PREPARATION OF EDUCATION DEVELOPMENT PLANS (Hansard, 15 July 1998)

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Ms Estelle Morris)
I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
In Committee, many hon. Members expressed the desire that the Bill should require express provision in education development plans for children with special educational needs. I made the point both then and on Report that it was not technically necessary, as there was a requirement on local authorities to address the needs of all children in their area in their EDPs
4.45 pm
However, several peers felt that the needs of SEN children would be better protected if provision were written into the Bill. We are happy to agree, and to state beyond any possibility of doubt that we expect local authorities to state in their EDPs how they intend to address the needs of every child, including SEN children. I commend the Lords amendment to the House.

§ Mrs. Angela Browning (Tiverton and Honiton)
How will local authorities describe categories of special educational needs, or will a generic term be used? For example, will SEN children be only those who are statemented or will those who are unstatemented but for whom classroom assistance has been provided be included? How will the categorisation be written in the Bill?

§ Ms Morris
I know that the hon. Lady takes a close interest in the subject, and she will know that there is no standard definition of SEN. Each local authority interprets it in its own way. We are investigating that in our 434 consideration of responses to the Green Paper. I would expect local authorities to use their own definition of SEN and, as a rule of thumb, I would want them to provide an explanation of what they are doing to raise standards for all the children, for example, on each of the five stages in the code of practice.
There is no way out, because, however a local authority chooses to define SEN, it is still answerable for raising standards for every single child. The reason for the amendment—and why we are happy to accede to it—is merely to remove any fear that SEN would be a bolt-on to local authorities' thinking. However local authorities define SEN, those needs and that local definition must be addressed in an annexe to their EDP.
I accept the hon. Lady's signal that there is a real need for a discussion of the legal definition of SEN. We will do that at a later date.

§ Mrs. May
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) for her comments. We had a debate on this subject in Committee, and it would have been nice if the Government had accepted the point then, but we are grateful that they have done so now. It is important that there should be a specific requirement on local education authorities to include provision for children with special educational needs in their education development plans.
The Minister's answer concerns me somewhat. I recognise that there is a practical difficulty, in that different definitions are used by different local authorities, but it would be unfortunate if the inclusion of the amendment left some children out and did not ensure that they were properly covered in the plan. I wonder whether the Government have any intention of examining EDPs when the LEAs submit them, to ensure that all categories of children with special educational needs are being properly catered for, regardless of the definition used, and that no children fall out of the net.

Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. I should remind the House that this is not the Committee stage of the Bill when hon. Members can speak several times. When the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) resumed her seat, no one else was rising, which is why I called the Minister to sum up the debate. Technically, I cannot allow her to speak again in the debate on this amendment. If hon. Members would bear that in mind, we might proceed in a more orderly fashion.