In England there are approximately 1.3 million (approx 250,000 in Wales) children on the Special Educational Needs register, and out of those approximately 250,000 (approx 17,000 in Wales) hold a Statement of Special Educational Needs (SEN). Yet most parents do not appreciate the legal significance of the Statement document for the child and the Local Authority, rendering, it in real terms, far from the absolute solution for children with special needs.

Parent really do need to be educated in the reasoning behind statements of SEN and what the law expects of Local Authorities when they decide to issue them. I have never in my years of practising in this area of the law spoken to a parent who has produced a Statement that I considered to be properly drafted in accordance with the requirements of the Law. Many Statements are really not worth the paper they are written on.

Most Local Authorities around the country are now embarking on procedures to avoid statementing children on the grounds that they create a bureaucratic nightmare, as well as binding legal obligations that are sometimes difficult to comply with. There is, for example, a serious shortage of Speech and Language Therapists and Occupational Therapists around the country, so children who need this important resource are entirely left without. If a Statement provides for a child to receive therapy, Local Authorities are often unable to deliver, putting them in breach of their statutory duty. Consequently many Local Authorities create policies to either avoid statementing children or Statements are drafted using such vague language that they are worthless.

Figures recently published by the National Autistic Society suggest that Autism rates around the country are growing, and that most mainstream schools have at least one child on the Spectrum. It is most extraordinary how many children with Autism do not even receive regular Speech and Language Therapy, despite the fact that Speech Therapy is one of the basic requirements for children with such difficulties. It is remarkable how many Statements I have read of children with Autism which do not record any such provision. More troubling is the number of children I have represented who are very needy, yet who, when they first came to see me did not have a statement, and whose parents had not even heard of such a procedure.

Most parents of children with SEN are completely unaware of their rights, with the consequence that their children, through no fault of their own, are left without adequate support. Many parents do not even know how to go about getting a statement for their children. Many are deterred by stories of other parent who have done battle with their LEA which persuade that they are bound to lose. I is shocking how many people have informed me that their children's schools or other parents have told them that it is pointless arguing with their Local Authorities and have therefore failed to act. One wonders how many children are failed by these tales? Ultimately it is society that will pay the price for children proceeding through school without even having their SEN assessed. I have received countless instructions from parents whose children who have been excluded from school, even when they have special needs, rendering their exclusion hopelessly unfair.

In research conducted by the Research Development and Statistics Directorate in 2001 for the Home Office, it was found that out of a sample of 297 people who have been convicted of crime, 178 had been permanently excluded from school, and 44% of those had been assessed as having SEN. The report found that the sample of youngsters experienced particular problems in the transition from Primary to Secondary school, perhaps caused by the more impersonal structure of the Secondary school and the need to develop relationships with a broader range of teachers and fellow students. The new rules, norms, heightened behavioural and academic expectations overwhelmed many interviewees.

One cannot underestimate the importance of getting it right for these children before they embark on this downward spiral. It is incredible that the Government can spend millions conducting new research or new innovative programmes of education for the rehabilitation of prison inmates, yet Local Government appears determined to avoid statementing children by introducing policies that are essentially designed to escape legal obligations or promote a view amongst parents that the process is a hopeless waster of their time. Persisting that children do not need a Statement on the grounds that they are adequately provided for systems in place at the school through implementation of the SEN Code of Practice, ignores the need to fully understand the child which only an assessment could achieve. It must be borne in mind that a parent has a right to challenge the contents of a statement in an independent Tribunal, yet no such opportunity exists for parents of children at school action or School Action Plus. In my view Local Governments that prepare policies designed to avoid the statementing obligation are, in fact, attempting to circumvent their duties under the Education Act 1996.

Figures published by the DfES in January 2006 show that 95% of children who had been the subject of a Statutory Assessment actually achieved a Statement of SEN, yet, children with Statements still represent a comparatively small percentage of the overall number of children with SEN. I believe this shows that the majority of parents of children with SEN either do not know how to initiate the process to obtain a Statement for their child, or are put off from doing so by horror stories.

Another difficulty often highlighted is the dispute that often exists between parents and the Local Education Authority over what constitutes and educational need. Some Local Authorities argue for example that speech therapy is a health rather than educational need, and therefore does not require Local Educational Authority resources to provide it. However relatively recent legislation such as the Children Act 2004 compels Local Authorities to look at a child in a multi-disciplinary way, requiring Social Services and Education Departments to provide an integrated service in favour of addressing the whole child. However, the current system to achieve redress in disputes in the are of health and social need is completely inadequate. The Special Needs and Disability Tribunal , an independent Tribunal created by statute, is only capable of resolving disputes concerning a child's education, but cannot deal with community care law issues and thus will
not deal with social needs. There is then, a serious gap in the law which works significantly to the disadvantage of our children, particularly when a child with, say, Attention Deficit Disorder, or Autism, will have complex educational, health and social needs.

A further difficulty lies in Local Authority experts preparing reports based on availability of resources, rather than the needs of the child. The consequence is that the child will receive an inadequate Statement of SEN.

I want to ensure that parents are armed with sufficient information to proceed with this process with their eyes wide open. The purpose of my firm running seminars in this important area is designed to avoid these parents from every having to instruct lawyers to conduct cases at this basic level. It it clear to me that unless parents have this information many thousands of children will continue to be let down with a risk that the Government may eventually consider that statements are not, after all, the holy grail that they were once thought to be, which in turn, might lead to their abolition. This, in my view, would create a severe storm cloud for our society in the future. It should be in the forefront of the mind of Government to publicise people's rights and arm them with the tools to pursue them rather than attempt to legislate in secret. The virtual abolition of Civil Legal Aid brings the realisation that our Government's current policy favours putting the bag of promises on the top shelf, out of reach of those who cannot afford a ladder.