Children with Disabilities

Speech by Annette Brooke MP delivered to House of Commons, Westminster Hall on Tue 12th Dec 2006

I, too, start by congratulating the hon. Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on securing the debate and I broaden my congratulations to include the right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr. Clarke). I congratulate them on their chairmanship, vice-chairmanship and strong leadership of the commission and review, on which I was honoured to be asked to serve. I want to thank Contact a Family, the Council for Disabled Children, Mencap, the Special Educational Consortium and Children Now. Their support was felt strongly throughout our hearings. I want, too, to congratulate the organisations on their production and launch of the "Every Disabled Child Matters" manifesto. It is telling that it was seen to be necessary to produce a separate manifesto, and it is obvious that there are many areas where the needs of disabled children are not yet sufficiently well covered by the "Every Child Matters" agenda.

As we have heard, the population of disabled children sadly continues to rise. We are talking about 770,000 children-7 per cent. of all children. It is important to appreciate the individuality of every child, and the range of needs is enormous. They are varied, some are more complex than others and almost day by day we are learning more about certain conditions and the ways in which we can offer help and support. Like other MPs, I have had many cases brought to my attention in my constituency. What concerns me most is to hear over and over: "It is a constant battle." Why does it have to be a battleground for families who are already facing so many problems?

It was an interesting experience to listen to the evidence throughout the hearings, but for me the saddest part was that there were no surprises in what we heard. It is time to give more attention to the many problems that face families with disabled children. As we know, many of the possible solutions can involve a great deal of expenditure. I said in another debate in this Chamber that in some ways I feel we need a national debate to establish the proportion of resources that we as a society are prepared to devote to addressing the many and varied needs of those children. Indeed, there are issues about their quality of life, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson).

Given the shortage of time, I will focus on a few matters, and I make no apology for starting with respite, which has been mentioned by every speaker this morning. If it is not at the top of my list, it is at least very near to it. People who come to our surgeries often say, "If only we had a break, it would make life so much easier to cope with." The pressure on family relationships-between siblings and couples-is absolutely enormous.

I recently visited a respite centre in York called The Glen. I found during that wonderful visit not only that respite can be of enormous benefit to the families but that it can provide quality care for the children. It is a win-win situation, with children getting a change of scene and mixing with other children-and, in the case I have just cited, receiving high quality care with superb resources.

I note that York city council ran an invest-to-save policy. By making more respite care available, it is possible to keep the child within the family rather than having to use residential care. That is so important. As we know, the availability of respite care is a post-code lottery. People moving into my constituency who have received respite care in other areas are shattered because they get only a tiny proportion of it in my area. That makes it even harder to downgrade.

I deal now with the key worker and early support scheme. I too was very taken by the evidence of Sharon Kelly, who told us that she was dealing with 21 agencies, not to mention a baby with severe needs. It brought home to us how important the key worker is. I congratulate the Government on moving forward with that scheme, and I hope that we will be told when the key worker and the early support scheme will be available throughout the country.

Early intervention is all-important, as is a multi-agency approach. Again, we are moving in the right direction, but we are not yet there. I often cite a recent example from my constituency of a very disabled child forced to go to a nursery school on one side of the county, but the school was in a different primary care trust area from where they lived and it was a battle to get the necessary therapeutic services. Much work is needed to change our culture and attitudes, as the hon. Member for Conwy (Mrs. Williams) so eloquently explained.

I shall touch on the Child Care Act 2006. I served on the Committee that considered that legislation. I know that the Minister was not involved, but we were concerned about the implementation of the excellent provisions on child care for disabled children whose parents were working. We were concerned that local authorities would not have sufficient funding, because it is expensive to provide and tailor child care for children with disabilities. I wonder whether there has been time to monitor local authorities in order to find out whether they have enough money-whether they are supplying what the Child Care Act says they should.

I was equally interested in the final recommendation that there should be more resources for the training of staff on information services. That was another principle of the Child Care Act, and another factor that the Committee raised. It is important that information is available to help the parents of disabled children and to alert them to their eligibility for various benefits and to support them in applying for the disability living allowance. I wonder whether the Minister and the Government have reviewed the provision of such services following the 2006 Act. It is a scandal that, even today, families are totally unaware that they are eligible for the disability living allowance. It is often MPs who tell their constituents about it, but that cannot be right. There has to be a better supply of information.

I had the pleasure of speaking during the debate on the Select Committee's report on special educational needs. It is important that the Government should reconsider their response to the Committee's recommendations. The Government did not go far enough. It was excellent that they should have focused on the fact that teachers need better training and that we need more specialist special educational needs co-ordinators. Much progress has been made, but I agree with other hon. Members about the variability of statementing across the country. It is not yet right, and certain aspects of special educational needs need to be reviewed, but sadly the Government did not accept that. We do not need a moratorium, but we clearly need a review.

I, too, have always been concerned about the transition stage, and it was good that the review was able to consider a number of aspects. I have always been concerned about the limited educational choice offered to parents of children aged 16 and above. In my area, they usually go to the local college, but parents feel frustrated that they are not offered a choice and that they have to do much research themselves.

I deal now with communication, which has many aspects. First, the voices of children and parents, which we picked up on in our review, must influence the way services are designed and delivered. We are moving in that direction, but it is not universal for children's views to be sought. Some children with complex needs should have an independent advocate. I agree with the Children's Society that, as a minimum, every disabled child or young person placed away from home should have a statutory right to independent advocacy. That is so important for all children who are not able to speak up for themselves or who need support to do so.

There also needs to be someone to listen. The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children points out that three to four times as many disabled children are likely to have been abused as is the case among the general population. It is therefore important to provide helplines for those who suffer abuse.

I refer briefly to the charity I CAN. I am pleased that the Department for Education and Skills has agreed that the charity's early talk programme will be rolled out as a pilot in more than 200 children's centres and a number of primary schools in England. The number of children with communication difficulties is staggering. Perhaps one in 10 has a physical difficulty, but we are creating disability by not talking at home as much as we used to, so as many as 50 per cent. of five-year-olds arrive at school without the speech and language skills needed to participate fully. It is important to note that such needs are growing all the time. I echo the point about speech and language therapists. I believe that some are currently unemployed, as are some physiotherapists. I hope that they will soon be employed.

The Scope campaign "Speak for yourself" aims to help those who need technology to support their communications. I understand that the DFES has funded a communicating aids project that has provided equipment to more than 4,000 children. However, the funding came to an end in March this year, and the scheme has not yet been rolled out universally. The Minister may wish to reply in writing, but I wonder why no formal public evaluation of that excellent project was undertaken. The general point is that successful projects need sustained funding.

I shall make that my last point, having seen the time. Much innovative work is going on, but we need to ensure that there is a minimum universal offer and that projects do not come to a shattering end simply because one pot of money has been closed and nothing has been put place to fill the gap.

Link to full debate: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmhansrd/cm061212/halltext/61212h0006.htm