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
My Lords, I think I understand why government Amendment 12 has been tabled, but I am worried that it is imprecise, and I am not sure that it is absolutely necessary. The unique thing a police officer will bring to these teams is powers—power of arrest, power of entry and powers to seize evidence—but if the teams do not exercise those powers, it is not clear why they need the police at all.
More importantly, the person needs experience. The amendment talks about a member of the police staff—that is, somebody who is not a police officer—who has “experience”. I do not understand the imprecision and wonder whether the Government might try to find some way of making it more precise. Experience could mean one week or six years. There is an accreditation process for trained officers—perhaps the police might offer some form of accreditation measure before they put someone in this role.
I would like to see somebody with experience of going into people’s homes, dealing with situations where childcare is needed, sometimes arresting the parents, sometimes moving the child to another location and sometimes involving other agencies to make sure that the child is looked after in the future. The reality is that, on the whole, police staff will not have that experience.
The only argument I can see for the amendment is that you might have a police officer who is retired—so, has previous police experience—and has become a member of the police staff. If that were the case, I am not sure it is necessary. There is now a scheme of fire and rehire—most chief constables seem to be working on it. The basis is that someone retires from their constable post, takes their lump sum, abates their pension and carries on being paid as a constable. So, if the requirement is to have someone in the role who has police experience, I would see that as a reasonable reason for doing this.
My biggest concern—I say this against the police, who of course I love—is that the 43 forces might come to different conclusions about what “experience” means. Probably more worryingly, they might conclude that they want the cheapest option, which would by far be to put police staff into this area and not have to pay police officers. The Minister knows that I have concerns about whether the police should be members of these teams, but given that they are, it is probably best that they are police officers and not people whose experience we have an imprecise definition of, because police officers offer some judgment about the life situations that they deal with—and that other social services deal with—which might amplify their judgment in the cases that these teams will have to consider.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I stand here today as a rather inadequate replacement for my noble friend Lady Tyler, so I will be very brief. As the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, pointed out, in Amendment 6 we are talking about the most vulnerable group—certainly a group that does not have the added protection of, for instance, the school environment and people looking on. So, having greater attention paid to it self-evidently seems like something we should have. If the Government do not like the suggestion made by my noble friend and the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, perhaps they can tell us where else they will get it, because it is very important.
The other amendments in this group go into a new area of government activity—new teams. We should explore in considerable depth the concerns that have been raised about how it will work and the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe. The experience of the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, dwarfs any that I have in this field. I hope the Minister answers those questions thoroughly and explains why she thinks her amendments are necessary—I have no doubt that she will do that, as she normally does.
Amendment 17 really attracted my attention. If you are going into a new area, why not first check to see how it is working? There is a general agreement about the approach, but let us make sure that it is done properly. As well as the other amendments in this group, the House should consider those two amendments very fully.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I have my name on this amendment and I am grateful to the Minister from the Ministry of Justice, who met a group of us to look at how the findings and recommendations from the Cordis Bright report could be met. I would like to add a tiny word to the way in which this amendment was so well introduced.
The report’s findings showed that contact centres provide an important service, as we have already heard, and enable thousands of parents to have contact with children safely. But it pointed out that there is scope to improve emotional safeguarding and the provision of domestic abuse training for contact centre staff, and the importance of a system-wide approach to safeguarding adults or children from the risk of domestic abuse and other harm. The report presented a series of evidence-led recommendations to support this.
The point of the amendment is to ensure that there are appropriate standards. This is about raising standards everywhere, because it keeps the child at the centre of what is happening and being recommended.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I will briefly join the support for this amendment. If somebody is doing something that is potentially difficult, training will be essential, so that they understand what their role is, do not make basic mistakes, et cetera. I would have thought that this is something that should be there, but those who tabled the amendment think it is not. The Government should think about what the response should be, because, if people with this degree of knowledge think there is a need for better training, there probably is.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, in my time as a family magistrate, I have dealt with the issue of contact centres a number of times. I want to make a point that the noble Lord, Lord Meston, did not make: the problem with unregistered contact centres. When you are in court, it is not always obvious to the court making the decision whether the proposed contact centre is registered or unregistered. This of course is a potentially very serious problem. I have even been in court and been told that one of the parties had personally set up a contact centre as a way of gaming the system, if I can put it like that. So this is a real problem, and registration and training of course are the answer. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will be as encouraging as possible.
Special Educational Needs: Investment
Lord Addington Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Addington
To ask His Majesty’s Government whether the £3 billion investment in additional places for children with special educational needs will involve the construction of new settings, or adaptations of existing educational establishments.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
My Lords, the £3 billion in high needs capital announced last week is intended to support children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities and those who require alternative provision by creating facilities within mainstream schools that can deliver more flexible support adapted to suit people’s needs. It can also be used to adapt mainstream schools to be more accessible and create special school places for pupils with the most complex needs through expanding existing settings or stand-alone schools where this is necessary.
Lord Addington (LD)
I thank the Minister for that reply. However, can the Government give us some idea of how this will work for those who have less complicated needs and probably are more frequent in number? What will this do to support those who might just get by with a little bit of help, as opposed to those with very complicated needs who will have less of their education in the mainstream classroom?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble Lord makes a very important point. This funding is an opportunity to support those pupils to remain in schools close to home and enable them to learn and thrive alongside their friends, in environments that support their learning, by developing safe and quiet spaces and improving the accessibility of mainstream schools. That is a large part of what we expect this additional funding to support, precisely so that children can learn and thrive alongside their friends in mainstream schools and be identified earlier in order to do that.
SEND Budget Funding
Lord Addington Excerpts(2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I take the noble Baroness’s assurance that noble Lords opposite want to support the Government in reforming the SEND system; I believe that to be true. However, it is also the case that there has been a fair amount of misinformation being peddled, not least by some of her colleagues at the other end of Parliament, about the nature and source of the £6 billion, and the way in which it will be dealt with in 2028-29. As I made clear in the original Answer, in the Budget the Treasury was very clear, in careful wording, that future funding implications will be managed within the overall Government DEL envelope—not the DfE’s DEL—and will be part of the spending review that will start in 2027.
The other important point is that that figure assumes no reform of the SEND system, and of course that reform will be focused first and foremost on ensuring that children and their families get better outcomes than they are getting from the system at the moment, and it will be important to ensure that that happens. It will also make system more sustainable.
I hope that all those interested in SEND reform will, for example, take part in the quite extensive engagement activity that is currently under way to help to inform those reforms.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I applaud the intention behind the Government’s announcement, but does the Minister agree that there will be no real reform unless there is capacity within the school system to identify early? This will require training budgets and technology to back it up. If the Government can assure us that this is going to be there, they stand a chance of doing something here.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble Lord is absolutely right. To be clear, the objective here is to ensure better outcomes in a system that at the moment costs a considerable amount of money but is not delivering the outcomes that children and families need. The noble Lord identifies a couple of areas where the Government are already investing additional money, for example into teacher training from early years onwards; into the support available for continuing professional development for teachers; into initial teacher training and the early career framework; and into the national professional qualifications for teachers. All of those have had reform and investment from the Government to ensure, as the noble Lord accurately said, that we are in a better position to identify children’s needs at an earlier stage and to address them in our mainstream schools.
Dyscalculia
Lord Addington Excerpts(2 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My Lords, I very much recognise what my noble friend says about the challenges that children with dyscalculia have in relation to their maths. Probably where we differ is on whether it is necessary to name those things in order to make sure that children get support: we do not believe that a child should need a diagnosis of a condition to get support. While diagnoses and labels can be useful for some children, whether a child has secured a diagnosis should not determine the support they get. A child with dyscalculia needs more support to master concepts in maths, so the support that we offer will be the same as for others facing difficulties with maths—that is better scaffolding, more effective use of representation and careful sequencing of learning. We are taking action to ensure that children who have difficulties with maths, including those with dyscalculia, will get the support they need.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, the answer that the Minister has just given shows why we need a name. She gave a long description of a term that can have one name, which means that the teachers, the parents and the child can understand it. One word is better than many for this, even if it happens to be a Greek one.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I think I said that I completely understand that children who have difficulties in maths, including those with dyscalculia, will need support. My emphasis was on the action that the Government are taking to support those children, which is, I suspect, where both noble Lords are in asking this question.
Think Work First: The Transition from Education to Work for Young Disabled People (Public Services Committee Report)
Lord Addington Excerpts(3 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, report was, for me, slightly depressing but also reassuring. It was slightly depressing because I have either said or agreed with everything said in this report over the past 20 or 30 years. A series of themes here have dominated government ever since it has looked at this area, particularly in the education field. It comes down to the fact that you have X number of people who do not fit the education system that well who are still going through it.
Then we come to a series of roadblocks, such as level 2 English language. The president of the British Dyslexia Association, who is dyslexic, of course would say this, would he not? But you suddenly bump into things that get in the way. The one battle that I won partially was thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Nash— I give him eternal credit for taking on his own department—who turned round and said that a recognised dyslexic should not be made to pass functional skills English at GCSE level with a C, as it was at the time, to get their apprenticeship. It was inspired by meeting people like carpenters and hairdressers, who could not get a job that would allow them to be employed properly because they had a disability that meant they could not do something. That took a long time—and that degree of rigidity in standards is something that we must resist. To go through all the dys’s, a dyspraxic just will not fill out the form in time. For a dyscalculic, it is often even worse. I recently met somebody who had failed maths 14 times in trying to get an apprenticeship. The degree of black humour builds, does it not? We get around it; we do not address it. The Government have to interject here, to remove the traps on the way through.
I hope we are about to hear—the Minister is being threatened by a piece of paper from her officials—that we will try to remove this with a little common sense. It is just one of the things I think we have to do. We have to adapt the education and training programme to get through. I hope this will come forward. I was ignorant before I started this that Scotland has the Compass tool; apparently it works. I hope the Government will tell us how they will integrate this, or something very like it, into our own system, guiding people through.
Then it goes on about the fact that, as anyone who has dealt with the system knows, you are in education, then you are employed, then you are an adult and then you fall off the cliff. The one thing the Children and Families Act got right was that if you are identified as needing an EHCP it goes on until 25. That is the best thing about it. Maybe it should go on for longer, and maybe there should be more structural change. If you think about it for two seconds, it is obvious that you will need support and guidance to get through in a system where you do not fit. It has been designed for the 75% of the population that it does fit so you will have to make some adaptations or some ways through to make it relevant to everybody else. It is no-brainer, really. But you hit bureaucratic walls, structures and stereotypes all the time and you are hitting them damned hard. You have to try and make a place where the Government take action and actively overcome.
It is time for another declaration of interest that is relevant under the rules. I am chairman of Microlink PC which puts together packages for people going into employment. Assistive technology is usually part of this but sometimes it is just organisation. We find when dealing with employers, often big employers, that they just want to get the best out of their people. Big employers sometimes feel confident and structured. They need PR. They decide, “Yes, we’ll do this. We’ll get in early and deal with the problem. We don’t need a definition”—and it makes sense. The problem is that most small employers, as this report makes quite clear, do not know this. They think they can avoid it. Someone has a condition: if they cannot do this, what happens?
There can be small changes and small structures. In my case, I have to talk to a computer as opposed to tapping a keyboard. I have never met anybody who objected to me word processing by talking to a computer—if someone did, I think they probably have bigger psychological problems than the person talking to the computer. How are you going to encourage not only the support systems but the knowledge that these things are easily dealt with if you have the willingness to go forward?
When the Minister comes to reply to this debate, I am sure she will agree in principle with all these points. It is about driving things forward and saying that you have to do things slightly differently. As has been pointed out by virtually everybody here, the employment gap and the economic benefits are self-evident. If you are employed, then you are not claiming benefits and are an economic benefit to everybody else, so pure selfishness comes into it. Dyslexics have a stereotype that we are all entrepreneurs. I think quite a lot of us are but often that is through necessity and not through choice. You have to do something different or you will sit and rot. We have to embrace these things, and if we do not start to address the basic thrust of this report we will simply carry on as we are at the moment.
Also, I would hope that the Minister will say what the Government thought was good about the work done by the previous Government. What has worked and how will they carry it on? We all know what has not worked because we talked about it for a long time. But how are we going to continue the good work and get that drive? How will we say, “This has worked”? Where is the continuity?
If people need support and structure, how will that work? Access to Work is often talked about, but it is slow and linked to certain jobs. How do we take that through if we decide that we need that support and structure? Let us face it, people do not usually radically change the type of jobs they do; they are usually in a pattern, at least for long periods of time. How are we going to make sure the support is always there? It would be a very good thing if the employer did not have to go through the hassle of saying an employee must wait to get their new support system. It is about support, structure and information. I go back to the beginning of this, in schools. If a school’s careers adviser does not know that people from various disability groups can have careers in X number of lines, they cannot help. Where is the expertise coming in?
As the noble Baroness will undoubtedly be finding out when she deals with the special educational needs report, these are not easy things to do. We all look forward to that report; only one delay in that report will be quite good by governmental standards, but I hope it is just the one delay.
Extra knowledge is needed across a variety of structures. There are three disabled people in this room—that I can recognise, although I am probably missing someone—and they all have different problems. How will the Government make sure that people can get that expertise? Are we making sure that the professional involved can go and ask for help? They need to know that if they need to ask for extra help, it is not a negative but a positive. If we are doing this in teaching, we should be doing it for careers advice—it should be the same thing. If you have not met a certain condition before, you need to have knowledge. Having a central pool of support, having access to it, and saying that it is okay to get something through—and doing it reasonably fast—would make life immeasurably easier for everyone involved in the system.
What we really need is a change of tone; we need to say, “We are supportive and we will inform you”. The employer’s fear about employing somebody who works differently in their office must be overcome. That is very important, and the report is wise to draw attention to it. The fact that people are frightened about extra costs and the structures will always be there until we get a hold of it, shake somebody pretty hard and tell them not to worry. After that, we can show them how it is done. The Government need to say that they are taking these steps and that they will work on the other stages.
On getting special educational needs right, unless we are getting to another cliff edge—I think the noble Lord, Lord Laming, was the first one to say this—the Government are still just pushing the cliff edge slightly further down the road. They have got to go out there and say how they will address the whole problem. It is a big challenge, and the Government will not get it right in one Session. But, if they embrace it and get the tone right, future Governments of whatever colour will probably find it easier to go forward. It is a big challenge. I wish the Government well, and I look forward to what the Minister has to say.
Autistic Children: State Schools
Lord Addington Excerpts(3 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I feel that the whole of your Lordships’ House benefits from the commitment and knowledge of the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, and my noble friend on this topic. She once again makes an important point that to support children with autism, we need to first recognise that there is a range of differences in the way in which it presents. Secondly, we need to identify those needs as early as possible and to ensure that a medical assessment is not required for that to happen. Thirdly, there must be an individualised approach, including a plan where necessary, to support those children. We need to put that alongside the additional training that is now happening for teachers, from their initial teacher training, through their early career framework and to leadership positions. We have not solved this problem yet, but we are making important progress along the lines that the noble Baroness outlined.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, will the Minister give us a further assurance that the schools know that they need to work in flexibility? Rigid rules or disciplinary behaviour will almost certainly trigger adverse reactions from autistic people, particularly pupils who do not have that degree of life experience or different perceptions of the world outside. Schools must have flexibility and it must be throughout the system.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble Lord is absolutely right about that. It follows the point made by the noble Baroness about the need for a personalised approach. In fact, the approach to all children with special educational needs and disabilities must be personalised, but the point about the different ways in which autism might reflect in behaviour or needs in the classroom is very important. That is why we need teachers who have received particular training and development, and the ability within all schools to both identify and respond to the needs of children, including those with autism, in the most effective way. The noble Lord is absolutely right that that will differ from child to child.
Post-16 Education and Skills Strategy
Lord Addington Excerpts(3 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
On the noble Lord’s first point, no, I do not accept that an index-linked increase in tuition fees—a certainty of funding that no other public or private sector organisations, or very few, could have committed to them—will leave universities worse off. That is notwithstanding this Government’s decision that in order to reinstate the maintenance grants removed by the last Government we will use a levy on international students to reintroduce targeted maintenance grants for students. Of course, asking students to invest in their education is right, alongside government investment, but we need to make sure that that world-leading higher education system is open to all who can benefit from it and that we close the gap in access, which has persisted for too long.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, the Government have stated, and the Minister has repeated, the concentration on English and maths. They have also talked about special educational needs and I once again declare my interests: I am president of the British Dyslexia Association—whose event in the Commons I am missing at the moment—and chairman of Microlink plc, which does assistive tech packages.
On special educational needs—dyscalculia, for example—I met somebody the other day whose brother had failed the maths component of an apprenticeship for the 15th time. Can we make sure that, when we look at the qualifications, if we are going to bring everybody into the skill set, everybody is allowed to pass, either by changing the qualification or allowing assistive technology to be used? This does not happen in universities, which can make their own rules, but for the higher education sector—levels up to five—it is essential that we have that guidance from the Government.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
Quite often in further education, there is very good special educational needs provision, which we will learn from. We will also ensure, as part of our special educational needs reform, that further education is included as a part of that. However, the whole point about the reform in English and maths qualifications—particularly the introduction of a new qualification that will enable students to demonstrate and build on their foundations—is to support more young people to pass. The noble Lord will also know that we have changed the conditions for adult apprenticeships so that it is no longer necessary to get a separate English or maths qualification in order to get an adult apprenticeship.