Special Educational Needs and Disability Bill [Lords]

Public Bill Committee, 27 March 2001.

Standing Committee B

Special Educational Needs and Disability Bill [Lords]

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

I beg to move,

That—

(1) during proceedings of the Standing Committee on the Special Educational Needs and Disability Bill [Lords], the Committee do meet—

(a) on Mondays, at half-past Four o'clock;

(b) on Tuesdays and Wednesdays, at half-past Ten o'clock and half-past Four o'clock; and

(c) on Thursdays, at Nine o'clock and half-past One o'clock;

(2) if not previously concluded, the proceedings of the Committee shall be brought to a conclusion at Five o'clock on Thursday 5th April.

I look forward to your chairmanship of the Committee, Mr. O'Brien. I have no doubt—I am sure that all hon. Members share this view—that your extensive experience as a Member of the House and as a Chairman of Standing Committees will be invaluable. We also look forward to your co-Chairman Sir David Madel taking the Chair when appropriate. I am sure that we shall all benefit from your guidance. I shall certainly benefit from your wisdom, fairness and firmness, although I hope to gain more from the first two than the last.

I look forward to working with the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Ms Hodge) and my hon. Friend the Government Whip. They both bring considerable experience to the Committee, as does the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell)—and all other members of the Committee. A fine group of people is gathered here—[Hon. Members: ``Hear, hear.'']. Perhaps I should stop while I am ahead.

I am delighted to be taking forward this vital legislation. It builds on and improves the existing legislative framework for children with special educational needs, and it outlaws discrimination on the ground of disability in the provision of education. I am particularly pleased that we are announcing today a new £10 million initiative to provide high-tech aid and associated support to pupils with significant communication difficulties. Great advances have been made in communication technology in recent years.

Win Griffiths (Labour, Bridgend)

Will the Minister give way?

Bill O'Brien (Labour, Normanton)

Order. I draw the Committee's attention to the fact that we are debating the motion of the Programming Sub-Committee; it would be inappropriate to broaden the debate. Does the hon. Member wish to continue?

Win Griffiths (Labour, Bridgend)

I intended to raise an issue connected with what the Minister said, Mr. O'Brien, but it has nothing to do with the programming motion, and I might be out of order. I shall therefore take your advice.

Bill O'Brien (Labour, Normanton)

I thank the hon. Member.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

Thank you, Mr. O'Brien. I have experienced your firmness already. I shall therefore stick to the programming motion.

The Bill is widely welcomed. Although our debates will be spirited, I am sure that they will be constructive and focused. I am confident that the motion of the Programming Sub-Committee will give us ample opportunity to scrutinise the Bill, and I commend it to the Committee.

Tim Boswell (Conservative, Daventry)

I am delighted that you, Mr. O'Brien, are taking the Chair, and that our good friend Sir David Madel may participate as your co-Chairman when required. One of the nice things about the House is that one builds up friendships irrespective of party; it is good to have a senior Member in the Chair who has much experience and who, when necessary, will point us in the right direction.

I welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the hon. Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith), who leads for the Government, and the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Barking. We look forward to their contributions. Indeed, the hon. Member for Redditch has already made a good start.

I shall not detain the Committee on the programming motion. As the Minister is aware, my daughter teaches in a girls school, and on Saturday night I attended a performance of HMS Pinafore, because she was playing in the orchestra. When the hon. Lady, in her speech on Second Reading, said that she would not contemplate any amendments, she rather put herself in the position of Captain Corcoran in that operetta. When we were considering the programming motion--those discussions are not recorded--I noticed that she had reflected on her position, and it became a matter of ``What never? Well, hardly ever.'' That was a sign of welcome, if glacial, movement. We do not seek to pull down the temples of the Bill, or its edifice, but we want to discuss some of the issues that have already been rehearsed in the other place, and to improve the Bill. We shall proceed in that spirit.

Turning from one naval personage in HMS Pinafore to another, the Minister will remember that Sir Joseph Porter KCB became the ruler of the Queen's Navy. I anticipate for the hon. Lady—though we will not debate it today—a long spell in Opposition, beginning shortly. Nevertheless, she may return to government, so she may be minded to act in these proceedings with a view to being able to say, ``I resisted that amendment so carefully, that now they have made me the ruler of the Queen's Navy.'' I would point out that it is just as easy, and it scans just as well, to say, ``I accepted that amendment so carefully.'' I hope that she will treat our comments on their merits, and that we will have a serious and friendly discussion about a Bill with which, in principle, we have no difficulty.

There are three things that I want to say before I conclude my remarks on the programming motion. First, there is no assent among Opposition Members to a procedure that truncates our arrangements so much. If we do not speak at length, it is in order to accommodate a proper debate, or as near to one as we can get. It is not because we think that programming Committees in such a way is a wonderful idea or because we want to run away from debate.

Secondly, we need to pick out the outstanding issues of concern, and we shall endeavour to do so. The Bill has been well scrutinised in the other place. However, that does not mean that there is enough time to get it right. A Bill needs a period of refinement, reflection, consultation and, if necessary, amendment, to get it right. We will do our best to proceed in that spirit.

The hon. Lady has spoken about her team, but the Opposition have a dream team. I include the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. George) in my comments, if he will allow me to do so, because we work well together on disability issues. Across the House, disability issues are well understood by perhaps 10 per cent. of Members, and a broad consensus exists among them. It is the other 90 per cent. of Members who worry me: they do not interest themselves in such issues. That particular compliment to the hon. Member for St. Ives aside, some Conservative Members take a great interest in education—special education in particular--so I am sure that they will want to make lively contributions to all our debates, and we are lucky to have them on the Committee.

Thirdly, their Lordships have examined the Bill thoroughly. As my old tutor used to say, one should always start an essay with a question, answer it, and then pose another question in the last paragraph. When the other place considered the Bill, it tackled some issues, and the Government responded to them. However, other issues have not been wholly dealt with, and we want to focus on them. The Government should treat them as important, and take them more seriously than they did in the other place. There was more time in the Lords: more amendments were proposed, and they were pursued redoubtably by my noble Friends, notably Lady Blatch. If the Government take those issues seriously, we will be satisfied. The issue is not the principle or even the architecture of the Bill. It is to ensure that we get it right and that the balance of safeguards is appropriate.

I need say no more, Mr. O'Brien. We look forward to constructive debates. They will be compressed and short, but I hope that they will be perfectly formed and will lead to a good outcome.

Andrew George (Liberal Democrat, St Ives)

I echo the words of the hon. Member for Daventry in saying that our intention is to deal with the Bill as efficiently and properly as possible in the time allowed. We shall not have any patience with unnecessary delay. The House of Lords did a good job in introducing revisions: many amendments were accepted by Ministers in the Lords to our satisfaction. We broadly support the Bill, and do not want to see it fall as a result of unnecessary delays. We shall be open to suggested alterations and shall listen to the arguments, but by and large we are pretty happy with the Bill as it is.

My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) is, unfortunately, detained in his constituency, but will join us during this sitting. He is anxious to play a full part in these deliberations. Having been involved in the Programming Sub-Committee, he is happy with its motion. I hope that we shall not need to sit next Monday or as late as 5 o'clock next Thursday, and that we can deal with the Bill more efficiently than that.

Tom Levitt (Labour, High Peak)

Several Labour Committee members have campaigned on this issue for many years. I am sure that I speak for all of us when I say that we are immensely proud to have been selected for the Committee, and that we should like to see the Bill become law without any hesitation. If the hon. Member for Daventry thinks that his party will be in government in a few weeks' time, it will not be so much a dream team as a ``dream on'' team.

Bill O'Brien (Labour, Normanton)

Order. Let us leave the canvassing and campaigning until later.

Tom Levitt (Labour, High Peak)

That was the point I wanted to make, except to say that Labour Members recall that on Second Reading the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends supported an amendment that would have killed this Bill. We must view our debates in that context.

John Randall (Conservative, Uxbridge)

I just want to put on record that while, on the surface, the motion of the Programming Sub-Committee may seem generous in allowing the Committee to sit on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays, it is against the usual practice of the House for a Standing Committee to meet on consecutive days. Many hon. Members need time to deal with constituency matters, especially during the foot and mouth crisis. Therefore, we shall probably not take up the full allocation of time. I understand the reason for the motion, and I also note that we have to bring the proceedings to a conclusion at 5 o'clock on Thursday 5 April rather than 7 o'clock. There may be speculation as to why that might be the case. However, I do not feel that such a timetable is helpful. It does not allow amendments to be tabled or properly considered, and it does not give us a chance to speak to relevant interest groups. It is not, therefore, a practice that we would be happy to see in future Committees.

Nick St Aubyn (Conservative, Guildford)

During debate on the programming motion on the Floor of the House a few days ago, we made the point that, because the Bill has the support, in principle, of all parties, there is little point in having such a programming motion. I hope that the Minister will now deal with that point, which was not properly addressed during that 45-minute debate.

Only yesterday, a member of an interest group rang me to say that she had not realised how quickly the Bill was to pass all its stages in the House of Commons. Her interest group wanted amendments made to clause 1, and I had to explain that, unfortunately, we were already on clause 1—or we will be this morning—and given the time constraints it may not be possible to consider those amendments. We are sometimes hermetically sealed in the House of Commons political process and do not realise how long it takes for those outside who may be affected by legislation to wake up to what is going on. People have often approached me—and, no doubt, other hon. Members—to ask what stage a Bill has reached only to be told that, because of the speed with which the Government force legislation through the House, we have already passed the point at which issues could be clarified or a clause modestly amended to make its meaning clear.

I hope that we will have a concise debate, as there are many issues to discuss. As my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) said, we do not need to sit on so many days, because it will be even harder for those with points to raise to prepare amendments in time. We did not need this programming motion. For once, the Government should have trusted to the good instincts of hon. Members.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 - Education in mainstream schools of children with special educational needs

Tim Boswell (Conservative, Daventry)

I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 9, at end insert—

`(1A)For each such child the Secretary of State has a duty to make arrangements to secure that the educational needs of that child are paramount.'.

Bill O'Brien (Labour, Normanton)

With this, it will be convenient to consider the following: amendment No. 2, in page 1, line 14, leave out from `parent' to end of line 15.

New clause 1—Duty of education providers—

`.—It shall be the duty of all providers of education under the provisions of this Act and of all professions and ancillary agencies providing services in connection with special educational needs to have regard to—

(a) the educational needs of the particular child; and

(b) the need for partnership working in order to ensure efficient and appropriate educational outcomes.'.

Tim Boswell (Conservative, Daventry)

We now come to the meat of the Bill. It may not have been appropriate to mention it when discussing the programming motion, but I welcome the Minister's announcement this morning of additional supportive software and equipment for children in school. I have taken some interest in that area and, as occasionally happens, without making a public fuss about it, I have corresponded with the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the hon. Member for North Swindon (Mr. Wills), who deals with technology, about some especially interesting material that I came across. There is a huge opportunity in that area, and I hope that we shall continue to exploit and develop those opportunities collectively, whoever is returned to government in due course.

In moving amendment No. 1, with which in your wisdom, Mr. O'Brien, we are considering amendment No. 2 and new clause 1, I hope that the Committee will forgive me if I reverse the order. I said that we have a dream team on the Conservative Benches. The exigencies of time and numbers—and, indeed, the Opposition's size—have on this occasion not permitted the selection of my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke), who is a tremendous contributor on education matters and did us a great deal of good and amused us on the Committee considering the Learning and Skills Act 2000. If he were here, he would no doubt say, in the best classical tradition, that I was making a preposterous suggestion—putting the cart before the horse—by starting with the new clause. However, I should like to refine, from some general considerations, the single issue that we regard as the central piece of unfinished business in the Bill: the rights of the child.

I want to draw out two matters from the new clause. First, it would create a duty on education providers, whether in the maintained or non-maintained sectors, and on all those associated with providing SEN services to have regard to

``(a) the educational needs of the particular child; and

(b) the need for partnership working in order to ensure efficient and appropriate educational outcomes.''

I shall pause on that point for a moment, because it would add another element to the Bill. The Government say that they are strong on joined-up government, and partnership and co-operation. Oddly enough, I am not against any of those. That may be because I am, as I occasionally point out, one of the relatively few Members who was born on a co-operative farm, although it was not a Co-operative Wholesale Society farm.

More seriously, we do not always have the special educational needs provision that we want. I have no direct experience of being a parent of a child with special needs, but many of us know constituents or others who have such experience. Those parents face many difficulties, as was well put to me not long ago in a meeting in Essex, which as the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Barking, knows is my native county. At that meeting, a parent of a child with SEN, who was at a special school, said that such parents were not worried by and could cope with the disability or impairment, and that their problem was with the second round—the wrestling with the local education authority to obtain the required resources. We have no immediate solutions. In our hearts, we all know that that is a continuing problem. We want to ease it and find ways round it.

If I may be allowed an algebraic illustration, I shall call one of the ways in which the issue arises the Venn diagram problem. Apart from speech therapists and educational psychologists, others may be called in on physical disabilities that are not specifically the special educational need, but are associated with it. Those people have a tangential or peripheral interest in the subject. There is often a shortage of resources. For example, speech therapy services are under pressure, as they are required not only at the paediatric end, but for stroke victims and others. Such resources need to be commissioned and put in place, and we must try to fit provisions together. There should be a proper assessment of the special needs of the child in question, and how they should best be met and provided for. If appropriate, a statement or some other understanding should be issued.

The subject is complex, and no one would contend with the idea that it is sensitive for the parents. The problem is to join up the various bits. I hope that there will be good and constructive relationships with the LEA and its special needs team, and between the school or education provider and the special needs co-ordinator and education team in each school. However, even if that is the case, for the want of a nail the battle can be lost—some other essential factor may not be in place. Someone else might have some budget that does not enter into the equation because it is not committed to the problem.

As constituency Members of Parliament, many of us will be familiar with such Venn diagram situations, in which two interests come together. We have to write letters—often to chief executives, in an attempt to scare—saying that we do not mind who sorts the problem out, but that social services and the health authority should be brought together to do so. Often on special needs provision, we must ensure that the bits work together. There should not be lip service about partnership working, but a positive commitment to its delivery. That does not always happen.

The problem is not limited to what might be termed a responsive approach to the needs of a particular child, although our new clause 1(a) requires an obligation to consider that. A more general point is set out in new clause 1(b), which is that we need to consider the importance of partnership working as a natural and proactive activity. In my experience of the official world, at local authority or agency level as well as nationally, people do not try deliberately to subvert children's interests—that would be absurd, inappropriate and unfair. None the less, agencies have their own agendas, and a catalyst is often required to bring them together in the interests of the child. It is the child who matters most, and we must ensure that all parts of the equation fit together to produce the right outcome, rather than resulting in a series of ragged ends, with parts that do not function properly or deliver the right service.

In a sense, this is code and circular territory, and we shall need to discuss at a later stage how it will all work. I invite the Minister to take my remarks as general aspirations, and to tell the Committee what she would like to happen as good practice. I also invite her to reflect specifically on whether including such a provision in statute—even if it breaks her no amendment rule—would at least encourage the various players to get into the habit of working together.

Amendment No. 2 might surprise Committee members. The hon. Member for High Peak (Mr. Levitt) has already twitted us about our position on Second Reading, but if he seriously thought that our reasoned amendment would be accepted on Second Reading, he must hold a particular view about the current situation in the House of Commons. Perhaps he knows his hon. Friends better than I do, or perhaps he anticipated a revolt. I notice that the Government Whip is out of the Room, so all bets may be off.

While I am on the subject of Whips, and if I may briefly depart monstrously from order, I should like to say how sorry I was to hear of the death of Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe, reported in this morning's press. He was a good friend—even Whips are human.

It was important to register our concerns on Second Reading, although it was unlikely that they would pull down the Bill. If they had, a new Conservative Government would reintroduce the legislation briskly and early to ensure that it went on to the statute book in better shape than the Bill is in.

As I have said, people might be surprised by our proposal in amendment No. 2 to delete one of the two remaining caveats in section 316—I apologise to new visitors for using such technical language. The amendment would leave out the caveat relating to

``the provision of efficient education for other children.''

Some of my colleagues may wish to say more about that. I also want to say something about the paramountcy of the education of the child, but mine is a probing amendment, tabled in the hope that the Government will explain why they believe it necessary to retain the caveat. I understand—indeed, for the avoidance of doubt, I warmly support—the other caveat about parental choice. That is an essential human right. Were we not constrained by time, we could debate whether parents adequately represent the interests of their children, an interesting question that was touched on in another place.

I want to highlight two areas. One is the impact of one child on another in a mainstream setting, to which the entitlement is extended by the removal of other caveats. The second is the question of resources. At present, although I do not promise that I shall not feel an amendment coming on—that may well depend on the Minister's response—no specific amendment has yet been tabled with respect to resources. Still, there is a heavy commitment.

Laurence Robertson (Conservative, Tewkesbury)

Before my hon. Friend leaves the point about resources, does he accept that some local education authorities see the Bill as a means of saving money, rather than as a way to ensure that the money from special schools follows the child?

Tim Boswell (Conservative, Daventry)

We may well want to put our heads together on the margins of the Committee to consider an amendment. My hon. Friend will remember the delegation from Alderman Knight school to whom I and other hon. Members spoke only last week. Its members were concerned about the situation in Gloucestershire and somewhat concerned, to put it mildly, about the attitude of the local education authority. I do not come from that area, though my hon. Friend does and may want to make a contribution on the matter. Undoubtedly, behind the unexceptionable objectives of the Bill—the wish, that we all share, to do right by children with special needs—there is an undercurrent of concern about resources. Within the debate there is an undercurrent of concern about how local authorities may seek to dispose of, or allocate, the relevant resources.

I want to deal first with the behavioural side of the matter, or, rather, to give a personal, potted and undoubtedly not comprehensive view of the kinds of disability and impairment that are relevant and their impact in the matter of inclusion. In a strange way, physical impairment is the easiest matter to tackle without affecting the efficient education of other children. The Committee needs to understand clearly that a main impairment may be accompanied by other impairments that may be contributory factors in, or bring about alterations to, the appropriate provision. With respect to physical impairment, matters can be accommodated.

I have vividly in mind visits that I recently paid in one morning to two schools in my constituency that are fairly close to each other. They are different types of school, though both are primary schools. In the first, the former head teacher's daughter had a serious physical disability, from which, I believe, she has since, sadly, died. A sensible and sensitive set of solutions had been found to the physical mobility problem, although the school is not modern and has a number of estate and buildings problems. No doubt the head teacher perceived the need, and representations were made to the local authority. Ramps were put in, and stairs could be coped with. That course of action is neither easy nor cheap, but it is not impossible, and it was carried out for that example of special needs. The school is now irreversibly equipped and will not need to provide those facilities again.

The issue of learning difficulties gives rise to greater sensitivities, but I have no problem in principle with inclusion. In a relatively small rural primary school in my constituency, I saw a boy with Down's syndrome, who was perfectly happy and well integrated and central to the school. The approach, in the context, was exemplary, and I have no problem with it. My only caveat is that the teachers said that as he grew older—he was in year 5—a growing gap was appearing in educational attainment, and that what had been easier was in some senses becoming less so. The children were seen to be growing away from each other; but even that can be handled.

East Hunsbury school, on the edge of Northampton, is in a suburban setting in the constituency of the hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Clarke). It has recently imported a new head teacher—Mrs. Angela Shaw, for whom I have the highest regard—from a school in my constituency, and it still takes a significant number of children from my constituency. Apart from a general need to inform myself, I visited that school because parents of children there, including constituents of mine, were most anxious that the quality of the education provisions that the children had enjoyed at primary school should be continued at secondary school. They did not wish their children to receive secondary education in a special school, or did not like the special school that seemed to be the follow-on option. Incidentally, my LEA is reviewing its special education provision. Nothing has been settled, but it wanted to make its point early.

I report what I saw at Hunsbury school because it is useful to have hands-on experience. It is a large primary school in a suburban setting with fairly modern housing, but children from elsewhere attend it. Its dedicated special provisions are excellent. The children go in and out of their dedicated education; they join their form mates in a variety of activities and return to dedicated provision for other activities. To me—it is also the strong view of the teachers and governors—that arrangement is exemplary.

I stress that the Opposition have no objection in principle to inclusion, if it is conducted properly, the parents are happy and the children are successful. In a sense, that assists with the caveat, which the Government are keeping in place, on the provision of efficient education for other children. I agree with the comment made on Second Reading that well-conducted inclusion policies can benefit the other children in the school as well as those with special needs; it may create a social context in which they feel comfortable. It should not be forgotten that they will need inclusion in the adult world. I think, for example, of the role of Mencap, which created its own employment agency to get people out into the world. Those people are terrific employees, which is great, as I am sure that both sides agree. However, the biggest problem—I emphasise that these are broad rather than precise conclusions—is with emotional and behavioural difficulties. Frankly, it is possible for botched inclusion policies to be inappropriate for the child in question and extremely disruptive to other children. The Minister needs to respond on some of those matters.

I have previously mentioned a worry that I touched upon on Second Reading—it was referred to at the meeting that I attended in Essex—which is that inclusion is often not done properly.

Anne Begg (Labour, Aberdeen South)

What the hon. Gentleman is asking for is already dealt with. The Bill provides both for the parents' wishes to be taken into account and for the efficient education of other children. The Bill makes provision for one child who is disruptive of the education of those around him.

Tim Boswell (Conservative, Daventry)

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. My purpose in moving the amendment was not to subvert that provision, but to try to discover the Government's reasoning and whether it might create a problem. The Committee will know that some disruptive children can make a nuisance of themselves. Wider problems exist—I will not stray too far—in the Government's overall policies and the mismatch between targets for exclusion and penalties for exclusion. Those penalties might loosely be termed the stick—talking of which, I notice that the Government Whip has now returned to assist the Committee—if the carrot is how best to deal with the child. Many head teachers, including those who were at a meeting I attended not long ago in Essex, are worried about losing their effective right to exclude—after consultation with the governors—and about finding themselves pilloried or losing financial resources if they exclude.

It is possible for one child to have a disruptive effect on the education of 29 or so other children, even without his necessarily being formally statemented, or having recognised special educational needs. If the Government's intention in providing the safeguard is to acknowledge that—and I think that it is—they should explain that that is what they have in mind.

The issue of resources keeps recurring throughout the Committee as a sort of leitmotif, to borrow a Wagnerian phrase. Whether we discuss it in terms, or whether you, Mr. O'Brien, would select an amendment on the subject, is perhaps something to be decided later. We are not considering an ideal world in which children are nearly always included, there is wonderful provision and everybody is happy. We live in a world where resources are stretched, where LEAs are trying to do their best and where head teachers have to get along with what they have. Two issues arise, both of which concern resources. One is the head teacher's right—or otherwise—to refuse a child if the package of resources is inadequate. When a child has difficulties, whether physical—that is not ruled out—or with learning or behaviour, the school will be under pressure if the resources are not made available. That has to do with what I call inclusion on the cheap. The school must to make do and, because resources are not available, it cannot manage properly. It cannot do as good a job as it would wish. That has an effect not only on the children concerned but on the others around them.

The Minister should explain the mechanisms that ensure that money is derived properly, initially within the standard spending assessment and the allocation to individual authorities under the present arrangements—we shall discuss alternative arrangements later. He should also explain how it is devolved through the local authority to the school, and how there is transparency in funding. We may not see eye to eye with the Special Educational Consortium over every issue, including the timing of the Bill and what will happen to it. I know that the consortium is keen that it should not be lost, but it has expressed concern at a number of meetings that we should all know more clearly where the money is, how it is paid out and whether it is used to achieve good value.

Tom Levitt (Labour, High Peak)

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman mentioned the Special Educational Consortium because I understand that neither that body nor its members support the amendment. Can he tell us which organisations in the special needs field do support it?

Tim Boswell (Conservative, Daventry)

If I table amendments they are for the purpose of the Committee's discussions. I have sole responsibility for them and for making the arguments in their favour, just as the Minister has sole responsibility for replying to them. I notice that the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon, who has now joined us, is nodding vigorously, and I look forward to his contribution. We shall make our point. We have discussed constructively with the Special Educational Consortium how they feel about it. I am sure that, if there are differences between us, they are essentially of tactics rather than principle. I agree with the hon. Member for High Peak about that: we are arguing not about the theology, as it were, but about how best to deliver the service. There is a specific problem for the child if the resources do not arrive, and there is also a specific problem for the system of trying to work out the most efficient way of using those resources.

Andrew George (Liberal Democrat, St Ives)

The hon. Gentleman referred to tactics as the subject of our debate. On Second Reading, I asked the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) whether clauses to address the needs of the child were necessary, because that is already covered by existing legislation and overarching duties. Some people suggest that a clause covering the needs of the child may be counterproductive and work against the child's best interest. I did not receive a response to that intervention; will the hon. Gentleman address that point?

Tim Boswell (Conservative, Daventry)

I can genuinely reassure the hon. Gentleman. I fear that this point is taking some time, but it will be a keynote of our debates, and I shall come to precisely those matters. I assure him that I am not trying to fob him off: I want to deal with those issues because they are important.

As I recall, the Minister made much of the capital spend programme to provide access, which would eventually, over some years, total about £625 million—I have not rechecked the figure, but it was a substantial sum. I do not know whether the Department has a conventional multiplier—I never found one myself—for the likely revenue consequences of a capital spend of a certain order. If we spend a pound in capital, is revenue spend likely to increase by one or two pounds in consequence? My gut feeling is that the multiplier is probably about two; whatever the capital sum, it has revenue consequences. To put it at its most simple, even ramps have to be maintained and kept safe. Educational equipment and software, about which we have already spoken, needs updating, renewing and replacing, which bears costs; it requires people's time to be trained on it and to use it in the classroom.

Policies based on inclusion, however commendable, are likely to be more expensive. My noble Friend Lord Baker of Dorking made the point extensively in the other place that the Bill will be expensive. Many of us may feel that that is money well spent, but there is no point saying that it has no consequences or that they will all come out in the wash. If money is to be spent in that area, it will deprive other areas of potential spend. We must be clear about the likely implications. At present, the Government are somewhat coy about that, even in areas such as further and higher education, which are more within my day-to-day expertise and remit.

Having put down those markers about efficient education, I turn to the general issue of the rights of the child, as the hon. Member for St. Ives invited me to do. That is addressed by amendment No. 1, to which we attach the greatest importance. Of course, that was debated extensively in the other place. My noble Friend's drafting is much more elegant than mine, but I am a simple man and I thought that I should present as simple a proposition as I could, for debate by the Committee. If the Government like the sentiment but not the wording, that is no skin off my nose, and I am sure that ingenuity could be applied to it, even in the truncated timetable available to us.

Essentially, amendment No. 1 would give the Secretary of State, rather than the educational provider,

``a duty to make arrangements to secure that the educational needs''

of a child are paramount. They should come first. However, by implication, that amendment would also bind educational providers. Why does that matter? One way to approach that question is to consider contemporary discussion of the United Nations convention on the rights of the child. A document that thumped on my desk yesterday, with the signatures of the Secretary of State for International Development and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, said that no child should be left behind. A further special debate on children and their rights is to be held in the United Nations General Assembly in the autumn.

As I said on Second Reading, excluding children from the legislation seems an odd way of asserting the rights of the child. For about 40 years, since I was a student, I have been troubled by one of the college library rules—I think it was rule 6. It said that no person should mark, deface or otherwise alter any book or other property of the library. Alongside it, someone had inked in, very neatly, ``Hear, hear.'' For 40 years I have worried about who was in the right in that matter—those who asserted the rule or those who broke it in confirming it.

We accept that children have rights, and we want the Bill to uphold those rights. We want a sensible means of doing that. Perhaps I may avail myself of a brief indulgence and say that such an interest in children has a long pedigree. I am fond of quoting the Roman educationist Quintilian—this is not a classicist's ego trip—who said that in education maximum reverence should be owed to the child. He used the word ``reverentia'' as if it were almost a religious duty to follow his advice. That thinking runs through Piaget, child-centred education and the things that some of us learned in the 1960s. There is nothing wrong with that at all. It is an entirely proper human function and interest to put the child first. In educational terms, there is currently no contest on that.

How we put that way of thinking into practice may be another matter. Whether we need to legislate should be another matter. One of the few things that I learned as a student—apart from my worry about the library rules—was the important distinction between a good thing and something for which there is a need to legislate. When is there a need for a general provision? There is an historical aspect to this question. Declaratory legislation has been around for some years. I encountered my first example not long after my student days when I came to this place as a very junior researcher. It was in the late 1960s and we spent quite a lot of time thinking about foot and mouth then, too. In 1968, a general duties provision in agriculture legislation stated that, in pursuing their policies, Ministers had various duties that were wider in scope than just paying farmers lots of money. I shall not caricature that measure further. Since then, a pattern of declaratory legislation has developed. Clauses of Bills or sections of Acts set out the Government's priorities and what they think should come first. Our amendment is part of that process. What we think should come first—what the Secretary of State should promote above all--are the rights of the child in this matter. I shall return to the practicalities of that in a moment. I do not think that anybody would disagree with that. There was no sign of such disagreement on Second Reading, in the discussions in the other place or in the representations made by interested parties. We want to make progress on that.

Local education authority special needs officers have a terrible job in balancing resources. If they do not give statements and try to dither along, it is often because they are under pressure and are trying to do the best they can with the limited resources available. It is not because they are trying to subvert the individual parent, although that is how it can appear, and that is often how the parent sees it.

Do we need to have a commitment to such general principles enshrined in law? Would it help? Given that we are discussing an amendment to section 316 of the Education Act 1996, we should recall that some education authorities and some educationists have an agenda of forced inclusion. We have discussed that with Ministers, and the Secretary of State spoke about it on Second Reading, saying that he saw a need for balance. There are concerns, such as that raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) with respect to the local education authority in his constituency, that people are trying to push inclusion in mainstream through, either on what might loosely be called accountancy grounds or on educational theology grounds. We know that inclusion in mainstream does not make sense unless it is done properly, and so we return, as we always will, to the issue of resources.

Generally speaking, we are in favour of inclusion—not forced, but as an option. That is what the Education Act 1996 was about, and that is what the Bill seeks to develop further, by relaxing some of the caveats. Ministers execute logical shifts on that issue from time to time, for their own reasons. I was interested to read a document from the children's and young people's unit. The Minister responsible for the unit now attaches himself to the Department for Education and Employment in order to lead it, and it is primarily, though not exclusively, a DFEE unit. There was not—and this is not, I am afraid, untypical of Government papers these days—a great deal of substance in the document. There were, however, a lot of words, and there was one phrase that I found particularly interesting, which I will share with the Committee. The document states:

``Our special educational needs strategy, an integral part of our overall education strategy, aims to develop skills for key workers in education to help deliver a service which focuses on Inclusivity for pupils of all ages.''

That, in itself, is unexceptionable, and I am not saying that there is anything wrong with it. However, there is a difference between saying that we are not against inclusion or we would like people to be included and saying that the only way of including people is by putting them into mainstream schools. That is a shift too far.

We then come to the questions that have properly been raised by the hon. Member for St. Ives. No doubt Governments are, like Alice, required to believe three impossible things before breakfast, but in this case the Government are attempting to sustain two contrary, if not formally contradictory, propositions at the same time. The first proposition--we anticipate that the Minister will respond on the matter in due course--is that it is not necessary to restate the paramountcy of the educational interests of the child, because they are secured elsewhere. The hon. Gentleman's point is that Ministers must clearly explain where that is secured. Various documents, including the United Nations convention, which, I understand, is not part of our law, the European human rights convention, which is part of our law, and other legislation relating to education and children, refer to the interests of the child. However, it is unclear to me whether a provision such as the one in the amendment is included in any law, and will leap off the page to help parents argue with a local authority about the rights of their child. I shall return to that central issue in a moment.

Hilary Benn (Labour, Leeds Central)

Will the hon. Gentleman explain the circumstances in which the best educational interests of the child would not be covered by the express wishes of the parents? Does not the Bill provide sufficient safeguard by requiring that the wishes of the parents must be given the fullest possible consideration, and does that not accommodate the hon. Gentleman's argument?

Tim Boswell (Conservative, Daventry)

One can argue that point in two ways. Indeed, it was touched on in the other place. The child, especially an older child, may have views of his own, which should be canvassed and discussed. I understand that the hon. Gentleman's point is sincerely made, but by arguing that the parents' wishes mark the end of the matter, a local authority could absolve itself from even considering the matter. I am not saying that the local education authority is right or wrong, and I do not worship professionals, but that aspect should be considered.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I do not imagine that I will be able to slip references to both Gilbert and Sullivan and Wagner into my intervention—I am sure that you would not allow me to do so, Mr. O'Brien. Good practice in this area is about achieving a balance between a studied analysis of the child's needs and the parents' or child's wishes. We want to reinforce that balance of elements in making the right provision.

Tim Boswell (Conservative, Daventry)

My hon. Friend makes a helpful intervention, as I knew that he would. Parents may bring their personal commitment to bear on the situation. It is important to achieve a blend of the cool professional opinion and the committed parental view. In my constituency, I sometimes have to correspond with the county education officer saying, ``I think that the parents want this, but I believe that there is a hidden agenda.'' Sometimes, there are even tensions between the parents about the child's education. One may be right to say to the education officer, ``This child is unable to do what the parents think he can do and has a problem that the parents have not acknowledged.'' However, that must be balanced by the right of the parents to express strong feelings about a matter. I often say to parents who visit my surgeries, ``Thank goodness that you have come. The most important thing is that you are committed to your child.'' My hon. Friend had the music of this right.

Laurence Robertson (Conservative, Tewkesbury)

Is there not a grey area regarding parental wishes in new section 316(2)? That subsection says:

``If no statement is maintained ... he must be educated in a mainstream school.''

Does that not mean that if the LEA did not maintain a statement, the parents' wishes could be totally overridden?

Tim Boswell (Conservative, Daventry)

That is another point to which we need a response. There are several safeguards, including the parents' right to educate in the private sector, but not everyone has an open cheque book. I am sure that we all know of parents who have gone to great lengths and expense, if they have been unable to get a statement, to put their child into the school that they believe is appropriate and to have the child dealt with appropriately there. In some such cases, the LEA has eventually produced a statement.

Prompted by the intervention of the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Benn), I shall indulge in one more anecdote. Foot and mouth permitting, I am a breeder of South Devon cattle. I do not come from either Devon or Cornwall—the hon. Gentleman will know that Cornwall is strong in the South Devon breed—but the rules at important agricultural shows usually allow for a Devon judge, a Cornwall judge and an umpire to decide which of them is right. If the right of the child is paramount, clause 1 is rather like an umpire clause, because it allows us to balance the interests of the parents against the properly cool concern of the professionals. I shall return in a moment to the question whether such a right is necessary. The second question is whether the clause would have a perverse effect.

Andrew George (Liberal Democrat, St Ives)

Would the hon. Gentleman clarify his thoughts? Is he saying that the Secretary of State, through the LEA, is the best arbiter of the most appropriate education of a statemented child? If so, is he prepared to say that a non-statemented child's education is best determined by the LEA and not the parents? Can that be applied more widely? Why is he saying that only statemented children are appropriate for such treatment?

Tim Boswell (Conservative, Daventry)

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the clause, which is about children with special educational needs. The amendment would come after subsection (1), which applies to

``a child with special educational needs who should be educated in a school.''

It is not tied to statements. Of course, given the resources available to the Opposition, we are putting forward a general proposition that may need tying in. I shall return to the point when considering whether the clause would have a perverse effect, but we must first consider general local authority practice. We must also remember that the tribunal is, thank goodness, independent of the Secretary of State. The logical extension of the question posed by the hon. Gentleman is whether the Secretary of State should sort matters all out when little Johnny in Newlyn or Beccles has a problem and his parents do not like what the LEA is doing, and whether he should issue a diktat saying that the child should be moved from X school to Y school, despite it having nothing whatever to do with SEN. I can see the constraints on that approach, but the basic principle that we should put the child first is central.

Win Griffiths (Labour, Bridgend)

Do not our exchanges over the past 10 minutes confirm the incredible difficulty of such definitions? I have seen professionals form very different opinions on the needs of children, but which of them is right? Is there not a difference between what might be perceived as the professional's view of the needs of the child and the wishes of the child? Records show that the wishes of the child are sometimes ignored when the children might have been better served in mainstream schools than in special education institutions—or even vice versa.

Tim Boswell (Conservative, Daventry)

I very much agree with the hon. Gentleman. They are sensitive issues. There are genuine disagreements between professionals—that is, before they say, ``We can't afford it even if we should do it''. There are also differences between parents—who may be separated or experiencing marital difficulties and trying to use the child as a weapon or pawn in the game. There may be differences between the parents and the child. All those issues are complicated. I am feeling my way towards the ultimate tribunal being the educational interests of the child.

I turn from those interventions, which have been helpful to the debate, to the argument that has been put to us that including a general provision for the rights of the child would have perverse effects. The Minister did not do an especially good job on that point on Second Reading. In fairness, I realise that time was constrained, but it is less constrained in Committee. The Minister must explain more clearly than she—or even, dare I say it, the Special Educational Consortium briefing—has yet done why including the caveat that is in the Education Act 1996, or the more general provision in the amendment, would damage the rights of the child.

The implied argument is that LEAs, being good at both reaching professional decisions and, dare I say, covering their tracks if they want to obscure a difficulty, may say to Mr. and Mrs. X, ``We don't care. You think that your child should go to a certain special school in another county, but our professional judgment is that they should go here.'' There would then be an argument with professionals about that. In my view, that issue is properly resolved by the tribunal. On Second Reading, the case cited by the Minister made our point. She said that the case had to go to tribunal. Precisely. At the tribunal, it was overturned under existing legislation in the interest of the child and the parents. In other words, provision was made.We need a little more flesh on the argument that creating a right for the child is perverse—that it will somehow result in children losing their rights. I have yet to be convinced of that.

We all know that the child should come first. We all know that, in an imperfect world, resources are not always available, and the provisions do not suit everybody. The system must do the best job that it can. Including a right in the Bill would strengthen the rights of the child; removing the existing caveat would weaken the rights of the child. We have discussed last resorts, umpires and so forth. Under our amendment, the Secretary of State would ultimately be under a duty to satisfy himself that the child's interests were protected above all. That is what we want; no one argues about that. I may not have the wording quite right—we have tried it from different angles—but the principle is important and incontestable: to put the child first and make the system fit the needs of the child, not to drop those needs and rights and say that the system will do the best for the child that it can. Only if there is that ultimate sanction, so that everyone is under a legal duty that can be tried in court if necessary, will the child be told, ``You are entitled to that. That is what you need, and that is what you will get.'' The amdts have been tabled for that reason and in that spirit.

Bill O'Brien (Labour, Normanton)

Before I proceed, I remind the Committee that there is a financial resolution in connection with the Bill, and that copies are available on the Table. I remind hon. Members also that adequate notice should be given of amendments. As a general rule, my co-Chairman and I do not intend to call starred amendments.

Evan Harris (Liberal Democrat, Oxford West and Abingdon)

I am disappointed to have been delayed by train, taxi and traffic, for two reasons. First, I can only now and belatedly welcome you to the Chair, Mr. O'Brien. Secondly, I missed the Programming Sub-Committee resolution debate and all the excitement that that implies. I was pleased, though, to catch the last 60 minutes of the 61-minute speech by the hon. Member for Daventry. I caught almost all that he had to say and shall be a little briefer in dealing with the two issues that we face.

The first issue is the needs or best interests of the child. There has, unintentionally, been too much interchange between the terms ``best interests'' or ``needs'', which can be said to be equivalent, and the separate ideas of the wishes or rights of the child. When the hon. Member for Daventry, upon whose every word I hung, reads the record of his speech, he will see that he used some of those terms interchangeably. It might have been useful if he had not done that in a speech that was thoughtful and thought-provoking. It is important to identify correctly what one is talking about.

Complying with a child's wishes may be in his or her best interests, and one would hope that it often would be. However, sometimes complying with the wishes of children—or adults, but this debate is about children—is not in their best interests. That is why children do not have rights to autonomy equal to those of adults, but gradually gain rights as they gain capacity. We could debate at length the capacity of children, with or without special needs, to want what is congruent with their best interests. The rights of children are not necessarily congruent with their wishes, and they do not necessarily involve their best interests or needs. Those important concepts should not be conflated.

My second point is about what should be paramount. As my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives pointed out, it cannot be that two things are paramount. The Bill implies that in a conflict the wishes of the parents will in most circumstances be paramount. It would be difficult to superimpose the idea that the wishes, best interests or needs of the child should be paramount. In accepting the wording in the Bill the Liberal Democrats accept, first, that the needs of the child are already taken into account—I shall come on to that issue—and, secondly, that we can almost always accept parents as the best guarantors of the needs of the child. Removing that status would suggest that we do not trust parents. No doubt, that is not what the hon. Member for Daventry intends, but we should examine the logical consequences of what is proposed.

I do not mean to say that the voice of the child should not be heard. Many of us have received an interesting brief, and had interesting conversations, with a group that is keen to make us aware that in some cases parents do not speak in the best interests of their children. At the wishes of parents, children are forced into special schools through lack of information, lack of interest or even sadder circumstances. They do not want to be there and are miserable, and their needs are not met as best they might be. That is why, before the amendment is rejected, it will be important for the Minister to make it clear that those issues are covered elsewhere in the legislation.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I do not want the Committee to be under any illusion about our intentions. The amendment is specifically about the educational needs of the child. For the most part—invariably, in fact—those needs coincide with parents' and children's wishes. As the hon. Gentleman rightly suggests, there will be exceptions. However, in suggesting that there is an implicit conflict, he is perhaps not drawing on his experience of such matters. He should apply that experience to his reading of our intentions and of the effect of the amendment.

Evan Harris (Liberal Democrat, Oxford West and Abingdon)

I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that he used the word ``invariably''. He did not say ``almost invariably''. Invariably means with no variation. Elsewhere in his intervention, he accepted that there would be variation from the norm. It is important to recognise that there might be conflict in some cases—it is not invariable that there will not be conflict—so a balance should be struck. As I shall say in more detail in a moment, the legislation should be based on the needs of the child. That is why we are here; it is what the Bill is about. So long as the Government make that clear, there will be no need to accept the amendment. That point was made in an intervention by the hon. Member for Leeds, Central, who is no longer in his place.

The Special Educational Consortium tends to back my position. I disagree with the hon. Member for High Peak, who suggested that there must therefore be something wrong with the amendment. I do not want to demean or diminish the amendment. We table amendments to challenge issues and accepted practices on which we are lobbied. I dissociate myself from the implication that an amendment is devalued simply because an important and authoritative lobby group disagrees with it.

Tom Levitt (Labour, High Peak)

I certainly was not trying to imply that there was anything wrong with our debate or the principles of the amendment. Many of us would argue that its principles are embodied in the Bill. I simply wanted to ask the hon. Member for Daventry if any representative organisation supported the amendment.

Evan Harris (Liberal Democrat, Oxford West and Abingdon)

I am happy that that clarification is on the record, but I question the hon. Gentleman's argument. In other debates, he supported proposals on reform of the structure of community health councils that no organisation backed. We must ensure that we consider the issues.

The hon. Gentleman may have been implying that we must pay special attention to the points made by the Special Educational Consortium because it is representative of a wide group and has great expertise. It has made two points that might satisfy the hon. Member for Daventry. First, it says that the condition that would be introduced by amendment No. 1 has been used to deny a mainstream place to children. There is no getting away from that.

Tim Boswell (Conservative, Daventry)

I am carefully following the hon. Gentleman's constructive contribution, in which he is making some proper corrections and qualifications to the points that I made. However, so far as I know, there has never been an explicit duty on the Secretary of State to secure educational needs. There is an issue about whether we are trying to involve the Secretary of State because individual LEAs have been derelict in their duties and have not met their obligations within the existing legislative framework.

Evan Harris (Liberal Democrat, Oxford West and Abingdon)

I am making a general point raised by the Special Educational Consortium. One can always say that there are bad local authorities, but there are good local authorities that, faced with other exigencies, might cite the provision in support of a proposal to go against the parents' wishes, when those wishes have a good basis and are in the best interests of the child.

The Bill removes two of the caveats in section 316, one of which defines a situation in which education in a mainstream school could be deemed—``deemed'' is my word—incompatible with a child receiving the special educational provision that his learning difficulty calls for, as well as with the efficient use of resources. People have been concerned about that caveat being used to support a move to deny places in the mainstream. It could work both ways—against parents' wishes and against the real best interests of children. That might come about because of dereliction of duty or pressure on resources, or because of a misunderstanding.

The second point raised by the Special Educational Consortium was that statutory protection for the best interests of the child already exists. I would not be making these points if I were not satisfied on that. My noble Friend Baroness Sharp would not have accepted that argument, after careful consideration in the House of Lords, had we not been convinced that statutory protection for the best interests of the child is provided by sections 323 and 324 of the Education Act 1996, with schedules 26 and 27, which deal with how statements are made, as well as the SEN regulations and the code of practice.

Finally, I would like to draw the attention of the hon. Member for Daventry—I say this as politely as I can, using no classical allegories at all—to a philosophical question that we must face. His party has traditionally supported selection by schools. That implies less choice for parents, and certainly less choice for children. It is important philosophically, and it would help us in the rest of our consideration of the Bill if his party clarified whether it wants, where possible, more choice for children and their parents, or more choice for schools, which is what selection implies.

Tim Boswell (Conservative, Daventry)

I rise merely to give the hon. Gentleman notice that that is a matter to which we may wish to return during consideration of another amendment. In the spirit in which I answered the hon. Member for St. Ives, I shall do my best to clarify that point then, rather than return after a lengthy speech to make yet another explication of the amendment.

Evan Harris (Liberal Democrat, Oxford West and Abingdon)

I thank the hon. Gentleman. While I am on a roll, I should point out that perhaps the Government should answer the same question, given their predilection for allowing more selection by schools.

Nick St Aubyn (Conservative, Guildford)

I do not want the hon. Gentleman to stay on his roll for too long, because the logic of his argument is flawed. If our education system provides for diversity—of selective schools as well as non-selective schools—surely the choice of school available to parents and children is widened, not narrowed.

Evan Harris (Liberal Democrat, Oxford West and Abingdon)

Of course not. If the system does not select a child, that child's choice is meaningless. I am conscious that this discussion is in danger of not being directly relevant to clause 1, and I look forward to our future debate on the subject.

I would like to make one more point to the Conservatives. In a Committee Room very close to this one, they considered the best interests, the wishes and the rights of the child in relation to access to health education on and the promotion of emergency contraception. They were flatly opposed to granting access to those who were mature enough to require it, saying that parents' rights must come first. For the sake of consistency, it is again important that the Conservative party should clarify whether it will pick and choose which rights of children it seeks to make paramount, and which it does not. The Opposition were more wrong in that case than in this, though I disagree with them on this one, too.

Amendment No. 2 deals with the caveat of

``efficient education for other children.''

Again, that is difficult for us; we were worried about that and had to be persuaded in another place. Part of that persuasion was an undertaking by the Government to monitor the use of the provision. It would be of grave concern if it were used unnecessarily to exclude children with special educational needs, which is a subjective judgment.

It is interesting that the word ``efficient'' is inherited from previous legislation, because I should have thought that ``effective'' might have been better understood to separate the issue from that of resources, which otherwise hangs over our discussions like a shadow. We are talking about effective education, and it appears reasonable, a priori, to say that we must not interfere too much in favour of one child over the need of other children to be effectively educated. The use of ``efficient'' by definition implies resources, which is why many people are concerned. Will the Minister explain why she rejected ``effective''? It is close in the dictionary to ``efficient'', and I am sure, given her hours of study preparing the Bill and the long time that it took for even the draft Bill to be published, that there must be a reason why ``efficient'' was chosen over ``effective''.

The point made by the hon. Member for Tewkesbury about resources is allowed by the term ``efficient'', and must therefore be dealt with. I do not claim detailed knowledge of who makes the decisions in Gloucestershire, but I remember a fascinating debate in Westminster Hall in which the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Daventry spoke. It is clear that local authorities are under pressure, so where resources are tight and new duties are placed on them, something must give. I doubt that any local authority will see the Bill as an excuse to make cuts, but when faced with new duties, budgets legally must balance, and when raising resources, Gloucestershire has been subject to capping legislation that the hon. Member for Tewkesbury supported.

Laurence Robertson (Conservative, Tewkesbury)

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that it has certainly been in the minds of certain people in Gloucestershire that closing special schools is a way of saving money. The then director of education, Mr. Roger Crouch, said in front of Labour members that he was ``doing his damnedest'' to save money through the SEN programme in Gloucestershire.

Evan Harris (Liberal Democrat, Oxford West and Abingdon)

I do not want to get into the specifics of Gloucestershire, because I do not have the information, but speaking generally, when local authorities face new duties, such as those provided by the Bill, there are pressures. If those cost pressures, when quantified, exceed available resources, something must give. It is a question of terminology whether we interpret that as an opportunity to make cuts for their own sake or recognise that, given the under-resourcing of local authorities and their inability to raise the resources that local people may want them to raise because they are capped, they are forced into an invidious position. That is why we are worried about the resources attached to the Bill.

I hope that the Minister will make it clear that although there may be perceived effects of inclusion on the efficient education of other children, authorities should, before they decide that that means that provision must end, put into the balance the benefit to the broad education of the other children of inclusion—even of children with especially challenging behaviour and significant needs. Guidance is needed to ensure that schools do not just consider efficient education in direct and financial terms, but look more widely at the benefits of inclusion. We will want to see how the provision works if the Bill is unamended. If our attention is drawn to cases in which the clause is used unnecessarily and inappropriately—I accept that those terms are subjective, but they reflect the wording of a later amendment—to exclude children with special needs on grounds of efficiency, we would want the Government of the day to reconsider the matter.

Laurence Robertson (Conservative, Tewkesbury)

When I spoke on Second Reading, I referred, perhaps rather unkindly, to the Bill as a triumph of theory over reality. That is certainly true of the first clause, and I said it because I feel that there is an element of political correctness running through the Bill. One of my main concerns is that there seems to be a presumption in favour of inclusion. Hon. Members may say that that is desirable, but we have not achieved full inclusion throughout the education system.

On Second Reading, I spoke about my education, which did not take long because there was not much of it. I did not successfully negotiate the 11-plus, whereas my sister, with whom I discussed the matter over dinner last night, did. We went to the same primary school and sixth form, but we went to different schools in between. She went to a grammar school and I went to a secondary modern. I would not change that for one minute.

Anne Begg (Labour, Aberdeen South)

How many pupils at the secondary modern had severe physical disabilities? I suspect that the answer is none, because they were excluded from such education. The hon. Gentleman's example is not relevant because it relates to mainstream education, from which large sections of the disabled population have been excluded until now.

Laurence Robertson (Conservative, Tewkesbury)

Many children with physical disabilities do not want to go to mainstream schools. I accept that the opposite is also true, but the purpose of my example is to emphasise that there were grammar schools and secondary modern schools, and as one hon. Member has already said, the Government have done nothing to bring about the end of grammar schools. They have made a half-hearted attempt to encourage the demolition of grammar schools, but in this Parliament, they have not ended that system or the independent school system—

Bill O'Brien (Labour, Normanton)

Order. We are discussing the amendment, not the abolition of grammar schools. I ask the hon. Gentleman to keep to the amendment.

Laurence Robertson (Conservative, Tewkesbury)

I take that advice, Mr. O'Brien. My point is that we must be careful about what ``inclusion'' means. The Government have done nothing to bring about greater inclusion by narrowing the types of school, each with a different ethos, that provide different forms of education.

Tom Levitt (Labour, High Peak)

I should, perhaps, declare something of an interest in that I taught in comprehensive schools in Gloucester for 10 years. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that special needs teachers and others in Gloucestershire comprehensive schools are doing some excellent work on inclusion.

Laurence Robertson (Conservative, Tewkesbury)

I certainly would not dispute that. Many children in Gloucestershire are included in mainstream schools. I do not know how recently the hon. Gentleman taught in Gloucestershire—

Tom Levitt (Labour, High Peak)

Ten years ago.

Laurence Robertson (Conservative, Tewkesbury)

Before I was there. Certainly, many head teachers, teachers, governors and pupils are very nervous about the Government's policy on inclusion and how it is being interpreted by Gloucestershire county council. Some 32,000 people have signed a petition in protest against the closure of special schools in the county. That is about 5,000 or 6,000 in each constituency.

Anne Begg (Labour, Aberdeen South)

I think that the hon. Gentleman is misleading the Committee by generalising from a specific example of one local authority's problems in order to deny children and young people access to mainstream education. They should have that access by right. No one is saying that parents should not have the choice of sending their child to a special school, and nothing in the Bill suggests that that choice will be taken away. However, if the hon. Gentleman's line of argument is followed through, those with special educational needs and disabilities will not have the option of going to the mainstream school of their choice. It does not happen now; but it should.

Laurence Robertson (Conservative, Tewkesbury)

The hon. Lady is snapping at my ankles like a terrier. I am willing to accept that some children are excluded from mainstream schools. I made that clear on Second Reading, and I thought that I had made it clear this morning. However, it also happens the other way round. I have had school pupils come to the House—my hon. Friends have met them—begging and pleading for their special schools to be kept open because they know that they will not be able to cope at mainstream schools. I hope that the hon. Lady will not deny that.

Miss Begg indicated assent.

Laurence Robertson (Conservative, Tewkesbury)

She suggests that she would not deny it. I am grateful.

Tim Boswell (Conservative, Daventry)

Further to the hon. Lady's intervention, what really matters to parents is that they may be denied a choice between special and mainstream provision. If the arrangement is not working as it should, we should not miss the opportunity to redress the problem.

Laurence Robertson (Conservative, Tewkesbury)

My hon. Friend is right. I am rather uncomfortable about clause 1 for the reasons given by my hon. Friend, which is why I support the amendment. I make no apology for discussing Gloucestershire. As a Member of Parliament, I am paid to represent a constituency there. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) suggested that the authority was not carrying out its duties properly, if that is an accurate summary of her words. That was the effect of the Green Paper. I cannot blame the Bill, as it has not yet been enacted. It is wise to consider the effects of the Green Paper.

The closure of Burnham Park school, Stroud, has already been proposed. The schools organisation committee was not unanimous about that decision, so the adjudicator must decide the school's future. That is not theory; it is the reality of what is happening in Gloucestershire. The Minister wrote to me—I thank her for the letter—saying that such decisions are now being made locally. However, letters to the adjudicator have to be sent not to Gloucestershire but to Darlington. I am not sure how that means that such decisions are made locally, but that is slightly off the point. Given the county council's policy, allowing that school to close would surely give a green light to closure of other special schools in Gloucestershire. I should explain that the county council is not controlled by the Conservative party, as the Secretary of State once made the mistake of thinking; it is controlled by an unholy alliance of Labour and Liberal Democrat councillors.

Kali Mountford (Labour, Colne Valley)

I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman has told us of the political make-up of Gloucestershire county council. I share his opinion of the Green Paper; a similar thing happened in Kirklees. Would he not accept that following consultation on the Green Paper, the proposals changed substantially? Some councillors, perhaps including those in Gloucestershire, may have taken pre-emptive action; but they should study the Bill and should review any decisions that were based on the Green Paper. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is more than able to deal with his local authority and tackle that problem.

Laurence Robertson (Conservative, Tewkesbury)

The hon. Lady makes a good point, but there are no signs of a change so far, although it may be different when the Bill is enacted. The proposal to close Burnham Park school in Stroud is still before the adjudicator, and he will make a decision one way or the other. She is right in theory, but this is another case of theory over reality, and, in reality, the decision will not be reversed. The decision could be reversed if the make-up of the county council in Gloucestershire changed, if the Prime Minister had the nerve to hold elections in May. That is the only way in which the special schools in Gloucestershire will remain open.

We are talking about parental choice and what is best for the child. I shall put a genuine question to the Minister in all innocence: if there are no special schools left in Gloucestershire, where is parental choice? Does she have responsibility, in this Bill or existing Acts, to ensure that the county has special schools? Parents, teachers, pupils and even the LEA would have no choice whatever if there were no special schools.

Tom Levitt (Labour, High Peak)

I am enjoying the nostalgia, as I used to live about 400 yards from Burnham Park school. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that about 300 special schools closed in this country between 1987 and 1997? Would he care to hazard a guess as to how many of them closed due to falling demand or places not being provided in the right areas? Is he aware that the number of special schools opening is increasing? It went up from three in 1997 to 13 last year.

Laurence Robertson (Conservative, Tewkesbury)

I do not know of those figures, but I am more than happy to accept them.

It is curious how the figures on the closure of special schools because of demand or lack of it can be manipulated—not, of course, by the hon. Gentleman, but by LEAs. The Bill will make that problem worse. If an LEA does not statement a child, that child will have to go to a mainstream school. That could reduce the numbers in special schools. We have all seen schools closed by stealth before. An LEA puts it about that a school might be in danger, so parents do not send their children there. That means falling numbers, so the LEA says that the school is unsustainable.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I want to correct the record again. The rate of closure of special schools has been steady and continuing since 1997. It has not changed. I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that the hon. Member for High Peak was right to say that there were closures before 1997, but there has been no let-up in them. In that context, my hon. Friend might like to consider the number of children with statements and the demand for special education, which seems as inexorable as the closure programme.

Laurence Robertson (Conservative, Tewkesbury)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point well.

Tim Boswell (Conservative, Daventry)

Does my hon. Friend agree that the trauma of closure of any school, special or otherwise, is greater than the benefit of the creation and opening of a new school? Simply to say that special schools have been replaced by others elsewhere does not take away the concern that parents feel in such circumstances.

Laurence Robertson (Conservative, Tewkesbury)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making another powerful point. The issue creates a great deal of emotion. My hon. Friend was kind enough to come to the Jubilee Room last week to meet parents, pupils and governors of, and local councillors connected to, Alderman Knight school in my constituency. The school feels that it is under great threat. We shall have to wait to see what happens. The first decision to be made in Gloucestershire is about Burnham Park school, but there is great fear as to what the knock-on effect will be on Alderman Knight school.

Anne Begg (Labour, Aberdeen South)

The hon. Gentleman could use the Bill to make the case for the retention of the school that he so wants to save in his constituency. My local authority—and I know that this part of the Bill does not apply in Scotland—proposes to close a school for children with severe behavioural problems and to integrate them into one of the local secondary schools. I shall be at a meeting on Thursday night supporting the community against that proposal, and I shall quote the Bill in my favour. Labour Members are not saying that all integration is right and that it must happen regardless of the wishes of parents or of the provision of efficient education for other children. Caveats have been put into the Bill, and the hon. Gentleman should use them with his local authority.

Laurence Robertson (Conservative, Tewkesbury)

I wish the hon. Lady every success in trying to save her school. I do not know why it is under pressure. I only know why schools are under pressure in my area, where the Green Paper was seen as a green light for closure. I accept the argument of other hon. Members that that should not be the case, but it is the case.

I shall finish soon. I did not want to make a long speech—in fact, I have made a short one, but the interventions have made it long. However, I should like the Minister to address first my point. What happens if there are no special schools in an area? What will happen to parental choice in Gloucestershire if that is the case? That is the scenario that we face.

My second point is that all hon. Members should ask parents and, particularly, pupils who are involved with special schools what they think. Many will have done so already. Some will not. Such pupils overwhelmingly believe in the role of the special school. They know that, in many cases, they cannot cope in mainstream schools. They know that they would suffer in such schools, and a number of people attached to mainstream schools know that the pupils in those schools would suffer as well. We can all quote examples. There should not be an over-presumption on inclusion. Every decision should be based on the needs of the child. I should like to repeat the quote that I gave on Second Reading from a young girl—I think that she was aged about 15 or 16—who spoke at the Jubilee Room last week, very bravely, in front of 50 or 60 people. She just said:

``No-one is listening to us.''

It is a very sad comment on the political process if a young girl feels that. I ask the Minister to make sure that that is not the case.

Nick St Aubyn (Conservative, Guildford)

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) for raising the concerns of those involved with special schools. My wife is a governor of a special school in my constituency, Godsen House, which has had two Ofsted inspections in recent years, both of which resulted in excellent reports. The commitment to education, and the knowledge and expertise of the teachers who work in that school is truly impressive. They will tell anyone who cares to listen how many more children could benefit from a period in their school.

When discussion takes place about whether children should be in the maintained sector or in special schools, the notion seems to be lost that a period in a special school—the investment of new and additional educational vision in their development—can be of lasting benefit when they return to the maintained sector. Many special schools see it as their primary role not to maintain the children outside mainstream society, but to give them the building blocks to go back into the mainstream, more effectively and more successfully than they could have done before. Too much of the discussion about putting such children into mainstream schools misses the point. Part of the rationale behind the amendments is to ensure that the additional provision is available to children when they need it, promptly and effectively, so that they then go back into the mainstream. One of our fears is that the Bill will mean that too many kids will fail to receive the extra provision that would give them strength to deal with the maintained sector in the future. Instead, they will be put in the mainstream from day one, and will never perform quite as well as they might have done.

A few hard facts about the current system need to be spelled out. They come from the most recent annual Ofsted report. It is alarming that Ofsted tells us that one third of the LEAs inspected were judged less than satisfactory. The institutional mechanisms that surround the children whom we are discussing are not performing as well as they might. The overview of last year includes something even more alarming. Page 82 of the report states that support for SEN is often the weakest aspect of the work of LEAs, and that almost half have no adequate SEN strategy. In fact, the report states that 45 per cent. of authorities have unsatisfactory strategies for SEN support.

Laurence Robertson (Conservative, Tewkesbury)

My hon. Friend makes an important point. He will be aware that, according to the notes provided with the Bill, about 20 per cent. of children will have some form of special educational need at some time. Given the number of pupils affected, is it not terrible if LEAs lack the relevant provision?

Nick St Aubyn (Conservative, Guildford)

I am sorry to alarm my hon. Friend further, but I am afraid that things get worse. Not only do 45 per cent. of LEAs fail to operate a satisfactory SEN strategy, but 35 per cent. fail to offer value for money in their SEN provision. I suppose that the two factors are connected. A great deal of education authority resources seem, according to Ofsted, to be misapplied. Paragraph 358 of the report states:

``Support for special education needs continues often to be the weakest aspect of the work of LEAs, with little sign of improvement.''

Ofsted states that ``only one in five'' authorities is any good at discharging its statutory functions. That is pretty serious, given that the Bill deals with statutory functions, particularly those of local education authorities.

Tim Boswell (Conservative, Daventry)

My hon. Friend is deploying some shocking figures. I think that we were all uneasily aware of them, but it is useful to have the stout facts on the record. In the light of those figures, and given the fact that many local education authorities may not fulfil existing legal requirements, as well as the fact that the new law on disability discrimination is embodied in the Act, will not the matters in question increasingly be the subject of legal challenge, to the detriment of the public good? The lawyers will arrive to do what LEAs are unready or unwilling to do themselves.

Nick St Aubyn (Conservative, Guildford)

When the Government came to power, they told us that they would provide many more resources for special educational needs, by cutting out bureaucracy and time spent in court and in disputes. The money used on those activities would be rediverted to the educational needs of children. That sounded like a halcyon prospect, but as we change the law, we need to recognise that there are already failures in the system. Perhaps the Minister will correct me, but as far as I am aware, the amount being spent on disputes, over statements, for example, has not significantly reduced during the term of this Government. Will the Minister give the Committee the figures, on a like-for-like basis, for spending on disputes in the year to 1997 and subsequent years? We need to know how disputes mechanisms are being handled before we can get to grips, in our debate on the amendments, with the future operation of those mechanisms.

The point of treating the needs of the child as paramount is partly that, if that is the starting point, the likelihood of legal dispute between parents and children on one hand and LEAs on the other will be diminished. Clearly, the parents and the child will start from the view that the child's needs are paramount. If they feel that the starting point of the professionals involved in the complex debate about the child's future and specific needs is different, conflict is likely to arise and the parents and the child are unlikely to trust the professionals' instincts.

Often, there is a serious battle about resources. To send a child outside the mainstream sector can easily cost between five and 10 times more than the standard spending assessment of a child in a mainstream school. In some cases, it costs as much as 30 times more. The battle over resources can be acute, and if the parents and the child feel that officials do not come from the same standpoint as them—that the needs of the child are paramount—that will be a recipe for many more legal disputes in future. If that is taken together with the failure of LEAs to discharge their current functions and duties, a red light should be flashing in the Minister's office. Not only did Ofsted find that barely one in five LEAs was good at discharging its statutory duties, it found that 14 per cent.—one in seven—were unsatisfactory.

Win Griffiths (Labour, Bridgend)

Is not the burden of the hon. Gentleman's argument that there can be huge differences in professional opinions about what are the needs of the child? The burden of his argument is not about the educational needs of the child being paramount, but concerns the availability of resources to meet the perceived needs of all the parties involved in any one case. Legislation already exists to say that the needs of children are paramount. What makes the process so complex and the amendments so unnecessary is the need to balance all the issues at stake—the needs and desires of the parents and the child; the availability of resources; and the different professional opinions that may exist on any case.

Nick St Aubyn (Conservative, Guildford)

I do not think that that is the route that I am going down. Of course we all recognise that resources are limited, but we are more likely to reach a consensus between the parents and the child on one hand and the officials judging what provision should be made for the child on the other if everyone agrees on their starting point. The Bill fails to make clear that everyone is coming from the same starting point, and that it is therefore a question of how we use existing resources and what tactics we follow, because the strategy is to answer the needs of the child.

To answer a point raised by the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon, there is no conflict between judging the wishes of the parents and the paramountcy of the child's needs, because one need of the child is to follow the wishes of the parent. A strategy that goes against the wishes of the parent is unlikely to succeed. If it does not have their confidence, that lack of confidence will be transmitted to the child, diminishing the likelihood of a successful outcome. We shall shortly come to my amendment about the needs of children in care. Not enough has yet been said—I look forward to hearing the Minister's comments—about how we deal with children who do not have parents to bat for them against the system. I look forward to debating that issue later.

Another issue about which I am especially concerned, and to which new clause 1 would provide a better answer, is the role of independent schools, where provision can be bought to support a child's needs. I regret that one result of the way in which the Government have framed the legislation will be to bear down on the role of independent schools, although there are not many of them because LEAs are reconsidering the provision that they offer. Not long ago, one such school in my constituency closed. For smaller LEAs, the opportunity to buy provision from independent schools is an important part of the array of options that they can offer to parents and children.

We had an interesting diversion from the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon on the issue of selective schools. In discussing provision for those with special educational needs, we only ever address the needs of half those kids—the 2 per cent. who have acute difficulties. We never address the needs of the 2 per cent. who have intense abilities. The Select Committee, on which the h G and I serve, debated at length whether statementing should apply not only to those with acute learning difficulties but to those who are highly able in one or more subjects, for whom mainstream education may not be able to provide. Some children with special educational needs turn out to have high ability.

For all those reasons, making available a broader range of provision, including selective and independent schools outside the mainstream and maintained sectors, should form part of a sensible strategy, because the peculiar needs of children at the ends of the spectrum are more likely to be met by a diversity of schools. The lack of that diversity will be a weakness of the system. New clause 1 would make it easier for education authorities, who recognise the need for as wide a range of provision as possible, to justify expenditure on such provision.

Another flaw in the Government's argument about moving children with disabilities and special educational needs into mainstream education is the effect that it has on mainstream education. A school in my constituency was in serious difficulties. It was a wonderful school in many ways. It accepted many children with special educational needs and disabilities, but the number of mainstream children who applied to that school was only one third of the number that it had the capacity to take. The school was, in the parlance, ``a failing school'', as the Ofsted report confirmed. That was very upsetting for all those involved. We took a radical approach and brought in the private sector to turn around that school. The success of that Conservative policy was so dramatic that it was endorsed even by the Prime Minister in a recent Green Paper. We welcome that cross-party support for our initiative.

Clive Betts (Labour, Sheffield, Attercliffe)

Which county was that?

Nick St Aubyn (Conservative, Guildford)

Does the hon. Gentleman want to intervene, since I did not hear his sedentary intervention? No, he does not.

That school was a mainstream school, but was characterised by some in the town as the school to which those with special educational needs and disabilities were sent. Although it had the nomenclature of a mainstream school, it was regarded as some sort of special school. There is a danger in the Government's approach that that will happen. I see the Minister shaking her head. I do not want that to happen, and I am sure that nor does she. Perhaps she could explain how she will ensure that such problems are avoided if more kids come out of special schools and are given provision within the mainstream.

If there are problems of behaviour—that was one of the acute difficulties of this particular school—and there is a lack of resources in the mainstream schools to deal with them, schools that otherwise have a good reputation may develop a reputation for being disruptive. Such a school might develop a reputation as the sort of place where kids who want to get on with their work are distracted, or unable to do so, because teachers have to devote so much of their time to dealing with difficult pupils.

I do not want to stigmatise those pupils or ignore their needs, but we must ensure that if more children with demanding requirements come into the mainstream, certain mainstream schools do not become stigmatised in popular opinion as being somehow different and therefore less desirable for parents to send their children to.

I will move on to the issue of children in care later. New clause 1 covers somewhat the same ground as a later amendment, so I will reserve my remarks until we debate that amendment.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I do not wish to detain the Committee. As I said earlier, I will not be able to draw on the literary metaphors and allusions with which my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry was able to punctuate his speech. However, it is important to tackle the issues that are implicit in the amendments in more detail than we have done thus far, in three or four particular respects.

First, there is the matter of the educational interests of the child. The discussion on that has been appropriate, and I understand the desire of Members, particularly Liberal Democrat Members, to get to the bottom of why we consider this to be so vital. Let me put it in plain terms: I take the view that our concerns are shared more widely than might generally be thought. It is clear from meetings of the all-party disablement group and from discussions that my hon. Friend and I have had with the main disability organisations, that those organisations generally take the view that getting the Bill through the House and on to the statute book is of such great importance that anything that endangers that process is undesirable.

There are concerns about the absence from the Bill of an explicit reference to the educational needs of the child. Those concerns may not be as profound as ours, but they exist. I do not want to go into great detail and cause embarrassment, but we are sure from our discussions that those concerns exist. However, there is a fear that, if we make too much of them and debate the Bill at too great a length, then because the Bill has been introduced so late in this Parliament, it will not become law. We no longer know for certain whether it is late in this Parliament—but let us say that it is popularly considered to be so.

No draft Bill was published, and the Government are guilty in that regard because that would have allowed an exploration of important matters at greater length. They could have been discussed and talked through, and we could have come to a better resolution earlier.

Other issues arose as a result of the Green Paper. The hon. Member for Colne Valley (Kali Mountford) was right to say that the Green Paper had a destructive effect on special education, because it was seized upon by some local authorities as a green light to close special schools, and sent shock waves around the community that includes disabled organisations, disabled people, people with special needs, parents, teachers and others. In my constituency, a street stall was dedicated to a petition against the Green Paper because feeling ran so high. For all those reasons, the legitimate debate about the Bill identifying the educational needs of the child has to some extent been suppressed.

I believe that that debate should be an important aspect of our consideration of the legislation. Without desiring to repeat myself unnecessarily, I say again that I support the Bill in broad terms for three reasons. The first can be illustrated by the entirely well intentioned words used by Baroness Blackstone when she introduced the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Daventry talked about the theology of the matter, but we are more concerned with the liturgy. Baroness Blackstone said that the

``commitment to inclusion has been strong and constant...The potential social, moral and educational benefits are significant.''—[Official Report, House of Lords, 19 December 2000; Vol. 360, c. 635.]

That is certainly true. However, the order in which she put those benefits is most interesting. We are concerned about the social, moral and cultural interests of people with learning difficulties, but their educational needs will at times be more significant than any cultural or social benefit that might derive to them, their contemporaries or their schools.

There are good grounds for arguing that social and cultural benefits are derived by whole schools from the inclusion of special needs children into mainstream education. I acknowledge such arguments fully and without reservation. However, there can never be a stronger argument for Conservative Members than the specific educational needs of the child concerned.

It is unfortunate that some people have a bourgeois-liberal view of such matters, although I would not want to accuse any member of the Committee of falling into that category. They say that to educate everyone in one place would be cosy and culturally desirable—one might say comprehensive, if that were still a fashionable word, which it certainly is not.

John Randall (Conservative, Uxbridge)

Bog-standard.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I hear my hon. Friend, but do not want to go down that path.

That view may prevail at dinner parties in Islington and elsewhere, but it is not about the specific educational needs of the child. The important word of our amendment is ``educational''. I am dubious about those social and cultural arguments, strong though they may be, replacing the specific educational arguments.

Laurence Robertson (Conservative, Tewkesbury)

I agree that educational requirements should be paramount. Does my hon. Friend also accept that the social requirements are not met when the child does not successfully integrate into a mainstream school? In fact, the reverse is true.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

The social requirements may be met for other children, but not for the child concerned. There is a balance of advantage. The optimum is when children are included in a mainstream school, prosper, do well educationally, socially and culturally, and when the children who mix with them and become their friends benefit as well. That is often the happy result of integration into the mainstream.

There are many other permutations, however. Sometimes other children benefit, but the educational progress of the individual child is not as great as it would have been if he or she had had the advantages of a special education. Sometimes the child is not happy in the new environment. Sometimes parental wishes do not coincide with the process. Many issues must be taken into account.

Earlier, I intervened on the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon, who speaks for the Liberal Democrats. Two considerations cannot both be paramount. Incidentally, I said ``almost invariably''. [Interruption.] I have been asked to turn around, Mr. O'Brien, because I was not speaking through you. Heaven forbid that I should break with protocol.

The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon was right that only one consideration can be paramount. The educational needs of the child are, indeed, paramount. We know from experience that the educational interests of children will usually—if the hon. Gentleman does not like the term ``almost invariably'', I shall use the word ``usually''—coincide with their wishes and those of their parents. However, parents may take different views—many parents are separated or divorced—or there could be differences between child and parent. In those cases, the educational needs of the child should be pre-eminent. The Bill establishes a structure to deal with disputes, so it should also take those other factors into account.

No one has yet mentioned the pro-inclusion zealots—perhaps we are too polite—but some people would include children in mainstream at all costs. Some people have a positive distaste for special education. That does not apply to my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry, or to the Minister, who takes a typically moderate and balanced view.

Mr. Boswell rose—

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

My hon. Friend is about to tell us that he is not typically moderate or balanced.

Tim Boswell (Conservative, Daventry)

I am happy to be bracketed with the Minister as a moderate and non-ideologue. Would my hon. Friend not agree that one of the difficulties is that inclusion could result in a progressive spectrum of costs and a diminishing level of benefit? As special needs increase, so the task of inclusion becomes progressively more difficult and more expensive. I do not preclude the need to examine inclusion and pursue it whenever possible, but I acknowledge the reality that it may not be possible to allow inclusion for 100 per cent. of the population.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I did not fully understand that intervention, Mr. O'Brien. I therefore remind my hon. Friend of the words of Arthur Balfour, a former distinguished Member of the House and Prime Minister. He said that he did not much mind being praised and that he was not terribly concerned about being criticised, but that he shuddered when people tried to explain him. Perhaps my hon. Friend was trying to explain me; it certainly sent a shudder through me, as I found his comments almost incomprehensible.

I shall flesh out that second point a little more fully. The inclusion zealots seem to have a hidden agenda, which is that all children should be integrated regardless of need. I acknowledge that the Bill provides certain safeguards, but my experience of such matters, which stretches back 15 or 20 years, is that even though special education has been available in most parts of the country—I shall return to that point in a moment, because provision is patchy—the presumption has long been held that children should be integrated.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's view of pro-inclusion zealots. Does he not agree that they would fall in behind the amendment, so what he is saying is therefore slightly contradictory?

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

My hon. Friend the M for Daventry has already spoken about the perverse effect of the amendment. It could be used to force children into the mainstream, or protect them from it. I acknowledge the problem that arises over how such a provision in the Bill would be used and interpreted. I suspect that that would need to be tested first in tribunals and, ultimately, in law. However, the danger of not including such a provision in the Bill is that local authorities with a rather less moderate, balanced and reasonable view of matters would put children into mainstream education whether or not they or their parents wanted it. That practice has been going on for some time.

Fifteen years ago, when I was a county councillor, a member of an LEA and shadow chairman of education in Nottinghamshire, I worked with parents in just that position. They were bamboozled by the system, and felt that not enough account was taken of their child's needs and their opinions. Other people wanted to put those children into mainstream schools, and special school education was made more difficult to obtain. I am thinking particularly of out-of-county provision and even out-of-country provision, which, as hon. Members will know, has been a feature of certain local education authorities. However, the same thing applies within counties when children in mainstream schools struggle and, despite desperately wanting to return to special education, find it very hard to do so because of the local authority regime.

Local authority records in this regard are very variable. Many local authorities do a splendid job in dealing with special educational needs, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn) pointed out, that is by no means universal. The universal quality of provision that we all want has not really existed under Governments of either party. I know that my hon. Friend is scrupulously honest about such matters, but if he were to discuss what happened before 1997, he would no doubt readily acknowledge that, even in those halcyon days of Conservative rule, special educational needs provision was patchy. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) tries from a sedentary position to cast doubt on my analysis. I find that surprising.

Nick St Aubyn (Conservative, Guildford)

The difference between the Ofsted reports for this year and those from our time in government is that we fought a battle for many years to improve education provision across the board. We were winning that handsomely. The new report states that there is little evidence of improvement in the performance of LEAs in this respect. It is the lack of improvement that we should all find particularly depressing about the Government's performance in the past year.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

My hon. Friend is robustly partisan and none the worse for that. I am a moderate, particularly when elections are in prospect. Although my hon. Friend may be right, and performance may have deteriorated since 1997—certainly there has been no improvement—my experience of the 1980s was that provision was patchy.

Kali Mountford (Labour, Colne Valley)

On what does the hon. Gentleman base his analysis? Does he recall when Ofsted began its involvement in special educational needs? Can he draw any conclusions from that?

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I am drawing on my direct involvement in special education as a member of a local education authority. I first took an interest in the issue at about the time of Warnock and the Education Act 1981. Throughout the 1980s, I worked with a number of parents whose children were not receiving the education that they needed to allow them to fulfil their potential. Most usually, though not exclusively, that was because they were denied a place in an establishment providing special education, whether within the county, out-of-county or even out-of-country.

To be fair, I also dealt with cases of children who wanted a mainstream place and could not get it. I have encountered such cases since and I expect that other members of the Committee have, too. That cuts both ways. As the Committee seems to be strongly in favour of integration, it is important to point out that many parents and children are quite fearful that the further closure of special schools will remove the quite proper choice of a special education for the children most likely to fulfil their potential through such provision.

It being One o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned till this day at half-past Four o'clock.

Standing Committee B

Clause 1 - Education in mainstream schools of children with special educational needs

Bill O'Brien (Labour, Normanton)

I remind the Committee that with this we are taking the following amendments: No. 2, in page 1, line 14, leave out from `parent' to end of line 15.

New clause 1—Duty of education providers—

`.—It shall be the duty of all providers of education under the provisions of this Act and of all professions and ancillary agencies providing services in connection with special educational needs to have regard to—

(a) the educational needs of the particular child; and

(b) the need for partnership working in order to ensure efficient and appropriate educational outcomes.'.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

After a good lunch and half a bottle of Chateau Musar, I feel invigorated and somewhat better equipped to deal with this testing subject. I did not welcome you to the Chair, Mr. O'Brien, but I should like to do so now and apologise for not doing so earlier.

To refresh the memories of Committee members, I was about to make three points on the amendment that we tabled relating to the special educational needs of the child. I think that I dealt adequately with my concern about social, cultural and moral issues—I at least paraphrased Baroness Blackstone, if I did not quote her directly—and the possible conflicts that might arise with educational interests. I said that there would not necessarily, but might possibly, be a conflict.

I then moved on to talk about those whom I described as inclusion zealots. I hope that I presented my argument in a balanced way by saying that I was well aware of the fact that there are zealots on both sides of the argument, but fortunately none of them resides in Committee.

My third point is about the pragmatists who favour inclusion. There are those who favour integrating children into the mainstream at all costs, and those people—this was raised earlier both by Opposition Members and, by implication at least, by Labour Members in relation to the response to the Green Paper—who regard the Bill as an opportunity to amend provision in a way that goes against choice and diversity. Those people might be motivated by causes less noble than the interests of children with special needs.

Let me put that more candidly, because I have been speaking broadly to avoid offence. Some local authorities will view the measure as a cost-cutting exercise. The Committee knows that that is not the case, and that integration is not a cheap option. In fact, one might argue that it is a more expensive option, if the necessary resources are put in place in mainstream schools to make inclusion a success. However, all too often that is not the case and the necessary resources are not put in place. We all know of schools that are absorbing children with special educational needs without the means to do so properly. I am referring to physical issues, such as access. We have had some good news about that from Government, and reference was made earlier to the use of information technology in that regard, a subject in which I am extremely interested.

Evan Harris (Liberal Democrat, Oxford West and Abingdon)

I do not defend cost cutting generally, although cuts are not usually the fault of the local education authority and often result from Government under-funding, but how would the hon. Gentleman distinguish a cost-cutting exercise from the efficient provision of services?

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that that is one of the reasons why we tabled the amendment. There is a real danger that the efficient education of other children might be used by those who view the matter more cynically as an excuse—

Tim Boswell (Conservative, Daventry)

A bean-counter's charter.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I would not want to condemn accountants because, although I am not one, I have one, without whom my financial affairs would be in more difficulty than they are at the moment. However, it is true to say that an accountant mentality, if applied to education, would carefully study the costs—what the hon. Gentleman described as efficiencies—of integration, and might conclude that the expense could not be borne satisfactorily by local council taxpayers. That charge could equally be made against the provision of special education. For example, there is a special school in my constituency with about 80 pupils, and if those less sympathetic than us to the needs of special education provision were to consider it ruthlessly and ask whether those pupils were costing more than they ought, they might want to make economies.

We know from responses to the Green Paper—we heard this from the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Kali Mountford) and from my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson)—that local authorities have already seized the initiative, to put it kindly, and even without the Bill have conducted exercises that can only be described as driven by a cost-cutting accountancy mentality, rather than by a robust desire to defend the interests of special needs children.

Evan Harris (Liberal Democrat, Oxford West and Abingdon)

I am sorry to press the hon. Gentleman, but will he explain how he differentiates such behaviour from the continuing efficiency savings in the public sector that his party advocated in higher education, and on which the Government have continued to insist? I do not want to make a judgment, but that mantra is often chanted by Conservative councillors in local education authorities.

Bill O'Brien (Labour, Normanton)

Order. Will the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) turn round and address the Chair?

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I apologise, Mr. O'Brien. I was seduced by the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) into addressing neither the Chair nor, frankly, the subject. We certainly do not want to enter a philosophical debate about the efficiencies of Conservative Administrations compared with those run by Liberal Democrats. However I am reminded of a former Liberal leader, Lloyd George, who said that one cannot succeed in politics if one relies too much on one's conscience. That policy has permeated Liberal party thinking throughout history, but it certainly does not permeate Conservative party thinking.

There is a balance to be struck between the proper use of council taxpayers' and general taxpayers' resources and the best possible provision for special needs children. My point is that unless we are careful and stipulate clearly that the educational needs of the child must come first, there are those on the zealous wing of integration—inclusionists—and on the rather less noble and less well-meaning wing of cost-cutters who may look for the cheapest rather than the best route to provide special needs education.

Harry Barnes (Labour, North East Derbyshire)

Can the hon. Gentleman tell us when the Opposition changed their mind on that matter and decided to table amendment No. 2? On Second Reading, the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) said:

``It is therefore right that the Bill includes consideration of the provision of efficient education for other children as well as parents' wishes.''—[Official Report, 20 March 2001; Vol. 365, c. 224.]

Therefore, the provision that the amendment would remove was supported by the Opposition on Second Reading. What was the Opposition's reasoning then, and why has it changed?

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I had not even got on to amendment No. 2; the hon. Gentleman anticipates my remarks. I was merely sailing through amendment No. 1. I am coming to amendment No. 2—I alluded to it, but I have further points to make about it. As my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) pointed out, amendment No. 2 is a probing amendment to enable us to debate the matter more fully. However, I was speaking about amendment No. 1 and the need to write into the Bill that the educational needs of the child are paramount.

Evan Harris (Liberal Democrat, Oxford West and Abingdon)

The hon. Gentleman did not answer my previous question. Without making a judgment about efficiency savings—although I generally do—is the hon. Gentleman in favour of enforcing efficiency savings in higher education and other public sectors, while disapproving of them, for better or worse, in special educational provision?

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

With your characteristic generosity, Mr. O'Brien, I know that you are indulging the hon. Gentleman, but I do not share your indulgence, so I do not intend to get into a debate on higher education.

We believe that it is vital that children's educational needs, and therefore their interests, are enshrined in the legislation. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that educational needs and interests are different, but they overlap.

Without desiring to repeat what my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) said, and certainly with fewer classical allusions and metaphors, as I do not share his degree of wisdom, wit or reading—

Tom Levitt (Labour, High Peak)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

No. I must make a little progress.

As my hon. Friend explained with his classical metaphors, some have argued that amendment No. 1 would have a perverse effect. Those people include responsible spokesmen of the lobby groups, pressure groups and charitable organisations that do such a fine job in defending and promoting the interests of disabled people, especially special needs children. They argue that the amendment could be used to prevent inclusion into mainstream schools. I understand the argument, and know that the problems will be difficult to resolve. As I said, they are likely to be resolved by tribunals, and may go to court. If it takes such measures to ensure that children receive the best education possible to allow them to achieve their potential—if that is the length to which we must go to protect arguably the most vulnerable children—so be it. In our balance of judgment, it is important that such a provision is a key part of the legislation.

Amendment No. 2 is about the efficient education of our children, to which the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire referred. Our amendment might seem to fly in the face of our proper concern that other children in schools are well educated. I have no great difficulty with the notion that children with, for example, emotional behavioural difficulties pose a problem for classroom teachers, who already do a difficult job. There is a strong argument for such children to be educated separately, not only in their interests, but in those of other children, who will be affected by their inclusion in mainstream.

We tabled the probing amendment because the relevant part of the Bill will undoubtedly be used as an excuse not to integrate, and therefore not to commit sufficient resources to children brought into the mainstream. The amendment is designed to ensure that the Government, through the Minister, clearly assure us that they are aware that the provision could be misused to block the integration of children into the mainstream. The ``efficient education'' of other children is a broad term. I do not want to be too cynical, as I am not a cynic—I am a romantic, as you know, Mr. O'Brien—but the term could be used cynically to frustrate the thrust of the legislation and the intentions of the Committee to do the best for children brought into mainstream schools.

I can tell the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire that the amendment does not indicate a change of mind. It is simply an attempt to probe how the Government intend to overcome the possible misuse of the provision to frustrate their, his and our intentions.

Harry Barnes (Labour, North East Derbyshire)

Should not even a probing amendment be tabled on the basis that its provisions could be put into the legislation? Such amendments should not simply arouse a discussion around the topic, although that is part of the reason for them. There should be some logic behind the proposals that are made.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

If I were a logical man, I would not be here. I would be earning a lot more money doing a flash job in the City. I hope that the Minister, my hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman are here because we are men of courage, conscience and vision—

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

And women.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

And women, yes. I was using the generic term, being neither a student nor a supporter of political correctness. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman knows very well, from his long experience on Standing Committees, that probing amendments are designed to enable proper and thorough debate of issues that otherwise would not be aired. The hon. Gentleman, with his great experience and wisdom, may have made that point tongue in cheek—I will put it no more strongly than that.

That brings me to my concerns about resources. Such concerns were aired extensively on Second Reading, and I do not want to repeat what was said then. They were also explored in the debate in the other place, and I particularly note the contribution to that debate made by Lord Ashley of Stoke, who, in moving an amendment, mentioned that the Royal National Institute for Deaf People had sent him some striking examples of unreasonable fears about children being included and resources being inadequate. He referred to teachers who refuse to wear neck loop microphones with a deaf child in the class, preventing that child from taking part in normal teaching and learning.

There are many examples that one could use to support our concern about resources. They centre on physical difficulties, such as the case I just mentioned, and on the problem of access, with which we are all familiar. The provision of appropriate information technology is also an issue, and I welcome the Government's commitment to that.

However, the concerns also centre on the skilling and support of teachers, because that builds the confidence of teachers in mainstream schools and allows them frequently to adapt their skills to educate children with particular needs. That matter has not received the judgment or the attention that it deserves from any Government since we began seriously to bring children into mainstream education, post-Warnock and after the Education Act 1981. It is not sufficient to say to a teacher, ``There's another child in the class, they have a statement, do your best for them.''

The particular needs of certain children must be considered most seriously. Those needs are not always straightforward. In the context of disability, we tend to envisage people with spinal injuries or with a permanent or visible disability, but when a teacher is dealing with different types of learning difficulty and physical impairment, the needs are complex, subtle and often changing. Teachers need to be skilled and supported so that they can identify those needs, have empathy with them and adapt their teaching styles and the learning process to deal with them properly. They must be able to support children with those needs.

Tim Boswell (Conservative, Daventry)

I am sensitive to my hon. Friend's points. Does he agree that it is crucial that teachers are provided with proper training in the induction process, because when children move from the more protected environment of a special school to a mainstream setting they may experience initial problems from which they never recover?

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

My hon. Friend is right. History shows that children who are integrated into mainstream schools from special schools and have a bad experience in the first few weeks or months often end up returning to special education and never get back into the mainstream.

The induction process is critical, as is the age of the child. The Committee will remember that the Office for Standards in Education report that was referred to earlier in proceedings specifically dealt with the issue of children going from the primary sector into the secondary sector, and the difficulties that children without special educational needs often experience—particularly boys, according to the report—at that stage of their education. If a special educational need is added to that cocktail, there is the potential for a poisonous experience that will damage the child, and perhaps also deter teachers from dealing with future challenges regarding children with special needs.

We must support our teachers. That is the other reason why I am concerned about the issue of

``efficient education for other children''.

I fear that it could be used once again as an excuse not to provide sufficient re-skilling, retraining and resources to allow for the increase in the number of children who will be educated in mainstream classes in mainstream schools—hence, probing amendment No. 2.

New clause 1 brings me to the issue of dynamic special needs, which was not debated at great length in the Lords, and has not coloured our consideration of the Bill thus far. I am joint chairman of the all-party disablement group, and I should like to put on the record the fact that it does not share all my concerns about this issue. We have discussed it, and my views are not shared by the majority of members. I am also secretary of the all-party group on acquired brain injury—a subject in which I have taken an interest since I came to this House and before. The needs of a child who suffers from an acquired disability, and therefore acquired special educational need, can change dramatically during the course of his or her education.

Picture a child who is injured in an accident and who has been part of a mainstream school where he was making strong educational progress. At the age of 10, 11 or 12 he is suddenly disabled with a brain injury, and immediately he has very different educational needs, which are likely to be changing and dynamic but also subtle. He might have problems of concentration, temperament or unsuitable social behaviour, and it is difficult for a teacher, a parent or anyone associated with that individual to cope with and to understand those problems. His needs will change. For some of the time it may be in the interest of the child to be educated outside mainstream education. Later, he may return to his original school, if he has not by that stage moved into the age range for secondary school.

We should ensure that the Bill takes account of such dynamic special needs. Historically, our handling of that area of special needs education has not been a great success. There has not been sufficient flexibility to allow movement from the mainstream into special education and out again. Although that is fine for an unchanging need—typically, a physical disability such as the spinal injury which, once dealt with medically, establishes a need that does not alter a great deal over time—it is not suitable for the dynamic need associated with, for example, an acquired brain injury.

It is critical that agencies work together. All those involved need a co-ordinated and coherent approach in order to create the best possible opportunity for that child, and subsequently for that person as a young adult. I have put it in anonymous terms, but through my work in this field I have known many children and young people who have been through that experience.

Existing legislation does not go far enough, and the Bill does not deal adequately with that issue. I believe that most of those associated with special educational needs outside Parliament would agree with much of what I have said. I hope that new clause 1 will stimulate and encourage co-operation and communication such as I have briefly tried to outline.

I did not mention Ovid or Horace, but I may do so later, as I was reading about them during our long lunch break. I hope that the amendments are acceptable to the Government, as they are largely if not wholly constructive. They are not meant to damage or ruin the Bill; they are designed to improve and build on it. We have a sharp and genuine disagreement on amendment No. 1, but it is a disagreement about a common objective. That objective is to allow all children, regardless of where they start, the opportunity to achieve their potential. That is where we stand. I hope that the Committee will support the amendments.

Tom Levitt (Labour, High Peak)

The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings started by saying that he would be brief. I am glad that he was; he has taken almost three quarters of an hour. I shall be considerably briefer. Indeed, I am prompted to speak only because I wanted to comment on three matters mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, and if I had tried to intervene, Mr. O'Brien, you might have got bored with me—and my spine might have taken quite a battering.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the importance of skilling mainstream teachers for special needs. He was absolutely right, and I am sure that all hon. Members agree. However, he implied that it was not already happening, but it is. I bring fraternal greetings to the Committee from my mother. Until recently, she was a governor of Horton Lodge special school in Staffordshire. Coincidentally, since she ceased to chair the governing body, that school has received an excellence award and has been given beacon status because of its work in making its skills and training available to teachers dealing with special needs children in mainstream schools. I am sure that the Committee will want to commend the school—and the Department for recognising it and giving the school beacon status.

The hon. Gentleman and other Opposition Members seemed to imply that judgments would have to be made outside the school environment. Indeed, it was conceded on Second Reading that local education authorities would have a role to play in assessing the various demands. I commend them for that, but I am intrigued because the previous Tory Government passed legislation that made it unnecessary to have a local education authority. The fact that every LEA survived that change in legislation shows that the Tories were wrong; I am pleased that they have come back to the cause of LEAs.

I do not support the amendment, but I shall speak positively about the remarks of the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings on the proper role of special educational schools. I refer in particular to the special education of profoundly deaf children. I know the hon. Gentleman has great empathy with that group of children. Education authorities and the Department for Education and Employment will have real problems dealing with informed parental choice—I put it no stronger than that.

It is simply not good enough to leave parents to choose without knowing the full consequences and implications of what they are doing—for instance, parents who are profoundly deaf and use sign language and have a profoundly deaf child. It would be legitimate for that family to choose for the child to be brought up within a sign-language environment. That may not be the right environment for other profoundly deaf children, or for children with a lesser degree of hearing impairment. However, parents should have the opportunity to choose a sign language environment. I believe--my belief is not wholly shared across the special needs spectrum—that a child who can develop one language will be much better at picking up a second. If sign language is the natural language for that child, it should at least be given a chance to flourish before the introduction of written English.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

The hon. Gentleman speaks with great integrity and knowledge on the subject. He acknowledged that I have a personal interest in the matter, apart from a philanthropic interest. When I was a member of an LEA in Nottinghamshire, I dealt with a case which was exactly as he describes—profoundly deaf parents with a profoundly deaf child, who fought to get that child into special education. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that that could be a bridge into mainstream education. At the very least, it was necessary for the child to have a period of specialist education outside the mainstream to make crossing that bridge easier.

Tom Levitt (Labour, High Peak)

I accept that point entirely. I said on Second Reading that the GCSE achievements of children with hearing impairments are considerably lower than those of children without such impairments. That suggests that, at some stage, the language environment has been the real issue at stake. I commend localities in which hearing children have been taught sign language as a way of better integrating a deaf child whose first language is sign language but whose parents have chosen to use the mainstream route. The important point is that parents should make informed choices. Having made those choices, they should have the opportunity to exercise them. That should be overseen by a local authority, and, when necessary, by mainstream teachers—as well as special teachers—who are well versed in the problems of children with special educational needs.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

We have had a wide-ranging debate, and I shall try to address the wide range of issues that have been covered.

It would be useful if Committee members were to cast their minds back to the issue of partnerships. The hon. Member for Daventry rightly highlighted the need to establish partnerships to ensure that we obtain the best services for our children. My argument against including that provision in new clause 1 is that we are already making good progress in that area, which is exemplified by the use of speech language therapy, to which he referred. We have already considered how we can use the flexibilities introduced under the Health Act 1999 with the support that we have made available through the standards fund and piloted speech and language projects, which are aimed precisely at bringing together education and health. That allows education, health and social services to work in partnership, including pooling resources to provide a joined-up approach.

Through our regional partnerships, we have already championed a co-ordinated approach. In 11 areas, they have brought together local partners from health, social services, education, employment and the voluntary and private sectors, and are bearing fruit. From this April, we shall be taking a far more strategic approach, including improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the special educational needs provision and services. Regional partnerships are particularly championing inter-agency work locally and regionally. I should be happy to make available to the Committee copies of the initial impressions report on the work of those regional partnerships, which was produced by the evaluation team from Manchester university.

Tim Boswell (Conservative, Daventry)

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way at such an early stage in the proceedings. As she knows, I have a certain interest in those partnerships. I am sure that all members of the Committee would like to see the report. I wish to flag up a worry of the Royal School for Deaf Children in Margate, which has been passed on by my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale). The head of the school writes:

``I have major concerns about the apparent lack of openness or an apparent lack of consultative and collaborative involvement of NASS (National Association for Independent and Non-Maintained Special Schools) and Voluntary organisations.''

I ask the Minister to reflect on that. I am sure that a copy of the letter can be made available to her. Will she ensure that such matters are properly tied up so that the partnerships have greater continuing and developing credibility?

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. The involvement of such organisations is crucial, which is why the chief executive of NASS is on the national steering group for regional planning projects. I am willing to make the report available to the Committee, and the first two case studies arising from the regional partnerships, which focus on developing services for children and young people with autistic spectrum disorders in the west midlands and on the use of out-county and out-city provision in the east of England. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will recognise the significant progress that we are making in the important area of partnerships.

The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings spoke of his worry about acquired brain injury. I have had a productive meeting with organisations representing children with such injury. Following that meeting, we made arrangements for those organisations to establish a presence in our inclusion site to help to raise awareness. I agree with members of the Committee about the need for awareness among teachers about what is involved in working effectively and properly with children with different needs. We shall also include references in the guidance for health professionals on special educational needs that we are developing with the Department of Health. I hope that the hon. Gentleman accepts my assurance that we are talking practical steps to develop important partnerships.

Amendment No. 1 and new clause 1 have caused much key discussion on the need to safeguard the interests of children with special educational needs. It was suggested, although in a reasonably friendly manner, that the Government are not concerned about the needs or the interests of children with special educational needs. That could not be further from the truth. We believe strongly that amendment No. 1 and new clause 1 are unnecessary because, as the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon said, there are safeguards elsewhere that protect the interests of children with special educational needs. To reiterate an earlier point, that is one of the reasons why the Special Educational Consortium supports our approach.

The whole point of the Education Act 1996 and the special educational needs framework is to ensure that children's needs are met. Clause 1 does not stand on its own. It works in conjunction with other provisions, both legal and monitoring. It is worth while reviewing the provisions of the Education Act 1996 that protect children with special educational needs. Section 7 requires parents to cause their children to receive full-time education that is suitable to any special educational needs that they may have. Section 9 ensures that pupils are educated in accordance with the wishes of their parents so far as that is compatible with the provision of efficient instruction and training. Section 14 requires local education authorities to ensure that sufficient schools are available for their area to secure special educational provision. I hope that that answers the hon. Gentleman's question.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

When I asked the Minister in a written parliamentary question in November how much time was spent training teachers in the skills required to teach children with special educational needs, she said that the information was not collected centrally. Although there is now a requirement for teachers to show that they have grasped the basics in that respect, I am not sure that there is consistent training or that those skills are being applied. The Minister must acknowledge, as I would acknowledge about the previous Government, that performance in this field is patchy.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

I suspect that I went on to point out the significant improvements that have been made in teacher training in this field. As the hon. Gentleman has already accepted, changes have been made to qualified teacher status, and teachers must now show evidence of recognising special educational needs and understanding what is required to deal with them. That is subsequently followed up in their induction year.

We have worked with the National Association for Special Educational Needs to help provide resources to schools and teachers to back up the specialist standards that have been developed alongside the Teacher Training Agency. Significant resources are being provided through the standards fund. Indeed, more has been provided for the training of teachers and learning support assistants in the SEN standards fund this year than was provided in the entire SEN standards fund for 1996-97.

Tim Boswell (Conservative, Daventry)

If I may pick up the point that the Minister has just made in response to my hon. Friend's point about the training and competencies of teachers, we began work on the matter—I was anxious for us to do so—in the mid-1990s, and I am glad that it is coming to fruition. She rather skated over the duty in section 9 of the 1996 Act to educate children in accordance with their parents' wishes. She made an omission that, unless I have overlooked something, it is relevant to place on record. She referred to compatibility with the provision of efficient instruction and training, but she stopped at that point without adding the words, which are, I believe, still in the 1996 statute,

``and the avoidance of unreasonable public expenditure.''

I mention that not to correct the Minister but to draw attention to the underlying fear in the minds of many local education authorities and people who do not have a particular axe to grind that policies of what might be termed theological inclusion are likely to give rise to exactly those anxieties about huge expenditure for little benefit. She needs to respond to that in relation either to this matter or efficient education, which we shall discuss in a moment.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

I assure the hon. Gentleman that I shall discuss resources in a moment.

I was rudely interrupted—

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

Not rudely.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

I was interrupted when pointing out to the hon. Member for Tewkesbury that section 14 of the 1996 Act gives him some reassurance about the need for local education authorities to secure special educational provision in the authority.

Laurence Robertson (Conservative, Tewkesbury)

May I ask an innocent question? How can the Minister ensure that the council will not close all special schools in its area? She has said several times that she does not have the power to prevent the closure of special schools. I dispute the contention that she has no hand in that unless she appoints an adjudicator. Will she explain how that will work in Gloucestershire, where the council seems determined to close such schools?

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

I was going to discuss that later. The local organisation of schools is an issue for local decision. Local reorganisation of schools will always happen. In my constituency, 10 schools are being closed as part of a reorganisation. I understand the pain that that causes, but I do not believe that our system is stuck in concrete and incapable of change.

I can tell the hon. Member for Tewkesbury that Gloucestershire has a responsibility continually to keep in mind its provision for children with special educational needs. It has chosen to review the provision, and I understand that the review will continue for some time as the authority carries out extensive consultation with local schools and parents. Any proposals will have to be put to the school organisation committee, on which there is a representative of a special school in Gloucestershire. I believe that that representative is a parent governor at the Alderman Knight school, about which the hon. Gentleman has been especially vocal. If the school organisation committee fails to come to a unanimous decision, the decision will go to an adjudicator.

The hon. Gentleman continues to suggest that Ministers have some influence over the independent adjudicator. I can only reiterate that that is not the case. As my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley said, local Members of Parliament must undertake their constituency responsibilities and make the arguments at a local level. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman says from a sedentary position that I did not answer his question. He said that I could influence the independent adjudicator, and I have made my position clear on that point.

Laurence Robertson (Conservative, Tewkesbury)

The Minister gave a detailed explanation of how local decision-making works. However, I want to know how the Bill provides that there will be special schools in Gloucestershire?

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

The Bill neither provides that nor makes it less likely. The local education authority must ensure adequate provision for special educational needs in Gloucestershire by acting in line with the law.

Nick St Aubyn (Conservative, Guildford)

The Minister mentioned safeguards elsewhere, but I hope that she will be more specific about those safeguards in respect of children's needs. This point ties in directly with my hon. Friend's point. If the legislation moves away from that focus on children's needs, he fears—and I share his fear—that the dynamic behind providing separate special schools will be undermined. That is why the matter is important.

I refer back to section 316 of the 1996 Act, which refers to the child

``receiving the special educational provision which his learning difficulty calls for''.

The lack of that one line is worrying, as it seems to mark a change in emphasis in the legislation.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

I was in the process of outlining where the safeguards lie for the child's best interests when I was tempted down various different alleys by Opposition Members. Wanting to oblige them, I disappeared down those alleys, but I will now return to the safeguards that exist not only in the legislation but in other places.

Section 317 of the 1996 Act requires governors of all maintained schools to use their best endeavours to ensure that any pupil who has special educational needs receives the provision that his or her learning difficulty calls for. Section 324 provides for statements of special educational needs to be maintained and made by local education authorities. Schedule 27 ensures that the child's individual needs are taken into account in deciding whether to name a parent's choice of a maintained school in a statement.

Furthermore, the special educational needs code of practice and the statementing process ensure that children's needs are identified and that appropriate action is taken to enable them to achieve their potential. Statements specify the provision that should be made, and local education authorities are under a duty to arrange it.

On the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) and the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon about the voice of the child, I can assure the Committee that we consider that very important. We have made it clear in the revised code of practice that we will expect local education authorities to take account of the ascertainable views and wishes of an individual child, not only in terms of assessment and provision—including the school or type of school—but in several ways throughout their education, from the early years.

Tim Boswell (Conservative, Daventry)

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, though she has perhaps done so too promptly. Will she comment on a situation in which two natural parents, who may no longer be in a relationship, have differing views about the welfare of the child, so that the parental advice is split? I realise that such an issue would be sensitive, but we should have some steer as to what a tribunal or local education authority should do if such representations are made.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

Clearly, that would be a difficult situation. I should have thought that the parent partnership services that are proposed later in the Bill would have an important role to play in such a situation by facilitating agreement between parents. The local education authority would have to consider the views of both parents.

Issues have been raised about a conflict between the wishes of the child and the role of parents. LEAs will take account of the views of a child, and the revised code of practice will make that need more explicit. We shall provide guidance to enable that. However, in the event of an impasse, parents' views will take precedence over the views of the child, for some of the reasons outlined by the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon. Parents have a legal duty to ensure that their child receives education, and they may express a preference for a maintained school.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

The Minister is being typically generous in giving way. I do not want to tempt her in the way that she was tempted earlier.

The Minister has, very honestly, made it clear that in the case of a parental dispute, the desires and wishes of both parents will be taken into account. If our amendment were accepted and the specific educational needs of the child were paramount, would that provide those who are taking the views into account with a touchstone for their final decision? I am referring to tribunals and, if the matter went further, to the courts. Would it not be helpful, for such deliberations, to include the amendment in the Bill?

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

I have pointed out that the best interests of a child are at the centre of the process in a range of ways. Our argument is not that the best interests of the child are not important, but that we believe that they are safeguarded in the range of ways that have been outlined.

We have agreed that Her Majesty's chief inspector of schools will monitor the new inclusion framework, which will help to prevent abuses and ensure that the needs of the child are safeguarded. Additionally, we will issue statutory guidance, about which we will consult widely, on the practical operation of the new framework. The guidance will set out clearly the safeguards that I have highlighted.

Win Griffiths (Labour, Bridgend)

My hon. Friend has mentioned the guidance, and she has stated that an amended version of the code of practice will be published at some time in the future. Will she be more specific about the timing? Although the Bill deals satisfactorily with the concerns that it addresses, the guidance and the code of practice will be vital to how it works?

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

I agree that both documents are important, as they will enable us to put flesh on the bones of what the legislation is intended to achieve.However, the guidance and the code of practice are influenced by the passage of the Bill. We have carried out consultation on the revised code of practice, and we propose to introduce it for approval by Parliament soon after the Bill receives Royal Assent. We have also begun to work on the inclusion guidance, and we are discussing its contents with organisations that are concerned about the matter.

Evan Harris (Liberal Democrat, Oxford West and Abingdon)

I have listened carefully to the hon. Lady's detailed and thoughtful response. With regard to the code of practice, she mentioned that the views of the child would be sought, and I thought she was about to explain that point, when she was interrupted. I would be grateful if she would clarify that for the record, so that her reference cannot be considered merely as a token reference. What will be the status of the views of the child in the process?

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

I thought that I had made that clear. The revised code of practice is, of course, statutory, and the local education authority should emphasise the need to ascertain the wishes of the child, not only in the statementing process, but with reference to the range of provisions to which he or she might be subject. That is how to safeguard the best interests of the child.

We are concerned about new clause 1 because it seeks to reinstate, through the back door, provisions that are similar in their general effect to the first caveat of section 316 of the 1996 Act. Committee members are aware that the Government decided to drop the caveat because we believed that it had been abused. It has often been used to block inclusion, rather than to protect the needs of the child. That view is held by the people who responded to our consultation and by many of the lobby groups that have contacted us.

The hon. Member for Daventry referred to the example that I mentioned on Second Reading, and I shall now recount another. In this case, a child with Down's syndrome had been successfully placed in mainstream classes since reception. In year eight, the child's family relocated to a different area where the local education authority stated that a mainstream school could not cater for the child's needs, and a place was offered only after the parents had lodged an appeal. That was a grave misuse of the caveat, and the story further supports our argument that it has often been used against a child's interests.

The hon. Gentleman suggested that my previous example implied that the system was working well, because the tribunal had sorted out the problem: when the parents appealed, a mainstream place was offered. However, parents should not have to fight for their child's inclusion. It is not good enough merely to say that the tribunal will sort matters out. When parents have to fight for what they believe to be right for their children, it often results, at least, in prolonged worry for the entire family, and the child sometimes does not receive the education provision that he or she needs for a period.

Tim Boswell (Conservative, Daventry)

I have been following the hon. Lady's arguments with interest and a degree of anticipation. Will she explain to the Committee why such difficulties, which must inhere in the local education authority, would be excised by removal of the caveat? What safeguards will there be for the individual child because of the removal of that caveat? Even if she waves her magic wand and asks for an inclusion policy, how will it emerge in practice? I am referring to the need for redress when LEAs are recalcitrant.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

Clause 1 sends an important positive message about inclusion. The point about recalcitrant LEAs relates more to efficient education. Our proposals will mean that maintained schools and LEAs will have to justify why no reasonable steps could be taken to prevent a child's inclusion from being incompatible with the efficient education of other children. I hope that that is an adequate response to the concerns expressed by some hon. Members about whether LEAs would be able to use the caveat of efficient education to deprive children of a mainstream place when their parents want it.

Tim Boswell (Conservative, Daventry)

These are important issues and it is right to discuss them. Is the measure to which the Minister referred tied to the general duties of LEAs in relation to disability discrimination as laid out in this Bill, rather than to the SEN provisions? I am not clear as to how those two different aspects interact.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

We will go on to consider the duties of LEAs and schools in relation to reasonable adjustments and the duty to plan when we discuss the second part of the Bill.

Concern has been expressed whether the efficient education caveat can be used to deprive a child of a mainstream place. Our argument is that the Bill ensures that LEAs will have to justify their inability to take reasonable steps if they use that caveat. The clause transforms section 316 into a positive force for inclusion.

Some Members have suggested that our plans are intended to save money and create inclusion on the cheap. Others have raised sensible concerns about whether resources are available to fulfil the aim of the legislation. We are clear that inclusion is not related to cutting costs; that is why we have already pledged and made available significant additional resources to facilitate the inclusion of children in mainstream schools in a meaningful way, delivering the high standards of educational achievement that we want for those children.

I repeat that £82 million is being made available through the standards fund for 2001-02 and £220 million is being made available over the next three years through the schools access initiative, in addition to increased overall funding for schools. It is worth pointing out that under this Government, real terms increases in overall funding per pupil have been more than £300 per pupil already and, by 2003-04, they will amount to nearly £750 per pupil, in comparison with 1997-98.

Tim Boswell (Conservative, Daventry)

We are fairly used to the rehearsal of figures by Ministers who are trying to show how generous they have been to education. May I bring the Minister back to the specific point about LEAs? Insofar as they have additional duties and obligations under the Bill, will she give an assurance that the revenue support grant will be adjusted to take into account additional current costs in discharging those duties?

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

I was pointing out that we have not only put in place specific support for some of the issues raised today but, through the significant extra funding that we have already made available and planned to put into schools, ensured that resources will be there to enable the sort of high-quality and inclusive education that we all want.

The hon. Gentleman might not enjoy hearing me rehearse the extra money that the Government have made available to schools, but it is important to emphasise that the increase in funding has not just been made through revenue funding. We must also consider capital spending over and above the schools access initiative, including public finance initiative credits. As I pointed out on Second Reading, the overall increase in capital spending has often improved special educational needs facilities in schools as well.

I do not completely agree with the hon. Gentleman's argument that capital funding always brings additions to revenue funding. In some cases, sensible capital funding may help to relieve pressures on revenue funding. Some £1.35 billion of additional provision has been included in the standard spending assessment for 2002-03, showing that the Government are serious about raising standards for all children, including those with special educational needs, regardless of whether they are in mainstream or special schools. As I also pointed out on Second Reading, funding per pupil in special schools has increased by 20 per cent. in real terms between 1997-98 and 2000-01.

Evan Harris (Liberal Democrat, Oxford West and Abingdon)

The Minister must accept that, however generous the Government have been, they have not provided an answer. Simply to state how much money they have given does not relieve concern about whether it will be enough. Had the sum been £181 million rather than £221 million, she would still have announced it, even though it was £40 million less. I am sure that the sum is generous in her terms, but she must be aware of concern that some estimates of the cost of the measures exceed the sum that she gave. It is the potential gap rather than sum that counts.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

It is my job to understand such points. In any such situation, Opposition Members will raise the issue of resources. We live in a world in which local authorities and schools have had extra resources provided by the Government. They faced cuts under the previous Government, and under Conservative spending plans, face cuts again if the Conservatives ever get back into government. That is the reality that I seek to demonstrate.

Nick St Aubyn (Conservative, Guildford)

The Minister must know that funding for education must keep pace with growth in the economy because, broadly speaking, teachers' salaries need to rise in line with inflation.

Bill O'Brien (Labour, Normanton)

Order. We are broadening the issue much too much by talking of teachers' salaries and revenue support grants. I have been tolerant, but I want the Minister to deal with the points raised in the amendment.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

I shall come to the point raised by some hon. Members about the threat that the Bill might pose to special schools. It has been suggested that inclusion is an agenda to close many special schools. I am keen to put it on record, yet again, that that is not the case. Special schools have nothing to fear from the Bill. We seek to ensure excellence and choice for all.

I have visited several special schools, and have been impressed by what I have seen. Some of the heads and teachers whom I met told me that they did not feel threatened by the development of inclusion, and instead knew that they had a continuing vital role to play in an inclusive educational system. My hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Levitt) has already pointed out how such schools can operate. Along, I am sure, with other hon. Members, I pass on my congratulations to the school that he mentioned, the name of which temporarily escapes me.

Tom Levitt (Labour, High Peak)

Horton Lodge.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

I thank my hon. Friend. That school is clearly doing exactly the sort of job in its links with mainstream schools that the Government consider important.

The hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn) appeared to agree that the role that we envisage for special schools by developing such links is important. Does he recognise that special and mainstream schools are better able to work together because of the Government's investment through the standards fund? Last year, I was pleased to launch the CD-Rom ``Connecting Schools for Inclusion'', which not only expresses the wish for but provides the practical means by which schools can work together.

I have dealt with some of the concerns raised by the hon. Member for Tewkesbury, but I must reiterate that there will continue to be changes to local provision to reflect local circumstances; that has always been the case.

Nick St Aubyn (Conservative, Guildford)

If the Minister is about to close her remarks, I hope that she will not do so without answering my questions about the cost of funding disputes under the system and how that will be affected by the Bill.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

Unfortunately, I am not yet drawing my remarks to a close, much to the chagrin of the Government Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts). I shall make some progress.

The size of the special school sector dropped from 1.3 per cent. of all pupils in 1991 to 1.2 per cent. in 1995. It has remained constant during each of the past six years, catering for 1.2 per cent. of all children. We do not envisage that that will change dramatically. We have a buoyant, vibrant specialist school sector, which is what the Government want.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

Will the Minister give way?

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

No, I will make some progress.

Amendment No. 1 provides that the educational needs of individual pupils—presumably children with special educational needs—are paramount. The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon pointed out some of the problems with that. Presumably, that would mean that their need would override any other considerations. Although it is important to meet the needs of children with special educational needs, it cannot be right that their needs should always override those of other children. I do not believe that that is what Conservative members of the Committee want, but it would be the effect of the amendment.

Ensuring that individual needs are paramount also presents a number of practical difficulties. What does the hon. Member for Daventry envisage would happen when the needs of two children conflicted? Whose needs would then be paramount? The individual needs of children must be balanced alongside the wider needs of different groups of children. That is the only way in which the interests of all children can be protected.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I do not want to cause the Minister further difficulties, or even the Government Whip more chagrin, but the amendment states ``For each such child''. If she reads the amendment in relation to the Bill, she will see that there is no suggestion of a conflict such as she describes in respect of other children, because ``each such child''—we are talking about children with special educational needs—surely means that the paramount nature of the need will relate to that child's education, rather than to the broader matters that she is introducing.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

It is far from clear that that is the case. In fact, we see clear difficulties such as those that I have outlined.

Tim Boswell (Conservative, Daventry)

Is the Minister arguing that there is a tension surrounding the importance that should be attached to the interests of the individual child which is resolved by considering it alongside the provision of efficient education for other children? Is she arguing that if that caveat were not retained, it would be impossible to see where the boundary should be drawn and, to go back to my reference to section 9 of the Education Act 1996, to see where any unreasonable cost or other use of resources was involved? Is that her argument?

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

That suggestion is flawed in many ways. It raises the question of what happens if the needs of two separate children are paramount and whether the needs of an individual child should be paramount over the needs of other children. The amendment is deeply flawed. The hon. Gentleman has made it clear that the amendment refers to the Secretary of State, but how could any Secretary of State oversee each individual child's education to ensure that his or her needs were paramount? That is simply unworkable.

Several hon. Members have raised the issue of local authorities who, they believe, are not fulfilling their functions. The hon. Member for Guildford mentioned Ofsted reports of local education authorities. Of course, we are able to analyse the competence of LEAs in respect of special educational needs because this Government introduced Ofsted inspection of LEAs. That has enabled us to see the differences in provision. With 150 LEAs, variations in performance are inevitable. Local flexibility is important, but a greater consistency of approach is needed. Our regional partnerships will promote greater consistency, as will the proposed code of practice.

We also intend to strengthen the requirements on LEAs to make clear their strategies for special educational needs through changes to the SEN information regulations. That will require them to publish their SEN policies and detailed arrangements for what schools might provide from their budgets under school-based provision. We will also bring together and emphasise the strategic roles and responsibilities of LEAs and schools for special educational needs to aid better monitoring and accountability.

Before the hon. Member for Guildford jumps up, I will reply to his question about the amount spent on disputes. It would be difficult to define a dispute and to collect data on that, but I agree that appeals to the special educational needs tribunal can be costly and waste important educational time. That is why we are placing a duty on LEAs to set up informal arrangements to prevent and resolve the disputes that we will be discussing under clause 3, but I can give the hon. Gentleman some reassurance by saying that the special educational needs tribunal's annual report for 1999-2000 revealed that, after years of growth, the number of appeals now shows signs of stabilising. The tribunal's president was able to report that, for the first time, the number of appeals registered showed no material increase over the previous year.

Nick St Aubyn (Conservative, Guildford)

The Minister's predecessor, now the Minister for School Standards, held out great promise in the first Session of this Parliament that the number and cost of appeals would go down, which would enable more money to be spent on provision for special educational needs. The Minister seems to be saying that the current system is finally bedding down, but she is now about to move the goalposts. Will that not create more grounds for disputes and appeals in future?

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

We are straying slightly into areas covered by later clauses, but the proposals that will become statutory under this legislation, which are already operating in many LEAs to resolve disputes, have led to the increase in appeals stabilising. I reassure hon. Members with concerns about local authorities that the Secretary of State already has powers under sections 496, 497 and 497A of the Education Act 1996 to intervene where LEAs or maintained schools are acting unreasonably or failing to fulfil a statutory duty, or in the case of LEAs failing to perform their functions to an adequate standard.

I must point out another problem with the amendment: it appears to seek to extend the powers of the Secretary of State to the non-maintained sector. That is the effect of its wording. Is that really what the Opposition are seeking? What additional practical and workable arrangements could be put in place that would not unduly limit local autonomy or undermine the special status that non-maintained and independent schools cherish?

One technical flaw of amendment No. 1, which makes it impossible to accept, is that it fails to take into account the fact that although the Secretary of State has overall responsibility for education in England, the National Assembly for Wales is now responsible for education in the Principality. Presumably, the amendment is intended to provide for the same duty in Wales as in England. However, with no mention being made of the National Assembly for Wales, the amendment is unacceptable. I hope that on that basis the hon. Member for Daventry feels able to withdraw it and that he will not press new clause 1.

Amendment No. 2 seeks to delete proposed new section 316(3)(b). That paragraph provides protection from the small minority of children whose inclusion would be incompatible with the efficient education of others. The amendment, as I think I pointed out in my intervention on the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings, somewhat contradicts the Opposition's arguments in support of amendment No. 1—that the needs of children must be safeguarded. The effect of the amendment would be to secure an absolute right to a mainstream place, fettered only by parental choice. That would mean that no consideration whatever could be given to the impact that a child's inclusion would have on the learning and safety of others. Is that really what the Opposition seek to achieve? We believe that the impact on others must be considered.

Tim Boswell (Conservative, Daventry)

The Minister is reading strenuously from a brief. She will recall that, at an early stage in the Committee's proceedings, I said that this was a probing amendment, designed to find out what the Government thought about the matter. She is telling us what the Government think, obliquely. However she need not hang such concerns round the neck of the Opposition.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

It is my responsibility to point out the practical realities of accepting the amendment. What parents want is important, but the amendment would make parents the sole arbiters. Where parents want a mainstream place for their child, the education service should do everything possible to provide one. Equally, where parents want more specialist provision, their wishes should be considered.

However, the needs of individual children must be balanced with the need to safeguard the interests of all children. If we accepted the amendment, it could mean that if the parents of a child who had abused another child wanted a mainstream place for their child, it would have to be provided. If the parents of a child who had demonstrated severely challenging behaviour, and had regularly attacked teachers and children, wanted a mainstream place, it would have to be provided. I do not think that that would be in anyone's interests, least of all those of the child with special educational needs.

I have already dealt with whether the efficient education caveat could be used by local authorities indiscriminately to exclude children from a mainstream place. Local education authorities have a responsibility to show that they were unable to take any reasonable steps to overcome the incompatibility between a child with special needs and a mainstream place. Given the assurance that HMCI will monitor the effect of clause 1, I hope that the hon. Member for Daventry will withdraw the amendment.

Tim Boswell (Conservative, Daventry)

We have had a long and constructive debate. I spoke at length this morning, and my hon. Friends spoke at lesser length but with considerable passion. I assure the Committee that I am sensitive to the need to make progress.

Evan Harris (Liberal Democrat, Oxford West and Abingdon)

I do not want to impede the hon. Gentleman's wish to make progress, but the Minister caught me by surprise with that quick end to her speech. I thought that she might have dealt with what I said about amendment No. 2, and wonder whether the hon. Gentleman might invite her to say why subsection (3)(b), which amendment No. 2 seeks to remove, uses the word ``efficient'', not ``effective''?

Tim Boswell (Conservative, Daventry)

The hon. Gentleman is helpful. The Minister may like to respond, but if she does not feel happy about doing so tonight, she may wish to do so in correspondence. Given the exigencies of time, she will have to be quick about it, but we would be happy either way.

The hon. Gentleman's intervention leads me to respond to his gentle chiding of me some hours ago. He pointed out a degree of waver in the various terms that I had used. I realise that the needs of the child, the wishes of the child and the wishes of the parents as proxy for the child are slippery concepts. Important distinctions must be made, and I acknowledge that in the hands of lawyers, they are often crucial.

I shall pick out specific comments made in the debate. I enjoyed the contribution of the hon. Member for High Peak, and was pleased to hear a voice from the Government Benches speaking up for special education when it was appropriate. He said that some excellent special schools are keyed into the overall system, which was worth saying. He spoke about our attitude to local education authorities. We have consistently made it clear in our proposals on free schools that local authorities would have a continuing role in order to secure provision, but not necessarily to provide it. However, we are well aware of the importance of statementing and other provisions in that extremely sensitive area.

It would be fair to say that the Minister made a good fist of responding to some of the complex and serious issues that were raised, about which we feel strongly. She was good, but not quite good enough to tempt me to withdraw the amendment.

I shall mention the positive aspects of the debate. We welcome the emphasis on partnership and dispute resolution, which we shall discuss under later clauses, albeit not at such length. We also welcome Ofsted's involvement as referee. The Minister said that we do not yet have the final SEN code and guidance, but we understand that further substantial documents, which we have seen in draft, will form part of the custom and practice of the tribunal. We also understand—I shall return to this point—that clause 1, and any amendment thereto, does not stand on its own; it is part of the provision's general context.

We can give the Minister a reasonably good report. She indulged in a little electioneering, but it was nothing out of the way. It is not for me to speculate whether it was appropriate. She showed a slight touch of what I might call the schoolmarm on amendment No. 2 in wondering whether we were seeking to subvert the cause of efficient education—or, as the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon would have it, effective education. I did that to provoke the hon. Lady, and she then gave us her understanding of what was involved. I am sensitive to those issues; they are keyed in on provisions about unreasonable expense. Authorities do the best that they can, some more effectively than others.

We are still concerned about a number of points. My hon. Friend the Member for Guildford and others mentioned resources. This will not be a cheap enterprise. We know something about the likely additional capital spend on the schools access initiative, which we welcome. Although the Minister is right to say that there will be a revenue saving in certain cases, it is likely that there will be a substantial current increase across the piece. We have had no estimate from Government as to the overall effect. We have heard some talk about the standards fund—remember that anything that goes down that route is denied to local education authorities as part of their spending under the revenue support grant and their overall education budgets. That does not look good, even on the electioneering side, when we consider total spend per pupil, but I do not want to go on about that.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I hope that my hon. Friend will flesh out questions of revenue spending in respect of the acquisition of equipment. Much has, rightly, been made of the valuable role that can be played by communications equipment and information technology as a bridge to learning for people with special educational needs. However, that has a significant impact on on-going expenditure--it should be seen as a long-term investment. Write-off, replacement and upgrades are critical, as is the whole business of on-going revenue expenditure. There must be a notional view in Government about what that expenditure will be nationally.

Tim Boswell (Conservative, Daventry)

I hope that the Minister will respond to my hon. Friend's point tonight or, perhaps, in another context. We flagged it up a long time ago by saying that there are always revenue consequences of capital spend, and that even the best and most modern technology needs to be upgraded and altered from time to time.

We do not make those points to cavil at the wish to improve provision for special education; nor would local authorities or the Local Government Association. However, we should be aware that the exercise is not cost-free and cannot be easily swept away alongside other pressing priorities. The Government need to reflect responsibly on that. My second point is on the provision of special schools. In a sense the Minister is right. Nothing in the Bill threatens them, and there is no provision to close them—

Bill O'Brien (Labour, Normanton)

Order. I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the clause. We are considering mainstream education. I have allowed a wide range of discussion so that the Bill may be put in proper perspective, but I must ask the hon. Gentleman to comment on mainstream education.

Tim Boswell (Conservative, Daventry)

And rightly so, Mr. O'Brien. I was merely trying to summarise the debate that you have allowed, particularly as regards the concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury that special schools might be taken away. We shall have occasion to return to this, but perhaps I can reiterate a point that was made on Second Reading. Our concern is not that the provisions remove special schools, but that if local authorities are minded to remove special schools from their portfolio, there is nothing to prevent them from doing so. Our amendment about the paramountcy of the child aims to safeguard that provision. What concerns us is not that it is done through the front door, but that it might be done through the back door.

My third point relates to the caveat. I understand and respect the views of the Special Educational Consortium and of individual organisations that have lobbied us and made representations. There is a wish not to subvert inclusion, where it is properly done, and not to have caveats that create a problem by providing something that, however unexceptionable it is in principle, might have a perverse effect. With the greatest respect to the Minister, although she mentioned some of the cases of dysfunction that might arise in local authority practice, which are now remediated only by the tribunal, she did not explain how that dysfunction will be removed under the new arrangements. That problem does not arise from the caveat. Frankly, the Bill will work with good will and with competent players. It will not work as well if the players are not competent or, in certain cases, if they are not well disposed towards the interests of the individual child or collectively to children with special educational needs.

We are trying to put children first. I know that the Government subscribe to the same principle, whether through the proxy of the parents on behalf of the children or through the expressed wishes of the child. We want that. More than anything else, we want an audit trail. Let us suppose that a local authority has an agenda that is not about putting children first, but is driven by bean counting, as I described it, or accountancy, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings more politely put it. An authority may subscribe to an ideology that is concerned not with whether it helps children, but about whether they are put into mainstream education, even if that is not the best way in which to deal with them. It may have another agenda, such as taking money from education and putting it into another area. All such examples fail the needs of sensitive children.

We all agree that we want children to come first. I mean no disrespect to the Minister, but we do not consider that that point has been reached. We are not anxious to subvert or scupper the Bill with which we fundamentally agree, but we consider that one area is not absolutely right. Although we have approached the matter in several ways both here and in another place, we may not, on reflection, have put it into the right context.

I advise my hon. Friends to join me in voting for the amendment to register our continuing concern, but I can discern the germ of a possible solution, which the Minister may like to think about. Whether or not she wants to share her thoughts is up to her. She referred to sections 495 to 497 of the Education Act 1996, which cover the ancillary functions of the Secretary of State. Those provisions may also apply to the National Assembly for Wales, since it is the executive body for Wales, and they concern the ability of the Secretary of State to intervene if something is going wrong, which is along the lines of our amendment.

Section 496 refers to bodies that have acted or propose to act unreasonably with respect to the exercise of any power under the Act. In a sense, that is reflected in our amendment. We do not want a local education authority to act unreasonably in relation to children with special educational needs. The right action is to put the children first. We have no argument with that. We are concerned not with inclusion or exclusion, but with what is best for the children. That may be more difficult to secure in the non-maintained sector but, for whatever reason, a local authority, an organisation or an individual education provider in the maintained sector may act badly and not put forward the interests of the children.

I am not a lawyer, so I must not lecture the Minister on law, but I take an interest in such matters, and I understand that there is a general presumption that an LEA will behave properly. There is also a general presumption in relation to a maintained school. When the hon. Lady has recovered from the shock of, perhaps, resisting our amendment, she might reflect on whether there is a germ of her being able to say that it would be an unreasonable action to deny a special educational needs child his rights. There might be a way of producing a general declaration that is disjoined from the argument about mainstream and non-mainstream or maintained and non-maintained.

That might act as a litmus test, which the tribunal, and, subsequently, if necessary, the Secretary of State, could consider. The tribunal would say, basically, ``Did you do your job? Did you put children first?'' Such a test might allow us to take a trick—based on the consensus that already exists in the Committee—so that special educational needs would be supported and provision improved through the Bill. We might end up not with a disagreement superimposed on agreement but a final agreement, with which we could dispatch the Bill. Otherwise, on this important matter, we have a measure of disagreement, which we shall be anxious to register in a moment.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

Would the hon. Gentleman be reassured, given the direction of his remarks, if he knew that the Secretary of State has used the powers under discussion to direct local education authorities in respect of provision for individual children. He has also done so in respect of a local education authority carrying out the wider function of providing enough school places. I certainly regard that as an appropriate use for those sections.

Tim Boswell (Conservative, Daventry)

I am grateful to the Minister. I think that we are feeling our way towards our destination, although I am not sure whether we have reached it yet. I am sure that she and her officials will provide the citation later, but I will need to reflect on what she has said. Given that the Committee agrees on so much, I cannot help feeling that we might be able to take the final step and achieve a system that stipulates, whether with reference to other legislation—which I always hate, because it is difficult—or in the Bill, that LEAs and schools must do right by special educational needs children. It must say to them, ``The Secretary of State, the nation and the tribunal are watching you. If you are not doing right, you are for it!'' That is our concern. We do not want to remove the importance of consensus or partnership but to say that a sanction exists that will enforce the process as if it were—to use a phrase that I used in my introductory remarks—a paramount court of appeal or final point of reference on whether a thing was done properly.

We must reflect on those matters. The hon. Lady may be able to help us at a later stage, if briefly, and we may make progress. The debate has been valuable in flagging up remaining concerns, moving some way towards reaching agreement on them and exploring possible remedies in order to reach complete agreement. I am minded to persist with the amendment, but perhaps we should learn the lessons of the debate and consider how to take the matter further.

Evan Harris (Liberal Democrat, Oxford West and Abingdon)

I had not intended to speak again, but I mentioned in an intervention that I wanted some clarification. The Minister's reply, for which we are genuinely grateful, left unanswered significant questions about resources. That is linked to the use of the phrase ``efficient education'', which has resource implications. Earlier, I asked the Minister to explain why ``effective'' was not used. It is a more accurate way of describing provision of education to other children, and providing it safely. Safety is an issue in relation to children who have an educational or behavioural disturbance, whom it might not be possible to maintain in a mainstream school if their behaviour put the safety of other children at risk. Now is the time to seek that explanation, because I fear that little time will be allowed for the clause stand part debate.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

The term ``efficient education'' is used throughout the Education Act, in, for example, schedule 27 and section 7. It is appropriate to use it here to ensure consistency. There is, of course, a distinction between ``efficient'' and ``effective''. I have reassured the Committee on the extent to which we are putting extra resources into achieving inclusion and into the education system as a whole. Nevertheless, it is not unreasonable to expect LEAs to have regard for the efficient education of children, regardless of the fact that significant extra resources are being provided.

Evan Harris (Liberal Democrat, Oxford West and Abingdon)

I had anticipated that the Minister might say that ``efficient'' appears in the existing Act. Nevertheless, it is still possible to amend all the words. I remain worried, even if I accept her point about ``efficient''. We are merely fortunate that the matter has not arisen before. Perfectly efficient education of other children is possible even when they are put at risk by the inclusion, behaviour and actions of another child.

I shall not press the matter, but I ask the Minister to consider whether a case might be made—this is the point of scrutiny—for including the words ``efficient and effective'' or ``efficient and safe'' to make it clear to authorities and schools exactly what is meant. Her comments would be useful. Scope exists for pursuing the matter further, though perhaps not now. There may be no clause stand part debate, but we may pursue the point at a later stage.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I do not want to be seen to defend the Minister, but I want to test the hon. Gentleman's proposition. He said that a child could be educated efficiently while putting at risk other children in a class or school. I find it hard to believe that anyone would define such an education as efficient. It might be cost effective and efficient in purely financial terms, but not in broader terms.

Evan Harris (Liberal Democrat, Oxford West and Abingdon)

That is my point. I shall not pursue the matter, because I do not believe that that would be appropriate. This mini-debate may, at your discretion, Mr. O'Brien, become a clause stand part debate. I rest my case where I left it. An issue remains to be explored, but we shall oppose amendment No. 1 if it is pursued.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes 11.

Nick St Aubyn (Conservative, Guildford)

I beg to move amendment No. 12, in page 1, line 9, at end insert—

`(1B)For each such child which is in care, the duty of the Secretary of State shall extend to securing that the welfare needs of that child are properly considered in determining the educational provision for that child.'.

The amendment is designed to focus the Committee's mind on the issue of children in care. The preceding debate included a great deal of discussion on the role of parents. This amendment relates to children who have no parents or only foster parents. It should be regarded as a probing amendment, as I do not imagine the Secretary of State being personally involved in each instance.

I am grateful to Ofsted for its information on children in care. In response to the Minister's earlier spate of self-congratulation on having introduced a section on the report on LEAs, I was waiting for her to congratulate the Conservative party on having introduced Ofsted. She and her party were hotly hostile to our doing that, whereas we welcomed the extension of the building block of higher standards to include invigilating the work of LEAs.

In the past financial year, to which the report relates, Her Majesty's inspectorate inspected provision for young people in public care in 26 local authority areas. The inspection shows that the level of attainment by children in care is far lower than that among those who have the benefit of a family home. Ofsted praises the fact that in some LEAS, 70 per cent. of pupils achieved one GCSE, but that level of attainment is far lower than that among other 15 and 16-year-olds. It is well known that our all-party Select Committee examined the issue of teenagers who are dropping out of the system, and the number of exclusions relating to children in care is proportionally much higher than for other children. Clearly, there is real difficulty.

We should all welcome the idea that children in care should have a named teacher in the school to look after their interests. Ofsted tells us that, at any one time, there might be three children in care in a typical primary school, or eight children in care in a secondary school. In another report, the Select Committee recommended that highly able children should have a named teacher in the school to look after their interests. That is a useful concept. The provisions envisaged in the clause might be achieved in practice by having a named teacher fulfilling the role of looking after the child's interests.

I will not speak much longer, but have a question for the Minister about the proposed new section 316(3). It states:

``If a statement is maintained under section 324 for the child, he must be educated in a mainstream school unless that is incompatible with—

(a) the wishes of his parent''.

How will the wishes of a parent be translated into a proper assessment of the interests of a child who is in care, when the concept that the educational needs of the child should be paramount has been excluded from the Bill as a result of our Division?

Tim Boswell (Conservative, Daventry)

I am pleased that my hon. Friend tabled his amendment, which raises a serious and important matter. While the issue of children in care may be perceived as unglamorous and does not hit the headlines as often as it should, it is a very real worry to many of us, as my hon. Friend, who is a distinguished member of the Select Committee, has said to that Committee and in its report.

We all know how difficult it is when we are in Committee to keep up with the traffic of other matters. For example, today I have had thumped on to my desk two reports from the social exclusion unit. Those reports re-examined the problems of teenagers, including runaways, and I have not yet studied them. There is a worryingly high correlation between being in care and subsequent offending or getting into trouble.

I wish to make two further points. First, from my constituency experience, I am aware of the importance of parents acting as advocates for an individual child. In the absence of parents, somebody, such as a named teacher, must act—to use an old phrase—in loco parentis. There must be a person who sticks up for the rights and interests of the child and who, as part of the process of determining the child's provision, can offer advocacy on his or her behalf.

The second point that I throw in relates to secure training centres. Initially, such centres did not receive a terribly good press from the then Labour Opposition, although I think that they have since found that the centres have strong benefits. I mention that because the second such centre, at Rainsbrook, is on the edge of my constituency. It has just received a rave review from the social services inspectorate, and I have been to see it on the back of that.

Of course, not all children who have been in care are automatically offenders—or certainly not seriously enough to justify their being in a STC. Nevertheless, the regime of welfare, pastoral support and intensive educational provision of about 25 hours a week of full-time education that such centres impose, is important for the rehabilitation of a young person and, dare I say it, for adult prisoners in other institutions. I have been immensely impressed by the way in which people who had become educationally dysfunctional have been able to move, in a short time, to being capable of work of GCSE standard.

My hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and the Deepings performed a service to the Committee by flagging up our concerns about failures in the educational system for children in care and the needs to support such children holistically, in terms of welfare and education, and to advocate their cause when others may not find it easy or fashionable to do so. We would all welcome further contributions to the debate and the Minister's reply.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I want to draw out two brief points. I know, from his analysis of my earlier contribution, that the hon. Member for High Peak has his stopwatch running.

There is a correlation between children and young people who are in care and the potential for offending, which was mentioned by my hon. Friends the Members for Guildford and for Daventry. There is a further correlation between young people in care and the likelihood of being statemented. It is not merely a question of emotional and behavioural difficulties—there is a range of other problems—but there is a greater likelihood that children in care will be statemented. That is why my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford performed a service to the Committee by raising that matter.

My second point refers to an important amplification. Given the rejection of our appropriate and desirable wish to include a measure relating to the educational needs of a child in the Bill, where should we look for guidance about provision in situations in which parents are absent? That is fundamentally important. Grandparents or other relatives may be involved with a child, or the child may have no relatives at all. A conflict of views may arise from a complex family situation. The fact that the provisions in the Bill are all that we currently have sends shivers down my spine, and I hope that the Minister's response may provide the warmth to stop those shivers as soon as possible.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

The amendment would create an additional duty for the Secretary of State to ensure that the welfare needs of children in care were met. I do not underestimate the importance of the points made by Opposition Members about the needs of children in care, but the amendment is unnecessary because children's welfare is safeguarded by legislation and, perhaps more importantly, by action that we are taking through the Quality Protects programme, which ensures that local authorities take seriously their responsibilities as corporate parents. Under legislation, once a child is in care, it is the local authority's duty to safeguard and promote his welfare. That is laid out in the Children Act 1989, which emphasises the importance of assessment, planning and reviews for children and young people who are looked after by local authorities. It is a statutory requirement that a care plan for each child is drawn up by social services.

However, the Government are not complacent about promoting the welfare of children in care. We introduced Quality Protects in September 1998, which is a major programme to overhaul children's services. It sets out key national objectives for improving children's services, including an objective to ensure that children who are looked after should gain maximum life-chance benefits from educational opportunities, health care and social care.

Nick St Aubyn (Conservative, Guildford)

The Minister will forgive me if she is about to come to this point, but under the clause, parents are envisaged as the advocates for their child. Who will act as advocate for the child in care?

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

I will forgive the hon. Gentleman, because I intend to refer to that question.

Under the Quality Protects programme, my Department and the Department of Health have worked closely together to improve the education of children and young people in public care. The hon. Gentleman mentioned one of the features of our joint guidance on the education of children and young people in public care, published in May 2000. That guidance is supported by statutory guidance in the Department of Health circular LAC (2000) 13. As part of a national policy, the guidance is aimed at ensuring that the educational needs of children and young people in public care will be upheld by vigorous corporate parents applying principles of good parenting.

Tom Levitt (Labour, High Peak)

Browsing in the Vote Office earlier today, I came across ``Valuing People: a new strategy for learning disability for the 21st century'', which was published this month by the Department of Health. References to the Carers and Disabled Children Act 2000 and references in the Bill to carers and links with education surely answer all the Opposition's questions about the clause and render the amendment unnecessary. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister and her colleagues on an excellent act of joined-up government, which, in combination with the Bill, that reflects.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments, although we have done even more than that. In addition to the designated teachers in schools highlighted by the hon. Member for Guildford, the guidance stipulates that children need personal education plans, that there should be time limits within which to secure educational placements, that local authorities must place a child within 20 days and that there should be reliable data. The hon. Gentleman rightly points out that Ofsted highlighted the poorer levels of attainment among children in care—that is why the Government have taken the action that I have described.

Like their peers, young people in care may at some time in their education have special educational needs. It is estimated that young people in care are six to eight times as likely to have a statement of special educational needs than pupils in the general school population. The guidance makes it clear that such pupils need the support and advocacy of a vigorous parent, as the hon. Member for Guildford said. In their case, the vigorous parent would be the corporate parent—that is, the local authority. The code of practice on the identification and assessment of special educational needs applies equally to children in care as to those not in care. Special educational provision should be made for children in care in line with legislation and the code of practice within the time scales prescribed.

Tim Boswell (Conservative, Daventry)

The Minister may either have covered my question or be about to do so. Will she confirm that, if a local authority is responsible for both advocating the interests of the child as parent in loco parentis and securing provision against a budget, for example, there will be some kind of Chinese wall ensuring that the person acting as the parent makes the case as the parent and that the local authority as the provider and budget holder is separate from that consideration? Natural justice requires that those two functions are seen as separate.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

I reassure the hon. Gentleman that the guidance specifically states that, where a parental advocate is needed to access any service or support, the local authority, as corporate parent, must ensure that all children in its care have an effective champion. The hon. Gentleman suggests that the local authority has two hats—two separate duties, probably pursued by two separate departments—but I recognise his point and that made by the hon. Member for Guildford that children in care who have special educational needs must have strong advocates.

I reassure the Committee that guidance on the education of young people in care makes it clear that, in their policies on the education of children and young people in care, local authorities must set out clear lines of responsibility relating to the assessment of special needs, and state, for example, who will support residential and foster carers during the assessment process and who, if necessary, will appeal to the special educational needs tribunal. I hope that I have reassured the hon. Member for Guildford and that he will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Nick St Aubyn (Conservative, Guildford)

I am somewhat reassured by the Minister's comments, but according to Ofsted, the idea of a named teacher has been developed successfully only in some authorities. The practice is not yet universal and, until it is, that excellent idea will not be relevant to all cases. If, when the child's statement is being reviewed, the named teacher is the person who should say whether the child should not remain in maintained education and should go to a special school, will that opinion have the same authority in the deliberations of the experts as it would have if it had been expressed by the child's parents? Will the Minister answer that one point? It appears that the Minister is unable to answer that point, unless she is about to have some inspiration on the matter, in which case I will be happy to give way.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

I think that I made it clear that two separate departments might deal with a child with special educational needs who is also in care. The named teacher does not have the role of corporate parent. In its responsibilities for children in public care, the local authority has the role of corporate parent. However, to reassure the hon. Gentleman on a point that he raised earlier, we intend to ensure—we are currently carrying out an implementation strategy—that the guidance that we have issued, which, among other provisions that I outlined, sets out the concept of the named teacher, is spread throughout all LEAs.

Nick St Aubyn (Conservative, Guildford)

I have got as many pounds of flesh as I am likely to get this evening. With that reassurance from the Minister and given that we will continue to monitor the situation, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Tim Boswell (Conservative, Daventry)

I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 1, line 14, leave out from `parent' to end of line 15.

It is getting fairly late, although we could go on for a long time, but I must confess to the Committee, in the full hearing of both Whips, that I have two weaknesses. I will share them with the Committee because they are both germane to the amendment. The first is that I enjoy the process of considering legislation in Standing Committee. I hope that, even after my long foray this morning, colleagues may share that passion with me. It seems incredibly important that we should examine legislation and get it right. If we do not, those in the real world who have to discharge the legislation and meet the needs of special education for children may not be as well served as they should be. Like the man in the Bateman cartoon, I enjoy Standing Committees, as I am afraid that the Whips are probably wise to that already. I am delighted to say that my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall), the Opposition Whip, enjoys them too, as do, I hope, the Government Whip and the Minister.

The amendment may have caused some puzzlement in the Government, but it is primarily about trying to improve the Bill and make life a little more comfortable for them. I shall indulge briefly in a minor twitting of the Government. I remember the activities of education Ministers, other than the present ones, in relation to city academies during consideration of the Learning and Skills Bill. I shall not stray out of order by talking about the academies at length, although they are mentioned in the clause. We had to legislate very much on the hoof and at the last moment, to some embarrassment of Ministers. The Government suffer from a certain readiness to introduce new initiatives and to re-brand schools in the maintained sector.

With those considerations in mind, the amendment's purpose was to provide a degree of flexibility. I am not unaware that my hon. Friends and I have introduced proposals for free schools, which I am sure we shall shortly be putting into legislation. Entirely neutrally on the subject of the election, I say that this or a subsequent Government might want to slot another sort of state-maintained school into the categories. The clause is like the law of the Medes and the Persians when it specifies

``a special school, or . . . an independent school which is not . . . a city technology college . . . a city college for the technology of the arts, or . . . a city academy''.

Under that wording, there are grey areas between what is or is not a state school or a maintained school.

We sometimes find problems with the statistics, as schools move from one category to the other. Rather than having to legislate to include new categories that have not been thought of before, the amendment would enable us to agree that the Secretary of State could make an order to specify a new category. If the House thought that reasonable, he would not have to do more. Above all—I am sure that the Minister and her officials appreciate this—he would not have to have recourse to messy primary legislation because something had been left out.

I have been impressed by the fact that the drafting of the Bill seems rather better than such drafting sometimes is. I do not think that that is entirely due to the influence of another place. I shall give an example that would interest the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. George), were he here, which is the specific reference to the Isles of Scilly. They are in an anomalous position and are treated as an LEA, so we have to legislate for them specially. I shudder to think what would have happened in practice if the draftsperson or we had overlooked that. Sometimes, Governments are grateful for an element of flexibility.

I give, as it were, a trailer for the fact that I want to raise in discussion of the interpretation clause a related point about what is and is not a maintained school—if it meets your approval for debate, Mr. O'Brien. We need not go on about that at length, but Ministers of different political colours at different times have ideas for schools that are branded in different ways.

The interesting emphasis on selection and what it might do has distressed at least one member of the Committee who is not on the Government or Conservative Benches: the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon. The Government have an interesting philosophy that special schools should not select. I do not think that we should debate that tonight, and I am sure that you would not want us to, Mr. O'Brien. What is or is not in the maintained sector, or is or is not attached to it for the purposes of special education, is a rather protean concept, changing over time.

I tabled the amendment to be helpful. We do not want someone to be left out because the draftsperson forgot to include them, and we want Ministers to have a certain flexibility—a dangerous concept, but on this occasion we are attempting to be helpful.

Nick St Aubyn (Conservative, Guildford)

In supporting my hon. Friend, I should point out that at page 49, the Green Paper, ``Schools: building on success'' states:

``we intend to develop a new model which would enable an external private or voluntary sector sponsor to take responsibility for a weak or failing school . . . This will further develop the model used at King's Manor, Guildford'',

to which I referred earlier. I am grateful to the Prime Minister at least for endorsing that outstandingly successful Conservative policy. As I said in the House the other day, what a pity it is that the local Labour party and the Secretary of State opposed us at every step of the way.

However, if we take the Green Paper and the Prime Minister's endorsement of our policy at their words, the paragraph to be inserted by the amendment is clearly essential. Paragraph 4.23 of the Green Paper tells us that the Government intend, if they should have the opportunity in the time left to them in their last year in power—or their last weeks, if they want to curtail that period—to introduce a new form of school similar to but different from colleges, academies and technology colleges.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

The amendment is intended to ensure that the clause covers any new type of maintained school designated by the Secretary of State. The hon. Member for Guildford suggests that it is at least partially inspired by our recent schools Green Paper, which seeks to build on the reforms that transformed primary education, to secure a step change in secondary education and, in particular, contains our plans for diversity and autonomy in the secondary school system. I must say, however, that rather than crowing about it, the hon. Gentleman should be ashamed of the fact that we had to respond to the failure of Conservative-controlled Surrey county council to facilitate improvement in the school to which he referred.

Nick St Aubyn (Conservative, Guildford)

As I explained, there are many children with special educational needs and disabilities at that school. When we took over the running of the authority in 1997, we found that the problems that we inherited were due to the actions and failures of the previous LEA run by the Labour and Liberal Democrat coalition.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

There is evidence that although many children with special educational needs and particular difficulties may be a challenge for a school, that does not necessarily imply that that school will fail. What may prevent the school from improving is not receiving the necessary support from the local education authority.

Nick St Aubyn (Conservative, Guildford)

Will the Minister give way?

The rest of the debate is in Hansard.