Westminster Hall Debate: Speech, Language and Communication (9 October 2007)

Speech by Annette Brooke MP on Tue 9th Oct 2007

Annette Brooke (Mid-Dorset and North Poole) (LD): I congratulate the hon. Member for Buckingham (John Bercow) on securing the debate, on his speech and on his new role in leading a major review for the Government on the provision of services for children and young people with speech, language and communication needs. Since our last debate in Westminster Hall on the issue, which was almost a year ago, not only has a major review been announced, but the communication trust has been set up.

Those announcements were preceded, however, by the various reports that have been mentioned. For example, the Pubic Accounts Committee report concluded that

"more needs to be done to meet specific needs such as speech and language therapy to provide the early intervention that is critical to child development."

The Ofsted report on the foundation stage said that

"standards in communication, language and literacy were lower than expected and children's speaking and listening skills were weak in a third of the settings visited".

If we were writing a report for the Government on progress on the issue during the past year, we would judge that they can and must do better. Although there are examples of excellent practice, progress has been patchy overall and the new initiatives face challenges. I am absolutely committed to the fact that children's communication skills must be at the core of the Government's development of children's policy. However, it is not just a matter of policy; there must be real changes on the ground.

We have talked this morning about early intervention, and I agree that we need to understand exactly what we are talking about and to identify good and not-so-good practice. We know that about 50 per cent. of five-year-olds arrive at school without the speech and language that they need to fully participate and achieve their full potential. That figure rises to 80 per cent in areas of high unemployment and poor housing.

The Ofsted report to which I referred identified a widening gap between boys and girls. We must consider the significance of that gap in respect of future educational attainment. Much is made of attainment at age 11 and of the fact that a quarter of children do not achieve satisfactory standards in literacy and numeracy. How much of that problem stems from a lack of early intervention and a failure to deal with the issue when it needed to be dealt with? We know that poor language and communication skills have a knock-on effect on behaviour. Not surprisingly, when a child becomes socially isolated and does not have the tools to integrate with his or her peers, behavioural problems develop. We know that many young people who end up in young offenders institutions have poor language and literacy sills. It is vital that we put more emphasis on a holistic approach to the issue.

I would like to emphasise that speech and language needs are complex. We are talking about a whole spectrum of needs, and I worry about the suggestion that one solution fits all. Transient problems can be sorted out with sufficient speech therapy and with back-up in the home. Such transient language difficulties are probably caused by our lifestyle-watching too much television, not sitting down for meals together and a lack of communication in the home. However, there are also very severe and highly specialist needs that may or may not be accompanied by another disability. We must be very clear about what approach we need to deal with this issue.

I shall refer to a case study that I have been dealing with this summer, but I will of course also discuss more general points. A grandmother came to see me whose grandson was age four and did not speak a word, which was quite alarming. I raised the case separately-I could not get to talk to one person-with the primary care trust and the head of children's services. That process started reasonably well because Tyler was first referred to the speech and language therapy service by his health visitor-my first point of call. The provision of health visitors across the country has become patchy, and although I support the intensive help given by family nurses to vulnerable families, basic health visitor provision is vital because that is how these issues are most likely to be picked up. The Family and Parenting Institute study has clearly shown that there are deficiencies in health visitor provision.

Returning to the case study, that first referral was the good news, and Tyler was seen in June 2006. Unfortunately, staff shortages meant that Tyler was not seen again until 7 December 2006-six months on at a critical time in the child's life. Treatment then improved as speech therapy was given and it was recommended that Tyler receive specialist nursery provision. However, the provision was in another authority and a lone parent could not get the child there. There was no offer of transport or other help. I then wrote to children's services and asked why such specialist provision was not in our authority. The reply said that the "development of daily 'drills' by the therapist passed on by the pre-school staff are in the view of many professionals preferable to occasional attendance at group sessions."

That proves the point that we need the whole spectrum of provision to match the whole spectrum of needs. Some children will benefit from projects such as I CAN and from intensive provision in a pre-school setting. Other children will benefit from speech therapy that is backed up with support from home. It must be the right mix for the right child, and I do not apologise for talking about an individual case, because the crux of the matter is that we are talking about individual children for whom we must get the best support. I am greatly concerned that a child would have fallen through the net if it was not for their grandmother raising the issue. It is difficult for parents who do not know their way around the system to access what they need.

We have repeatedly said this morning that training is critical for nursery school teachers. I had a parliamentary answer in July saying that only £37 million of the children's transformation fund for training had been spent. Surely we should be spending the money to put the essential training in place. We must use the early years foundation stage, which becomes statutory in 2008, as an opportunity to ensure that staff are trained and that we do not have the rigid curriculum that some of us fear. We must take the opportunity to ensure that we have early identification and intervention, and most of all that we foster language and communication skills for every child.

As good as we as a society-not me personally-may be at information and communication technology, we have a problem with basic communication. We need to know how big the problem is, as the right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr. Clarke) said. Considering the range of communication and language difficulties, do our local authorities know the extent of the problem? We have discussed statementing this morning. The Government must not bury their head in the sand and pretend that all is well. As MPs, we know that that is not the case. There is much more to be done to ensure that children can access the support that they need, that the finance is there and that we have qualified professionals who are trained to deliver that support. Joint working between health and education services locally and nationally is vital. For a long time I have been concerned about a situation with Dorset county council. However, we should congratulate it this morning because it has employed a full time health worker in its children's services whom I have met and spoken to at great length. It is such a pity that I have so many different authorities in my constituency; I can always find problems.

Finally, I want to mention some of the important points Scope made to us about-I shall have to read this bit in full-the availability of appropriate additional augmentative communication aids; now I can say AAC. Scope has been raising those issues for some time, and its conclusions were really interesting, as they are the same as those that we are making on other points. It referred to:

"Better training on AAC for Speech and Language Therapists and teachers...joined-up services across all ages"

and the need to establish who is responsible for the provision of the equipment. That is another dimension that I hope will be covered in the review of the hon. Member for Buckingham.

John Bercow: First, the answer to that is yes. That is an important issue; I did not address it because I wanted to focus on other subjects today, but the question of assistive and augmentative technology is important. It will certainly fall within the terms of the review, and we will consider it very seriously. Secondly, the hon. Lady might be interested to see a quite informative article in the education section of The Guardian today that focuses, among other topics, on that point.

Annette Brooke: I thank the hon. Gentleman. In conclusion, I want to re-emphasise that we are looking for the right provision for each individual child, whether that is in mainstream education with proper support or in a specialist unit. Whatever comes out of our debate today, it is about ensuring that our children are able fully to access a curriculum at school and to have a rich lifestyle. They cannot have that if they have those language and speech impairments.