COUNCILLORS were urged yesterday to end their squabbling over who pays for the education of children with learning difficulties or those requiring specialist education.

The plea came from Cosla chief executive Douglas Sinclair after councillors had failed to agree on a banding system aimed at simplifying charging and reducing the number of disputes between authorities.

The problem is yet another consequence of local government reorganisation whereby a new unitary authority is billed if it sends a child into another authority for special educational needs.

Charges could range from #10,000 for children with moderate learning or social/emotional difficulties to #52,000 for seven-day residential provision for children with complex multiple learning difficulties.

After a lengthy discussion at Cosla's Education and Cultural Forum, at which councillors failed to agree on a charging formula, Mr Sinclair said: ''Clearly there isn't consensus on this issue, and I think it is important local authorities are seen to get their act together. I think the public image of councils fighting each other is not in the interests of local government.''

The problem for some authorities is that they feel that those providing special educational needs are in effect being paid twice for providing the service - once through Government grant, and secondly by billing the authority in which the child is resident.

Renfrewshire's convener of education, Mr Brian Oldrey, was unable to accept the banding system proposed by Cosla's head of finance, Mr Norie Williamson. In his view, the problem revolved around how to identify clearly and specifically what amount of grant was given to a council for special needs provision.

He said: ''If I had a child in my area who received through grant a specific amount of special needs money and Councillor Malcolm Green wanted that for Glasgow - and if he can identify that clearly and specifically - there isn't a problem between us. But there is a problem because no-one can identify that amount of grant and a lot of this money is absorbed as part of an overall budget to meet staffing costs.

''In those circumstances, there's clearly an element in my mind that I'm required to pay staffing costs twice, and I don't think that is reasonable. As for the view that we're seeking uniformity, we've had uniformity - the uniformity of one cost for all. It isn't uniformity that we're looking for, it is in fact an equity in how we provide children with special educational needs. Perhaps we should withdraw this report.''

Some members were reluctant to throw out banding completely. Others were puzzled by an apparent contradiction in the document - that the actual costs should be taken into consideration while, in another section, it is suggested that a banding system should apply.

Councillors did agree to the setting up of a member working group to search for a solution.