RESOURCES FOR SPECIAL NEEDS

HC Deb 19 March 1996 vol 274 cc197-214

'(1) The Secretary of State shall satisfy himself that adequate resources are available to a local authority in respect of advice or support provided by it to a child who is receiving funded nursery education other than in a maintained school and who is considered to have special educational needs but in respect of whom no statement under section 168 of the Education Act 1993 has been issued.

(2) In this section "funded nursery education" shall have the same meaning as in Schedule 1 to this Act.'.—[Mr. Kilfoyle.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Kilfoyle

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 7, in clause 3, page 2, line 18, at end insert— '(4) Such requirements shall require that—

1. (a) any nursery education provided by virtue of the grant shall be supervised by a qualified teacher; and
2. (b) where such nursery education is provided in respect of a child who has special educational needs that it conforms to any Code of Practice in respect of such education which may have been issued by the Secretary of State.'.

Government amendment No. 35.

Mr. Kilfoyle

The new clause will find support on both sides of the House as it deals with a concern expressed by many hon. Members, as well as interested bodies outside the House, about the provision of good-quality education for children with special educational needs. The new clause would ensure extra funding for local education authorities to provide for children at stage 3 of the special educational needs code of practice—stage 4 being a statement—who are in nursery provision outside the maintained sector.

Provision for children under five with special educational needs was extensively discussed in Committee. During our debates, hon. Members on both sides committed themselves to ensuring that such children enjoyed the benefits of nursery education as much as other under-fives. I note that the right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker) is in his place. In his private life, he is involved with the Royal London Society for the Blind school at Sevenoaks. I have had the pleasure of visiting that school and I know that it does excellent work and wants to be able to continue to do so.

Many, many children with varying degrees of need—not as extreme as the children at the Royal London Society for the Blind school, as the right hon. Gentleman will acknowledge—would benefit from the new clause. Children with statements of special educational needs will be placed in provision by the local education authority. In fact, all but 18 children under five who have statements are in LEA-maintained institutions or non-maintained special schools.

In Committee, the Minister failed to meet almost every single point raised by Labour Members. The one area on which there was agreement was the need to look carefully at the arrangements for children at stage 3 of the SEN code of practice, the stage where the institution begins to consider the need for external support, which would usually come from the LEA—the Minister nods in agreement—but before the formal assessment procedure begins.

I shall remind the Minister of what he said in Committee: There will be a small number of non-statemented children at level three in non-maintained provision who could require local authority support and, arguably—but not wishing to enter the argument-those numbers may increase as a result of the Bill."—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 13 February 1996; c. 242.] The Minister was suggesting that we may be able to diagnose more children at an earlier stage, which is to be welcomed.

My hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Ms Hodge) and I visited the Margaret McMillan school in the much-maligned borough of Islington. We saw the excellent work that can be done if early diagnostic and remedial skills are available in a multidisciplinary approach. That is what is afforded to those very needy children at that school.

The Minister also said in Committee that differential value vouchers would be unlikely to solve the problem. The same criterion apparently does not apply to differentiation on the basis of areas or of special educational needs of a different sort within cities. He made that clear in reply to a question from the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson). I fail to see why the same criterion cannot apply across the board. Perhaps the Minister will explain later.

The Minister also said in Committee that requiring private and voluntary voucher redeeming bodies to have regard to the code of practice was not a practical way forward, but that discussion would take place with interested parties during phase 1 of the implementation to find a way forward. He then said that he hoped to bring forward a proposal on Report that would clarify the role of the local education authority for children at stage 3 of the code of practice. The new clause is designed to give effect to that ministerial commitment. I shall deal with the Government's amendment later.

5.15 pm

It is clear that, if more children under five are in nursery education, it is likely that any special educational needs will be found earlier, provided there are appropriately trained staff in the private and voluntary sectors. Again, we must deal with the question whether there should be a qualified teacher in every nursery, or at least one having a role in every nursery. LEAs will need to make financial provision for that new work. The new clause requires the Secretary of State to be satisfied that sufficient resources are provided to LEAs to undertake that work.

To implement the code of practice will require, at the very least, qualified teachers supervising nursery providers who do not employ a qualified teacher. That is the key to amendment No. 7. There is wide agreement on the importance of nursery education and the benefits of investing in the education of young children. What is equally clear is the importance of the quality, knowledge and experience of staff if young children are to obtain maximum benefit from the experience. I am sure that the Minister and I are at one on that.

The amendment would achieve the delivery of nursery education under the supervision of a qualified teacher. One of the very great strengths of the nursery education currently provided in maintained nursery schools and classes is that it is provided by properly qualified teachers supported by qualified assistants. Within the current initial teacher training framework, nursery teachers on Bachelor of Education courses receive the same training in terms of rigour and length of course as teachers of primary and secondary age children. They are awarded a degree that has the same status as those awarded to primary and secondary teachers. So should it be, given the tremendous importance of that stage of educational development in determining the whole future of individual children. Again, the Minister nods his agreement. I have to repeat the suspicion voiced many times in Committee that the hon. Gentleman is an ultra soaking wet. That is confirmed by the way that he readily agrees with points made by Labour Members.

Our common approach, in the spirit of consensual politics, to the training of teachers of nursery and primary age children is appropriate, given that the children pass from the nursery stage to the primary stage—a transition that should be seamless. The significant theoretical components of the training course embrace child development, child psychology, health and safety and the legal background to education, in addition to the range of subject areas in the national curriculum for which pre-school education is a preparation.

Special needs is also covered in great depth in the Bachelor of Education courses. Nursery teachers, as well as undertaking this rigorous academic programme, also spend extended periods in a wide variety of settings on teaching practice, working under the supervision of qualified teachers.

The next steps document states: The Government considers that qualifications and training are key elements of good quality nursery provision. We say amen to that. However, the document then immediately states that the Government sees no need to change the requirements on staff qualifications set out in the Children Act guidance and the DFEE circular. In effect, that means that in pre-schools and playgroups only half the staff have to hold a relevant day care or education qualification or have to have completed a special training course.

Although there is no doubt that the vast majority of current providers of pre-school provision want to provide quality of care for young children, the distinction between nursery education and care is being blurred by the current proposals. There is no doubt that those with child care skills and qualifications have a significant contribution to make. However, if education—I stress "education"—is to be the focus of the new scheme, the leadership of the institutions making the provision must surely be education professionals.

If the Government are serious about providing high-quality nursery education, it should be delivered by properly qualified teachers. The early years are crucial in the education and development of young children. As the National Commission on Education says in its document "Learning to Succeed", early years teaching is a complex task demanding a high level of skill and understanding.

To digress slightly into my personal experience, I told the Minister and his hon. Friends in Committee about my one and only visit to a reception class, many years ago when I was doing my teacher training. I was horrified by the complexity of the work involved in caring for overcrowded groups of toddlers—work which we may tend to treat as mundane but which is so crucial. That job is a calling. If work in any part of the education system can be described as a vocation, that description must apply to the work of the people who deal with the very early years.

Qualified teachers who have been trained in the appropriate skills and understanding must be the proper people to lead the teams delivering early years education. There can be no justification for applying less rigorous standards of training to staff in that area than we apply to those who work in the later stages of the educational process.

In Committee, the Minister claimed that the qualifications of staff would be part and parcel of parents' choice and that Many parents presumably may be persuaded that qualified teacher status is of greater worth than other qualifications and will be more inclined to take their children into a local education authority setting than into an alternative".—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 13 February 1996; c. 214.] I agree, and I hope that that happens, because it reflects parents' demands for their children. They are looking for a professionally led educational experience in an appropriate educational environment. What the Minister said may be true of many parents, but others will assume that the Government have done all that they can to ensure that the providers in any voucher-accepting institution have been trained to a sufficiently high standard.

The Department's pamphlet containing information for parents on nursery education makes no mention of the range of qualifications that staff may have, beyond saying that schools, nurseries and playgroups will need staff who "meet our conditions".

Amendment No. 7 would ensure that those in charge of provider units had been trained to the highest possible standards. It represents an opportunity that should not be ignored. Paragraph (b) would require nursery education given to a child with special needs to conform to the code of practice drawn up under the Education Act 1993.

As many hon. Members will know, but people outside may not, the code sets out stages 1 to 5, along which a child passes as learning problems are identified, and differing levels of resources are devoted to the child's needs at each stage. Although the present code was developed with the maintained sector in mind, it is surely imperative to have a statutory framework within which it can be applied to private providers. Ideally, the same standards would be set.

In Committee, the Minister mentioned that problem and spoke about the need to adapt the code in some shape or form, but he put no meat on the bones of his statement and, both self-evidently and by his own admission, the present code of practice is not intended to cater for providers outside the maintained sector.

I am sure that a "spin", as the spin doctors would say, will be put on Government amendment No. 35. Indeed, that has happened already, and the Government are attempting to portray it as a concession. It will extend an LEA power in section 162 of the 1993 Act so that LEAs may supply goods or services to governing bodies to assist with their special needs responsibilities. That is an excellent and laudable aim, but it is not worth the paper it is written on unless the appropriate moneys are made available for LEAs to meet the new demands.

Last year, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) asked the Minister how provision over and above the value of the voucher would be delivered for children with special education needs. I have yet to be persuaded that anything has changed since the Minister replied: Local education authorities will keep some of their existing funding for four-year-olds, and be able to spend more than the value of the voucher where needed to offer appropriate provision to pupils with special educational needs".—[Official Report, 17 July 1995; Vol. 263, c. 978.] I welcome the spirit behind that answer, but I must ask the Minister where the funds will come from to meet the demand, especially as, by his own admission, there will be increased demand as we delve further into early years education and learn to diagnose special needs better. I hope that the Minister will answer that question when he replies to the debate.

I am sure that, as the Minister is on the wet left wing of the Conservative party—indeed, he is so far to the left I am surprised that he remains on the Front Bench—he will recognise how cost-effective it is to make the early interventions. Even with normal nursery education, the Ypsilanti study conducted by the university of Michigan showed that about £7 was saved for every £1 invested. If that is true of nursery education in general, how much more true is it of early intervention in cases of special educational need?

Mr. Kenneth Baker (Mole Valley)

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle), who brings practical experience to our debates. I find myself much in agreement with what he said. We may differ as to the means of achieving it, but the objective for both sides of the House is similar.

I notice that the hon. Gentleman twice chided my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for being "damp". Yes, my hon. Friend is a bit damp, but he is redeemed by the fact that, as he is my partner in the House of Commons bridge team, I can assure the House that when he bids he is very dry. He bids boldly and strongly, and I trust that he will do some of that this afternoon.

One of the advantages of the Bill is that it has allowed the House to focus on an aspect of education that we seldom debate—nursery education for children with special educational needs. I can recall few occasions on which the House has debated such provision for the under-fives.

My interest in and knowledge of the subject comes not only from my time as Secretary of State for Education and Science but from the fact that, for the past 18 months, I have had the privilege of raising money for that centre of excellence, the Royal London Society for the Blind school, at Dorton house, Sevenoaks. The hon. Members for Walton and for Barking (Ms Hodge) have visited the school, and it is a splendid institution.

The staff there are over-qualified—or, I should say, fully qualified—and, because of the support that the school has had, they provide a wonderful range of services to children who are either totally blind or seriously visually impaired, and who sometimes have other serious physical disabilities, too. The staff do a remarkable job, train the children for GCSEs and NVQs, and give them the chance to share in life.

I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Walton that if the process can be started before the age of five, so much the better. There is no doubt that if children with such difficult handicaps can be helped, their sense of isolation can be reduced. Any child who is deaf, blind or seriously physically handicapped has a sense of isolation, and to be brought into contact with other children and with teachers who give them lots of attention and love is an enormous step forward, beyond their family associations.

The social skills are important, and so are the steps towards learning, because education must be there-the capacity to start learning the fundamentals of numeracy and literacy. Such education is very expensive. In the hospital schools, which deal with the most severely handicapped children, the teacher-pupil ratio is 1:1. At schools such as Dorton house, it can be 2:1 or 3:1. Blind children have to be led around, or carried when they are very young.

Such provision is somewhat patchy. For post-five children, local education authorities have fully developed systems to help children with special educational needs. Few children aged two are statemented. Statementing usually begins at some time during the third year, might not be completed in the fourth year and may be done again in the fourth year, rising five.

5.30 pm

Provision for such children is the duty of the local education authority. The single most important residual duty of an LEA is the provision of special education, either from the local authority's resources or from the non-maintained sector. Schools in the non-maintained sector are not spatchcock schools but have considerable skills and facilities and their premises are usually adequate. Although they are not in the maintained sector, they get a great deal of support from the Government in that their post-five children are funded by local education authorities. In the schools that I know, that is not enough. Extra money has to be provided by charitable subscriptions, which is what I have been involved in for the past 18 months.

In Dorton house, there are some 10 to 15 children in the nursery sector—we have just raised money to build a nursery school and there will be more. For those 10 or 15 children, Dorton house gets no money from local education authorities. I think that that also applies to the school in Hereford and Worcester. The children who go to Dorton house have not been statemented, either because the process has not reached that stage or because parents have not asked for their children to be statemented even though they clearly have educational needs. Sometimes such children are halfway through the statementing process. One or two have been statemented, but their parents feel that the provision at Dorton house is better than that offered by the local education authority.

How can we help such schools? On Second Reading, I proposed differential vouchers. That did not find much favour with Ministers or with the Labour party. It was savaged by the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths), if that is not too strong a word to describe his oratorical style, and dismissed. I still believe that one day we will have a differential voucher system, but that is for the future. I have discovered that education reform is a growing and progressive process.

Dr. Hampson

My right hon. Friend took the big bang approach.

Mr. Baker

The Labour party opposed almost every part of my big bang reform but now supports large parts of it, which I welcome. I do not make a party political point: the Labour party has come to see the wisdom of our proposals. I suspect that in years to come there will be a differential voucher scheme.

Dr. Hampson

My right hon. Friend's great reform Bill embraced a great deal. It is interesting that, yet again, in the past couple of days, the Liberals have accepted a fundamental tenet of Conservative policy—loans for students.

Mr. Baker

That is right. During the passage of the Education Reform Bill, the Liberal spokesman was the present leader of the Liberal party. He had only a tentative and fugitive knowledge of the Bill. His view was formed as the Bill went through. As we know, his knowledge of the subject is rather shallow, but I welcome the conversion. I am glad that the Liberals have accepted student loans.

Mr. Kilfoyle

rose—

Mr. Baker

I shall give way in a moment. I am accepting the support of the Liberal party. Am I going to get the support of the Labour party as well?

Mr. Kilfoyle

Does the right hon. Gentleman think that, if a differential can be built into vouchers not only on a regional basis, as is apparently being considered by the Government, but for given areas, at the behest of hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson), to cover what were formerly educational priority areas, it is beyond the wit of Whitehall to produce a scheme that allows special educational needs to be met in the same way? Does the right hon. Gentleman accept the Labour party's view that, instead of a differential on vouchers—I doubt whether the Government will have the opportunity to effect it—there should be differential entitlement?

Mr. Baker

On the hon. Gentleman's first point, it would be possible to devise a scheme of differential vouchers, once a voucher scheme has been established. We are in the early days, with four authorities at the experimental stage. As I well know, there will be a bedding-in process over the next two or three years. I hope that the Labour party will not decide to abandon the general voucher scheme, because it is an effective way of dealing with under-fives education. That broadens the debate and I want to stick to my point.

I shall deal with entitlement. We all agree that more assistance should be provided for such needs. How best should that be done? The hon. Member for Walton has proposed new clause 2 to seek to do that. As I understand it, Government amendment No. 35 fulfils much the same purpose—I shall come to the money side in a moment—by extending the power of LEAs to make grants to non-maintained schools or other bodies at the moment when the local education authority has determined that extra help is needed and the authority or other person involved does not have it. I welcome that. We will have to see how it operates in the experimental scheme.

In the four authorities, there will be children with special educational needs who were at stage 3 of the code of practice with whom local authorities cannot cope and in respect of whom they must find extra help. They may be able to provide it from their own resources in LEA schools or send the child to a maintained school and provide some extra assistance, such as an extra therapist or part-time help. Let us see how it works. I believe that it is a step forward.

Mr. Pickthall

Has not the right hon. Gentleman described the present situation? My local authority has done that for many years. I suspect that many others have, too.

Mr. Baker

As I said earlier, local authority provision and activity are varied and patchy. From my close involvement with Dorton house over the past 18 months and my experience of other schools that deal with blind children, I know that what I have described does not happen. I agree that it can happen. I welcome the fact that the hon. Gentleman's local authority does that.

The hon. Member for Walton mentioned that, if the power is exercised, greater costs will be incurred by LEAs. It is no good giving LEAs that power unless resources are provided. The hon. Member for Bridgend is rubbing his fingers as I suppose he does when he waits for the national lottery draw each Saturday night; he wants some money. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will intervene in a moment and not only explain Government amendment No. 35 but say that, to the extent that local authorities use that power, they will be reimbursed through the normal procedures of the revenue support grant. If he says that, I hope that the Labour party will not seek to divide the House on the matter. We have always tried not to divide the House on special education. It is a subject on which there should be agreement across the Floor. I hope that if my hon. Friend can give that assurance, the matter will rest; it will rest only for the moment, because I suspect that this is only the first step on what will be a very long road.

Ms Hodge

I wish to respond to the contribution of the right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker). There is a general acceptance of the importance of special educational needs, particularly at the level of nursery education, and of the importance of early intervention. I have seen that for myself at Dorton house, and in two other instances.

My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) mentioned the Margaret McMillan school in Islington. Children with multiple disabilities came to the nursery school there. Before they came to that school, they had done nothing but lie on the floor of the day centre or wherever they were. They had not responded to any social interaction, and certainly had not started to learn. After one month or so in the Margaret McMillan school—which has the capacity to support them and an environment in which they integrate with other children and where they receive special assistance and additional teaching—they made stunning advances.

The other example is that of a primary school in Northampton with an autistic unit attached to it, which I mentioned in Committee. For the children to have attended the school for two and a half hours a day would have been nonsense. It is necessary to work with the children for a full day in order to help them to develop. The children attended that unit in the primary school at a cost of £8,000 per child and the progress that they made in that resource-intensive environment was stunning.

I ask the right hon. Member for Mole Valley to think again about Government amendment No. 35. At present, there is absolutely nothing to prevent local authorities, if they are so minded, from supplying goods and services to individuals—in the maintained sector or the voluntary or private sector. The amendment is a sop to the right hon. Gentleman and will not change anything; it does nothing to change the statutory framework under which special educational needs are catered for in the nursery sector. The amendment states that a local education authority "may"—not "will"—supply goods or services; it does not change the existing legislative framework.

The costs are horrendous. I have the costs from Dorton house that were supplied to the Minister; they show that teaching a child with profound and multiple learning difficulties costs nearly five times as much as providing nursery education for a child without any difficulties. A child with severe communications difficulties—such an autistic child—costs 3.6 times as much as a child without such difficulties. The costs involved are horrific, and the provision of a permissive power that already exists under the current legislative framework achieves nothing: if we do not ensure adequate resources, it bodes ill for those children for whom the right hon. Member for Mole Valley expresses concern.

The briefing document provided by the Royal London Society for the Blind states that it would cost £3 million to ensure that we have an effective system in place which can cater for that group of children. That is not a large sum in the context of the scheme's total cost; it is not a large sum, even within the context of the new money set aside to introduce the nursery voucher scheme. New clause 2 ensures that money is made available to meet the needs that all hon. Members know to be essential. Those who care for children with special educational needs have a duty to vote with us for the new clause to ensure that the Government make money available specifically for those needs.

Mr. Robin Squire

I welcome the tenor of the debate that we have enjoyed, which echoed that of similar debates that we had in Committee. I make that comment notwithstanding the two further attempts by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) to blacken my name and retard my future prospects in an even more public place. However, I would not wish that aspect to be seen to dominate the debate.

I start by repeating our commitment to ensure that children with special educational needs enjoy to the fullest extent the benefit of good-quality nursery education. As all hon. Members know, the voucher scheme creates for the first time the possibility for all four-year-olds to benefit from three terms of good-quality education. I agree with the hon. Member for Walton that it also holds out the possibility of earlier identification of any learning difficulties.

I am sure that Opposition Members who were present during our discussions in Committee would agree that we had a helpful debate on the interaction of nursery vouchers and provision for children with special educational needs. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) for his contribution to that debate. There were some genuinely felt concerns about the impact of vouchers on the provision for young children with special educational needs. We were able to demonstrate that many of those concerns were misplaced. I hope that my speech today will underline the fact that those concerns were groundless.

5.45 pm

One of the principal concerns involved funding. The funding mechanism for the voucher scheme takes from local education authorities' budgets just the voucher value of £1,100 for a full year in respect of four-year-old children who already have a maintained place. Where a place costs more—as it is commonly accepted that it will in the case of many children with SEN statements—the additional resources remain within the LEA; when put together with the voucher value, no resources are lost. None of the funding for three-year-olds is affected by the voucher scheme—nor does it affect existing duties on LEAs in respect of those children.

We also made it clear that we shall be looking carefully at SENs during the first phase of the nursery voucher scheme's implementation. I thought that it would be helpful if I briefly reminded hon. Members of the commitments that have already been made in respect of children with SENs as a result of the legislation.

First, we have made a firm commitment to consult interested parties during phase 1 about making it a requirement for all providers to have regard to the SEN code of practice. That provides excellent guidance on identifying, assessing and providing for children with degrees of SEN. As I made clear in Committee, the code is a distillation of existing good practice in the maintained sector. We all agree that all employers should have regard to the principles of the code, but making it a requirement of grant to have regard to the code before consulting the voluntary and private sectors—and, of course, SEN interest groups and LEAs—would be inappropriate. I stress, for the avoidance of doubt, that it is not a question of whether we should require all providers to have regard for the code, but a question of how. Let us use the opportunities that phase 1 offers to consider how best to embrace the essentials of the code and apply them to the non-maintained sector.

Mr. Win Griffiths (Bridgend)

If the question is how the code of practice is to be used for four-year-olds, as part of the package, will the Government give serious consideration to the possibility of a qualified teacher being involved wherever provision is made for four-year-olds?

Mr. Squire

The hon. Gentleman anticipates some of my later comments, although I am not sure that I shall eventually give him quite so much satisfaction on that issue as I hope that I am currently giving him.

The second aspect involves the publishing of SEN policies. As a requirement of grant, we are requiring all providers to publish their SEN policy so that all parents can make informed choices about the most appropriate pre-school setting for their child. All providers must publish details of their admission policy and what consideration is given to children with SEN, of the facilities available to assist and allow access for children with disabilities, and of staff with knowledge and skills in SENs, and other details to be provided as set out. Hon. Members who have an interest in the matter will be aware of our previous discussions.

Thirdly, I refer to additional resources. I explained in Committee that it is neither necessary nor practical to enhance the value of the voucher for children with SEN statements. In Committee, I judged that this was acknowledged by Opposition Members and by those outside the House who have an interest in SEN. As I have already said, existing local education authority resources and responsibilities will not be affected by the nursery voucher scheme; the value of the voucher will contribute to the cost of making the provision specified in a child's SEN statement.

I welcomed the contribution of my right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker), whose reputation on issues relating to education and to SEN is a matter of record, as he demonstrated again today. He rightly highlighted the variations which in practice must exist between the different policies of LEAs. I hope that he will accept in turn that those differences should—indeed, must—be reduced as a result of the operation of the code of practice. While we are grateful to my right hon. Friend for stirring our imagination and for informing our debate in Committee by his earlier suggestion, we have concluded that it would not be appropriate at this time.

We acknowledged in Committee that we should examine more closely the requirements of a particular group of children who attend institutions in the private and voluntary sectors, who have special educational needs but no statement and who require support and assistance over and above what could be provided for within the pre-school setting. Those children would by definition be at stage 3 of the SEN code of practice. Following further consideration, we have decided to give LEAs a new power—the power under Government amendment No. 35—to supply goods and services to providers outside the maintained sector in respect of children who have special educational needs and who require additional support.

In response to the specific point made by the hon. Member for Barking (Ms Hodge)—who, like me, is an old LEA leader and an old hand in these areas—I must say that the hon. Lady is only partly right. Currently, LEAs have limited powers to pay grants to voluntary providers; they do not specifically have powers to provide goods and services to non-maintained providers in respect of children with SEN, except incidentally—in other words, incidental to other payments. I make that clear because I would not want the hon. Lady to be under any misunderstanding.

Most four-year-olds will be in the maintained sector—where the resources are already available for the purpose of meeting special educational needs—so the number involved is likely to be small. We shall need to consider very carefully the resource implications for LEAs, but it would be logical to assume that because the number will be small, the cost to LEAs of assisting the non-maintained sector will be relatively low. However, the amendment will allow—and we shall ensure—that during the annual round of standard spending assessment discussions, which is the most appropriate forum in which the matter can be discussed, the level of resources for LEAs will also reflect the consequences of what I am saying today and what we are spelling out in the amendment.

Ms Hodge

Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Squire

I will finish one more sentence before giving way to the hon. Lady. I will then refer to other aspects. I submit that new clause 2, which set out to do the sort of thing that Government amendment No. 35 is doing, would be unnecessary.

Ms Hodge

Why has the Minister not considered providing a special grant—a specific grant—for this purpose as a way of ensuring that the money goes directly to the children concerned? I refer to the experience of refugees, for example, who are in concentrated and specific areas of the country. When provision is made through the standard spending assessment discussions, the money simply does not get to go to the purpose for which it is intended.

Mr. Squire

The hon. Lady, in part, gave the answer in her question. Logically, this need would not be concentrated in a particular part of the country—unlike refugees—but would tend to be much more of a general requirement, and it makes sense for that to be part of general funding. The hon. Lady must not take me down the general line of specific grants or we shall be here for a long time. She would have to go some way to persuade me, at this stage, that there should be specific grants. These matters can and will be raised by LEAs in the ordinary way during our discussions.

I am outlining the things that are already happening. It is important that I do so because people will read the transcript of the proceedings, particularly those with SEN interests, and I wish them to be reassured.

I was grateful to Opposition Members who pointed out in Committee that under existing legislation LEAs did not have a power of access to Children and Young Persons Act 1988 registered providers and non-approved independent schools for the purposes of monitoring the provision specified in a child's SEN statement. We are proposing to rectify that by making it a requirement of grant for providers in the non-approved independent, private and voluntary sectors to allow LEAs access to their premises for the purpose of monitoring SEN provision specified in a statement.

The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) will be pleased to hear that on the specific question of portage, I have decided to allow, as a trial during phase 1, vouchers to be exchanged for portage offered by National Portage Association approved schemes. Portage is about education, not about child care. Portage home visitors and management teams are highly trained in early years work and there is already an emphasis on sharing information with parents. These schemes can be inspected both as schemes and in terms of how they are implemented. The local authority will be the registered provider and therefore the recipient of the grant. For parents in phase 1 areas, the inclusion of portage will give them additional choice.

I hope that in this respect hon. Members will be assured of the Government's commitment towards children with special educational needs and that objective observers will note that these flow naturally from our discussions. I have already paid tribute to the part that Members on the Opposition Benches have played in that.

With regard to Opposition amendment No. 7 and the question of qualified teacher status, I share the concerns of Labour Members that all children must receive a good-quality nursery education. However, I do not share their belief that this will be achieved only if all voucher-redeeming institutions are led by staff with qualified teacher status. Indeed, Labour Members have said that they want to see the private and voluntary sectors play an important part in the expansion of good-quality nursery places. Insisting on qualified teacher status would exclude the majority of these providers who in many cases, as the Audit Commission has made clear, are providing good-quality pre-school education.

Mr. Win Griffiths

Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Squire

I am keen to make progress and I have given way a lot during the debate, and I also did so in Committee, as hon. Members will acknowledge. We value qualified teacher status—of course we do; it is a particularly important and valuable qualification for those working with pre-school children—but it is not the only qualification: there are a number of qualifications that I have set out elsewhere, and do not propose to repeat now, including national vocational qualifications levels 2 and 3 in child care and education, and the new range of BAs in education and child care. Each of these qualifications offers a slightly different, yet relevant, range of learning, experience and competence for working with children under five.

I submit that this is the key. In this area, the competence and quality of staff are more important that their specific qualifications. It is important that all four-year-olds get good-quality nursery education in exchange for their vouchers. Earlier, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Wales covered the question of inspections. I am sure that they and the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority learning outcomes will together ensure good-quality provision for all. In conclusion, I recommend that hon. Members reject new clause 2 and amendment No. 7, but that they accept amendment No. 35.

Mr. Kilfoyle

When the right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker) made his contribution to the debate, I thought that the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment was nodding in agreement. Perhaps I misunderstood the right hon. Gentleman's request. He seemed to be asking for a guarantee of adequate resourcing in the areas in which we all acknowledge that he has a particular interest. When the Minister eventually responded, it sounded as if he was going to offer yet another of the Prime Minister's infamous charters in terms of the information that would be made available. We welcome any information that could be made available in relation to special educational needs policies.

We then got to the crux of the issue, which is the Government amendment. In technical terms, the amendment provides the opportunity for local authorities to exercise new powers in terms of goods and services, but it does not—and the Minister also failed to do so—satisfy the Labour party in terms of new resources.

It is one thing to talk about the standard spending assessment as a distribution mechanism and quite another to suggest, in a fudged way, that it provides new resources—which, by the Minister's admission, will be rather small but might be crucial in some areas—to cater for special educational needs. Most Labour authorities spend far more on educational provision than standard spending assessments provide, so Government amendment No. 35 will only massage the figures—it will not provide any extra resources.

If the Minister were to intervene to say that the Government would guarantee extra resources when they are required for that aspect of special educational need, we would welcome Government amendment No. 35. As things stand, however, it offers only a shift in notional figures and means nothing in terms of extra grant. Does the Minister wish to intervene?

Mr. Robin Squire

indicated dissent.

Mr. Kilfoyle

The Minister declines to intervene, so we have no option but to ask the House to vote for the Opposition's new clause 2.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 238, Noes 278.

Division No. 81]	[6.00 pm
AYES
Abbott, Ms Diane	Fatchett, Derek
Ainger, Nick	Faulds, Andrew
Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)	Flynn, Paul
Allen, Graham	Foster, Don (Bath)
Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)	Foulkes, George
Armstrong, Hilary	Fyfe, Maria
Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy	Galbraith, Sam
Ashton, Joe	Galloway, George
Austin-Walker, John	Gapes, Mike
Banks, Tony (Newham NW)	Garrett, John
Barron, Kevin	George, Bruce
Battle, John	Gerrard, Neil
Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret	Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Beith, Rt Hon A J	Godman, Dr Norman A
Benn, Rt Hon Tony	Godsiff, Roger
Bennett, Andrew F	Golding, Mrs Llin
Benton, Joe	Gordon, Mildred
Bermingham, Gerald	Graham, Thomas
Berry, Roger	Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Betts, Clive	Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Blair, Rt Hon Tony	Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Blunkett, David	Gunnell, John
Boateng, Paul	Hain, Peter
Bradley, Keith	Hall, Mike
Bray, Dr Jeremy	Hanson, David
Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)	Harman, Ms Harriet
Burden, Richard	Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Byers, Stephen	Henderson, Doug
Caborn, Richard	Heppell, John
Callaghan, Jim	Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)	Hodge, Margaret
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)	Hoey, Kate
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)	Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
Canavan, Dennis	Home Robertson, John
Cann, Jamie	Hoon, Geoffrey
Chisholm, Malcolm	Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Church, Judith	Howarth, George (Knowsley North)
Clapham, Michael	Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)
Clark, Dr David (South Shields)	Hoyle, Doug
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)	Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Clwyd, Mrs Ann	Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Cohen, Harry	Hutton, John
Connarty, Michael	Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Cook, Robin (Livingston)	Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Corbett, Robin	Jamieson, David
Corston, Jean	Janner, Greville
Cousins, Jim	Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Cummings, John	Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Cunliffe, Lawrence	Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)	Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John	Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Dafis, Cynog	Jowell, Tessa
Dalyell, Tam	Keen, Alan
Davidson, Ian	Kennedy, Jane (L'pool Br'dg'n)
Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)	Khabra, Piara S
Davies, Chris (L'Boro & S'worth)	Kilfoyle, Peter
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)	Kirkwood, Archy
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)	Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Denham, John	Lewis, Terry
Dewar, Donald	Liddell, Mrs Helen
Dixon, Don	Litherland, Robert
Dobson, Frank	Livingstone, Ken
Donohoe, Brian H	Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Dowd, Jim	Llwyd, Elfyn
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth	Loyden, Eddie
Eagle, Ms Angela	Lynne, Ms Liz
Eastham, Ken	McAllion, John
Etherington, Bill	McCartney, Ian
Evans, John (St Helens N)	Macdonald, Calum

McFall, John	Rendel, David
McKelvey, William	Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)
Mackinlay, Andrew	Roche, Mrs Barbara
McLeish, Henry	Rogers, Allan
McMaster, Gordon	Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
McNamara, Kevin	Rowlands, Ted
MacShane, Denis	Ruddock, Joan
McWilliam, John	Sedgemore, Brian
Madden, Max	Sheerman, Barry
Maddock, Diana	Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Mahon, Alice	Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Mandelson, Peter	Short, Clare
Marek, Dr John	Skinner, Dennis
Marshall, David (Shettleston)	Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)	Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)
Martin, Michael J (Springburn)	Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Martlew, Eric	Smyth, The Reverend Martin
Maxton, John	Spearing, Nigel
Meacher, Michael	Spellar, John
Meale, Alan	Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)
Michael, Alun	Steel, Rt Hon Sir David
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)	Steinberg, Gerry
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)	Stott, Roger
Milburn, Alan	Strang, Dr. Gavin
Miller, Andrew	Straw, Jack
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)	Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Molyneaux, Rt Hon Sir James	Timms, Stephen
Moonie, Dr Lewis	Tipping, Paddy
Morgan, Rhodri	Touhig, Don
Morley, Elliot	Trickett, Jon
Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)	Trimble, David
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)	Turner, Dennis
Mowlam, Marjorie	Tyler, Paul
Mudie, George	Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold
Mullin, Chris	Wallace, James
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon	Walley, Joan
O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)	Wardell, Gareth (Gower)
O'Brien, William (Normanton)	Wareing, Robert N
Olner, Bill	Watson, Mike
O'Neill, Martin	Wicks, Malcolm
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley	Wigley, Dafydd
Pearson, Ian	Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)
Pendry, Tom	Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)
Pickthall, Colin	Wilson, Brian
Pike, Peter L	Wise, Audrey
Pope, Greg	Worthington, Tony
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)	Wray, Jimmy
Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)	Wright, Dr Tony
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Primarolo, Dawn	Tellers for the Ayes:
Raynsford, Nick	Mr. Eric Clarke and.
Reid, Dr John	Ms Ann Coffey.

NOES
Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)	Boswell, Tim
Alexander, Richard	Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)	Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Allason, Rupert (Torbay)	Bowden, Sir Andrew
Amess, David	Bowis, John
Arbuthnot, James	Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)	Brandreth, Gyles
Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)	Brazier, Julian
Ashby, David	Bright, Sir Graham
Atkins, Rt Hon Robert	Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)	Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)	Browning, Mrs Angela
Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)	Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)
Banks, Matthew (Southport)	Budgen, Nicholas
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)	Burns, Simon
Bates, Michael	Burt, Alistair
Batiste, Spencer	Butler, Peter
Bendall, Vivian	Butterfill, John
Beresford, Sir Paul	Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Biffen, Rt Hon John	Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)
Body, Sir Richard	Carrington, Matthew
Booth, Hartley	Carttiss, Michael

Cash, William	Hendry, Charles
Chapman, Sir Sydney	Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Churchill, Mr	Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence
Clappison, James	Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)	Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey	Horam, John
Coe, Sebastian	Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Colvin, Michael	Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Congdon, David	Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)	Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)	Hunter, Andrew
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John	Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Cormack, Sir Patrick	Jack, Michael
Couchman, James	Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Cran, James	Jenkin, Bernard
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)	Jessel, Toby
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)	Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Davis, David (Boothferry)	Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Day, Stephen	Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)
Deva, Nirj Joseph	Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Devlin, Tim	Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Dicks, Terry	Key, Robert
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen	King, Rt Hon Tom
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James	Kirkhope, Timothy
Duncan-Smith, Iain	Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Dunn, Bob	Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)
Durant, Sir Anthony	Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Eggar, Rt Hon Tim	Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Elletson, Harold	Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter	Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)	Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)	Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)	Legg, Barry
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)	Leigh, Edward
Evennett, David	Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark
Faber, David	Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)
Fabricant, Michael	Lidington, David
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)	Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Fishburn, Dudley	Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Forman, Nigel	Lord, Michael
Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)	Luff, Peter
Forth, Eric	Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman	MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)	MacKay, Andrew
Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)	Maclean, Rt Hon David
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger	McLoughlin, Patrick
French, Douglas	McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Fry, Sir Peter	Malone, Gerald
Gale, Roger	Mans, Keith
Gallie, Phil	Marland, Paul
Gardiner, Sir George	Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Garnier, Edward	Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Gill, Christopher	Mates, Michael
Gillan, Cheryl	Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles	Merchant, Piers
Gorman, Mrs Teresa	Mills, Iain
Gorst, Sir John	Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)	Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)	Moate, Sir Roger
Greenway, John (Ryedale)	Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)	Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Grylls, Sir Michael	Needham, Rt Hon Richard
Hague, Rt Hon William	Nelson, Anthony
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald	Neubert, Sir Michael
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)	Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Hampson, Dr Keith	Nicholls, Patrick
Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy	Norris, Steve
Hannam, Sir John	Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Hargreaves, Andrew	Oppenheim, Phillip
Haselhurst, Sir Alan	Ottaway, Richard
Hawkins, Nick	Page, Richard
Hawksley, Warren	Paice, James
Hayes, Jerry	Patnick, Sir Irvine
Heald, Oliver	Patten, Rt Hon John
Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward	Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David	Pawsey, James

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth	Sykes, John
Pickles, Eric	Tapsell, Sir Peter
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)	Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Porter, David (Waveney)	Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael	Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)
Powell, William (Corby)	Temple-Morris, Peter
Rathbone, Tim	Thomason, Roy
Redwood, Rt Hon John	Thompson, Sir Donald (Calder V)
Renton, Rt Hon Tim	Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Richards, Rod	Thornton, Sir Malcolm
Riddick, Graham	Thurnham, Peter
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm	Townend, John (Bridlington)
Robathan, Andrew	Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn	Tredinnick, David
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)	Trend, Michael
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)	Twinn, Dr Ian
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)	Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)	Viggers, Peter
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela	Waldegrave, Rt Hon William
Sackville, Tom	Walden, George
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy	Walker, Bill (N Tayside)
Shaw, David (Dover)	Waller, Gary
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian	Ward, John
Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)	Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)	Waterson, Nigel
Shersby, Sir Michael	Watts, John
Sims, Roger	Wells, Bowen
Skeet, Sir Trevor	Whitney, Ray
Soames, Nicholas	Whittingdale, John
Speed, Sir Keith	Widdecombe, Ann
Spencer, Sir Derek	Wiggin, Sir Jerry
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)	Wilkinson, John
Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)	Willetts, David
Spink, Dr Robert	Wilshire, David
Spring, Richard	Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)
Sproat, Iain	Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)	Wolfson, Mark
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John	Yeo, Tim
Steen, Anthony	Young, Rt Hon Sir George
Stewart, Allan
Streeter, Gary	Tellers for the Noes:
Sumberg, David	Mr. Derek Conway and Mr. Roger Knapman
Sweeney, Walter

Question accordingly negatived.