Autism and Learning Disability Training

Debate between Julian Smith and Barbara Keeley

Tuesday 21st November 2023 Westminster Hall

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)]

I am very pleased to speak in this important debate with you in the Chair, Mr Vickers. I congratulate the hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage) on securing the debate and on the way in which she opened it.

I would like to pay tribute to Paula McGowan for her persistence in campaigning for this debate, for all her work to get the original debate that we held on this issue in 2018 and for all the campaigning work she has done since then. Paula has campaigned to secure around 70,000 signatures on the petition, so it is very good that we can discuss the Oliver McGowan mandatory training programme again. Her work has been instrumental in raising awareness of how we treat autistic people and people with learning disabilities in our health and care services. I pay tribute to her for that work.

In the debate which Paula helped to secure five years ago, I called for the Government to treat the introduction of mandatory training as an urgent priority. The Oliver McGowan mandatory training on learning disability and autism programme has now been delivered to around 750,000 healthcare staff—I think the hon. Lady said it was more than that, but that is the figure I have—and 200 people with a learning disability or autism have been trained to deliver parts of the programme. As we have heard, that is a very important part of it. Those are significant steps forward, but there is much more still to do.

Oliver’s case illustrates the degree to which people with learning disabilities or autism do not get the healthcare treatment they should expect from a civilised, compassionate society. Oliver was a young man with a full life expectancy who had overcome many challenges to excel as a footballer, as an athlete and in his exams. He was let down repeatedly because clinicians simply did not understand the nature of his autism. With better awareness and care adjustments, his death could have been avoided.

The petition on mandatory training that we are discussing recognises the role of teachers and schools in offering support to children and young people with a learning disability or autism. The rolling out of training on learning disabilities and autism is likely to significantly benefit the raising of awareness of learning disabilities and autism in the education sector.

The Government’s response to the petition states that headteachers should

“use their professional judgement to identify any further training”

for teachers. But the roll out of further training for education staff is clearly needed. Research by the National Autistic Society showed that 86% of secondary school teachers had received just half a day’s training on autism, and that three in four parents or carers of autistic children feel that their child’s school does not meet their needs.

One of my constituents—the parent of a boy aged nearly five who is showing traits of autism—told me about the struggle to get him support. She was told that he is “too naughty”, and he is limited to two hours of school a day. She said that her child

“is treated so differently, and he is more aware of it now. This makes him want to act out, as he thinks it’s what is expected of him. He cries every day when he has to leave so many hours earlier than the other children. I think this is another reason he acts out, because every day he knows he will only get a couple of hours of play with everything. He is overstimulated, and his behaviour is a lot worse during that time. If he had time to settle down, and a proper routine at school, he would be calmer and his behaviour would be a lot better, as it is at home. I worry that if he doesn’t receive the support he needs now, school may be a lot more difficult for him in the long run.”

Mandatory training on learning disabilities and autism for education staff could help to improve the situation for children and young people, as it undoubtably has been doing for health and care staff since it was rolled out.

[Julian Smith]

One of the challenges for autistic kids seems to be that many people they interact with in the school system have not received the training that the hon. Lady has been talking about, and they are being treated in a behavioural context. Does she agree that we should persuade teachers, or people who interact with kids, that the reason why these children act in the way they do is nothing to do with behaviour?

[Barbara Keeley]

It is very much like the case I have just given: the parent of that five-year-old boy is told that he is “too naughty” to have more than two hours of school a day, and that is absolutely disgraceful. It is not a behavioural problem if it is autism.

Education, health and care plans are another important source of support. As we have heard, there are 200,000 school-age autistic pupils in England, but just 55% have an education, health and care plan. The Government’s investment plan for children with special educational needs and disabilities claims that this is a priority area, but the National Autistic Society said there is “little substance” in the Government’s plan for reducing waits for a child’s education, health and care plan.

Concerningly, there have also been reports that the Government have signed a deal with a consultancy aiming to reduce targets for education, health and care plans by 20% for 55 local authorities, as part of a delivering better value in SEND programme. The consultancy firm was tasked with reducing cost pressures on local authorities by targeting a 20% reduction in the number of new education, health and care plans issued. It is painfully ironic that the design of this so-called value-for-money programme seems to have to cost the Government nearly £20 million in consultancy fees to Newton Europe. It is also painful to understand that the Government see education, health and care plans as cost pressures to be managed down, and not as vital documents that set out the education provision that children with significant needs must receive by law.