All Party Parliamentary Group on Autism (APPGA) - SEN Green Paper Meeting

(APPGA) - SEN Green Paper Meeting

18 May 2011

17.00-19.00

The River Room, The House of Lords

I attended the All Party Parliamentary Group on Autism at the House of Lords on 18 May 2011. A short address by Chairs Robert Buckland MP and Fabian Hamilton MP was followed by an address by Sarah Teather MP, Minister for Children and Families who spoke about the SEN Green Paper. Ms Teather said that the proposals in the Green Paper were intended to join services together in a single process and move to an outcome focussed approach.

She referred to Early Years provision, and described the future provision as concentrating on three key areas; the first area being behaviour, social and emotional, the second speech & language and the third physical development.

Outcome focus is intended to end the culture of low aspiration.

Questions then followed

I have not recorded all of the questions, just the most troubling. One early questioner asked:

Given that the existing system involves a multi-disciplinary assessment which includes health and Social Services, how is the new system to differ, given that at the Education Law Association meeting on 5 May 2011, Phil Snell, the DFE official who has responsibility for the Green Paper advised that there were no plans to extend the jurisdiction of the SEND Tribunal over health or Social Services and make the provision in the Education, Health or Care Plan legally enforceable. If this is the case, surely Social Services will continue with their usual response not known to the service, even in situations where Social Services input is clearly required and the sad list of parents with their SEN children jumping off bridges, and committing other forms of suicide, will undoubtedly be added to. Without the Tribunal being able to make Orders against health and Social Services, there are 'no teeth' and the existing situation is merely replicated.

In response, Ms Teather advised the meeting that there would be a cultural change, and all organisations would have to budget for the cost of the provision which was found to be necessary in the Education, Health & Care Plan.

It was pointed out in another question, that the only mechanism of discipline for Social Services at the moment was Judicial Review in the High Court which was expensive required lawyers and not particularly accessible by parents, voluntary organisations and parents, with help can, at least, present their own appeals to the SEND Tribunal who would, no doubt order something, to replace 'not known to the service'.

Ms Teather repeatedly referred to forthcoming trials of varying proposals. There was no indication of how these trials will be evaluated, by whom they would be evaluated, or whether the data would be made public for discussion.

Another question followed, I did not recall the questioner's name, but the question was about specificity and would that be retained? Contrary to the assurance given by Phil Snell on 5 May 2011 at the ELAS meeting, Ms Teather's response was that with an outcome focussed approach, and budgeting by the contributors to the Education, Health & Care Plan specificity would not be needed. Ms Teather failed to explain how realistic budgeting would be undertaken, if provision was not specified and quantified.

Ms Teather appeared also to be against specificity on the basis that parents became entrenched (it is difficult to see what evidential basis there is for this) insisting on particular provision, when they would be better moving on and accepting other provision. Ms Teather seemed not to appreciate that there can be legitimate alternative professional and parental views about what is appropriate in any particular situation, and this disagreement needs a mechanism for resolution.

Another question was raised, about the absence of default powers. The questioner working in the voluntary sector, pointed out that Health, Education and Social Services, were not so much partners working together, as distant cousins, each with their own budgets, view and identities. They needed to all come under a single body, who could effectively 'bang their heads together' and make Orders against them requiring particular provision to be put in place. This, according to Ms Teather, was quite unnecessary because the 'partners' in the process were 'all signed up'. Default powers were not needed because it was all going to work. The response was, in essence, that these were not needed, because the system was going to work and an outcome focused approach would resolve all.

A final question to Sarah Teather concerned personal budgets. The questioner asked if the situation would be like Direct Payments from Social Services, in which the payments did not cover the cost of service, and nothing like the amount claimed could actually be bought for the monies allocated. The question pointed out that the difficulty of administration and that parental hands were usually overly full, trying to cope with the child, other children in the family and employment and the problem being at the moment that, if the paperwork was not absolutely accurate, in an accountancy sense, then the money was stopped. The questioner asked whether there was going to be an allocation for administration, and whether the practice of immediately ceasing the payments, if the paperwork was not absolutely 'spot on' would be stopped. No such assurance was received from Ms Teather, who merely responded that 'personal budgets would be voluntary'.

Ms Teather then left the meeting before Sharon Hodgeson MP, shadow Minister for disabled people spoke.

Ms Hodgeson expressed some doubts about the 'lack of teeth'. Ms Hodgeson, then had to leave the meeting for a Division. Although she subsequently returned for questions at that point, there was general discussion among the attendees. A great deal of concern was expressed about the proposal's evident idealism, and naivety. The general view among attendees, was that 'without teeth, compelling, not just Health and Education but also Social Services, to put in place provision, the Education, Health and Care Plan, would not be worth the paper it was written on, and would actually leave parents in a substantially more difficult position than now, because of its lack of enforceability.

Scepticism was expressed among the attendees within the audience. Were Local Authorities, Health & Social Services really going to misbehave with the eyes of the DFE upon them? Wasn't it really like a Driving test, the bad habits developing later, and without a workable appeal, faults cannot be corrected. The feeling was one of alarm and that without teeth; the proposals could be a very retrograde step for children and families.

The Shadow Minister for disabled people, Sharon Hodgeson returned and answered questions before Claire Ryan, a parent of a child with Autism spoke about her experiences. Interestingly this included, again, a child care referral by Education to Social Services in the approach to a SEND Tribunal.