Westminster Hall

Thursday 5th September 2024 Westminster Hall

Thursday 5 September 2024

[Martin Vickers in the Chair]

Waste Crime: Staffordshire

Thursday 5th September 2024 Westminster Hall

13:30

[Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered waste crime in Staffordshire.

It is a pleasure to speak in my first Westminster Hall debate as the Member of Parliament for Newcastle-under-Lyme. I am delighted to see you in the Chair, Mr Vickers, to share this special moment with me. Yesterday my dad had some serious surgery, and I want to start by thanking the NHS staff who looked after him and thousands of other cancer patients like him in Newcastle-under-Lyme and across our country. I welcome the Minister to her place. She is going to hear a lot from me in the weeks and months ahead, just as she and the Secretary of State have since the election.

The debate is focused on and around waste crime in Staffordshire, so I will touch on that and then focus on the disgraceful situation of Walleys Quarry landfill in my constituency. The true scale of waste crime is by its nature difficult to quantify. Those who are actively involved in waste crime normally seek to evade detection and leave the rest of us to pay the price.

In July 2023, the Environment Agency found that approximately 18% of all waste is illegally managed, equating to 34 million tonnes. As others will know, that is enough waste to fill Wembley stadium 30 times over. My view is simple: we cannot allow these criminals—because that is what someone is when they commit a crime—to get away, enrich themselves and ignore the law any longer.

The previous Government’s resources and waste strategy defines waste crime as

“anything that intentionally breaks the law relating to the handling and disposal of waste.”

Waste crime can be motivated by landfill tax evasion, and generally covers activities including illegal exports of waste, large-scale fly-tipping, illegal burning of waste, illegal operation of waste sites, non-compliance with the waste duty of care, the misclassifying of waste, and falsifying records. I hope the Minister in her response will set out whether she agrees with that definition, whether it is fit for purpose and whether she will look to update the resources and waste strategy.

The Environment Agency’s national waste crime survey 2023 report stated that waste crime cost the economy in England—or rather, cost my constituents in Newcastle-under-Lyme, and people in the county of Staffordshire and across England—an estimated £1 billion per year through evaded tax, environmental and social harm, and loss to legitimate business. That represents a 55% increase since 2015 and an estimated extra £604 million a year. I know the Minister will share my anger at the current situation, and I look forward to her setting out what we will do as a Government to get a grip of the situation.

There is a relatively long list of offences that constitute a waste crime, and I urge colleagues to have a look. I had originally planned to read them out, but it was a full side of A4 and I did not want to detain the House any longer than necessary. We have a long list of offences, but waste crime continues to blight communities at pace.

[Sarah Edwards (Tamworth) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing such an important debate. Last year the Environment Agency released its national waste crime survey results for 2023, which found that 86% of farmers surveyed were affected by fly-tipping. In my Tamworth constituency, residents have raised frustrations about the damage it causes to the countryside and the harm it can cause to nature. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need more collaboration between land managers, local authorities, police and the Environment Agency to better protect farmers against fly-tipping, which for many of our constituencies is a prolific example of rural crime?

[Adam Jogee]

My hon. Friend rightly speaks of the importance of cross-agency working to get those issues addressed. I represent a number of farmers in Newcastle-under-Lyme, and I know that my farmers will share her farmers’ concerns. I thank her for raising that point. We all have examples of waste crimes that have taken place, yet there are plenty of examples where there is no enforcement or prosecution. Has the Minister assessed the adequacy of the long list of offences, and if so, is she happy with them? If she is not, what is the plan to ensure that we get that right?

The impacts of waste crime are widespread, with adverse effects on our constituents, businesses, public services, the environment and the economy. For example, illegal waste sites can pollute the environment through the release of noise, dust, surface or groundwater contamination, or through unauthorised fires and burning. This applies to Walleys Quarry, formerly Red Industries RM Ltd, in Newcastle-under-Lyme, both in terms of dangerous and unacceptable levels of hydrogen sulphide being pumped into my community and of the fire that took place on the evening of 4 August 2024. Sites such as Walleys and other relevant landfills are unlikely to treat the waste in compliance with environmental best practice. Those companies divert waste from legitimate businesses, reducing their potential income streams, viability and competitive advantage. The cost of ameliorating fly- tipped waste falls to public services and our constituents.

I am grateful to Keep Britain Tidy for its helpful briefing ahead of this debate—I suspect that colleagues who are here would have enjoyed that briefing, too. I acknowledge all the work that Keep Britain Tidy does to reclaim our green spaces, to clean our streets and roads and to keep our communities safe and clean.

[Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Adam Jogee]

I will give way to another Staffordshire friend.

[Dave Robertson]

I thank my hon. Friend for initiating such an important debate on this most pressing issue. Does he agree with me that voluntary organisations such as those in my constituency, Burntwood Litter Heroes and Lichfield Litter Legends, really deserve the support and respect of their Members for all the work they do to keep our communities tidy, alongside the work of Keep Britain Tidy?

[Adam Jogee]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I, too, pay tribute to the organisations in his constituency that do so much important work. I very much like the alliteration of Lichfield Litter Legends, so he can pass our collective best wishes on to them.

Fly-tipping is the top environmental challenge faced by many communities, not least in Staffordshire, as we have heard from my hon. Friends the Members for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) and for Tamworth (Sarah Edwards)—neighbours, in fact. Despite resources going into tackling fly-tipping—education, monitoring, enforcement and removal—incidents of fly-tipping continue to increase. The education point for real people in the real world, as opposed to rich criminals in the waste crime world, is so important. This must be about pride—pride in our communities, in our homes, towns and villages—and this new Government, our Government, must lead by example and help to restore that.

In a previous life, I worked for the then shadow Minister for waste crime, my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones). She often raised in debates—I know, because I wrote many of the speeches—the high levels of recycling in Wales, so what discussions has the Minister had with the Welsh Government about best practice, and what lessons can we learn from the Labour Government in Wales? I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Kanishka Narayan) is here.

This issue is of particular concern to residents on The Paddocks in Cross Heath in Newcastle-under-Lyme, and I am working with Councillor John Williams and Councillor Gill Williams on how we can hold the borough and county councils to account. Fly-tipping is also an issue for many residents in Bradwell. I thank one particular resident, Jane Rushton, for her tenacity and her commitment to keeping her community clean and free of fly-tips— I was at her house quite recently; she makes a very good cheese sandwich and an even better date loaf. I know that she is working with Councillor Andrew Fox-Hewitt, Councillor Lesley Richards and Councillor Annabel Lawley to do just that.

The Environmental Services Association—the trade body representing the UK’s resource and waste management industry—published back in 2021 a report entitled “Counting the cost of UK Waste Crime”, and these figures are relevant to now. It broke down the estimated financial impact of waste crime in England from 2018 to 2019 as follows: fly-tipping cost £392 million, illegal waste sites £236 million, misclassification £120 million, exemption breaches £87 million, illegal exports £42 million and waste fires £22 million. That was then and this is now. They are extraordinary sums, so can the Minister let us know what assessment has been made of the financial impact of waste crime in the last year, 2022-23? I suspect that she will have to write to me; I do not expect her to have all those figures now, but I will appreciate a written response.

Back in January 2018, the last Conservative Government published their 25-year environment plan, which set an ambition to eliminate waste crime and illegal waste sites over the lifetime of the plan, so by 2043. There is no evidence of that in Newcastle-under-Lyme, and while I urge the Minister to commit to eliminating waste crime and illegal waste sites, I urge her to give us deeds and not just words. Can she confirm that the Government will update the 25-year environment plan to make it fit for purpose?

In 2018, the Environment Agency was given new powers to tackle the problem of illegal waste sites. That included the power to lock up sites, to block access to them and to require rogue operators to clean up their actions, so I ask the Minister the following questions: how many illegal waste sites have been locked up since 2018? How many illegal waste sites have had access to them blocked? What does the requirement on rogue operators actually look like?

Turning to the disgraceful story of Walleys Quarry, I pay tribute to every local who has expressed their concern and tried to fight for the clean air and safe environment that everyone in our country and our constituencies deserves. I thank all who have campaigned to “stop the stink”. I first met Dr Scott, a GP in Silverdale, back in 2021. The situation facing local people has only got worse since then, when he made the health impacts clear, as he did last month at the public inquiry that the council held. I also acknowledge Dr Mick Salt for his tireless commitment and sheer tenacity—the theme here is that there are tenacious people aplenty in Newcastle-under-Lyme—and every local person who cares about getting the issue resolved.

I am pleased to welcome two of my constituents, Sheelagh and John, who made it down from Newcastle-under-Lyme to be in the Public Gallery for this debate. We are also joined by the deputy mayor of Newcastle-under-Lyme—the shadow Minister will be pleased to know that Councillor Robert Bettley-Smith is a Conservative —and Councillor Jacqueline Brown, a good friend of mine and an excellent Labour councillor in Silverdale.

Finding a way through on Walleys cannot be party political. For too long, the previous Conservative Government refused to engage meaningfully with the Labour Opposition— I know, because I worked for the shadow Minister at the time. For too long, in the council chamber at Castle House in Newcastle-under-Lyme, good ideas tabled by Labour councillors were voted down by the Tories purely because they were Labour ideas. That is no way for us to deliver for the people who sent me here. I welcome both members of the council to this debate, and I appreciate their support for my efforts to get the blight that is Walleys closed, capped, and safely and securely restored.

That will not be easy—if it were, surely to God it would have happened already. My constituents have had enough. They want to know what actually has to happen for action to be taken. How bad do things have to get? How many people need to be stuck in their homes, unable to open their windows, sit in their gardens or breathe without inhaling toxic fumes? They want to know why Newcastle feels like a dumping ground for other people’s waste. They want to see real action from those with enforcement powers to clean their air, to hold the operators to account and finally to rid our town of the disgusting, disgraceful and toxic levels of hydrogen sulphide.

My first words in the House after taking my oath were on Walleys. I promised local people that I would hit the ground running and that I would champion their determination for clean air and healthier lungs, heads and hearts. I have tried to do exactly that.

In August, Newcastle-under-Lyme borough council held a two-day public inquiry into Walleys Quarry. I share my opening remarks with the House. These words were said on behalf of those who live, learn and work in my constituency:

“Like so many of the people who live, learn and work in Newcastle-under-Lyme, I am angry—angry that nothing has changed, angry by the failures of the Environment Agency to give local people what they need—which is action not words.

I have been the MP for Newcastle-under-Lyme for almost 6 weeks”—

or had been then—

“and there isn’t a day that this disgraceful situation isn’t raised with me. I will work every day to get justice for local people and give us the chance to finally move on.

Just this morning, I was with local businesses and heard the impact and pressures they face.

Over the last week, I have heard from many local people terrified by the fire that took place on Sunday 4th August.

And I note that we still wait”—

or at least we did then—

“for the results of the fire investigation—we need to know what happened, why it happened and what lessons will be learned to make sure that it doesn’t happen again.

And hours after the fire, the site was accepting waste again—that is completely and utterly unacceptable in my view. No operator who wants to be a fair and good neighbour, who had regard for the impact on residents would have accepted waste so quickly.”

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is an honour to be here to support the hon. Gentleman; he and I were friends long before he became an MP. I support his actions on behalf of his constituents, with those who are present today. Does he not agree that the complexity of addressing waste crime means that, in situations in his constituency and other parts of the United Kingdom—including my own—urgent action is difficult? We need new legislation and punitive fines that will hit offenders hard. What must be central is that the hon. Gentleman’s constituents and their opinions are key to any change. We must ensure that their viewpoints are not forgotten.

[Adam Jogee]

In a parliamentary context, I feel that I have come of age, having been intervened on by the hon. Member—

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

You never forget your first time.

[Adam Jogee]

You never forget your first time with the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon)—there we are. My wife is indeed from Northern Ireland—but we will stop that one there. I am, however, grateful to him for his intervention, because he makes an interesting point. Lots of people in my constituency were told that everything had been done within the law, so the simple response for me is: let us change the law. The Minister already knows some of my thoughts on that. Although we have a very busy legislative programme following the election, it is something I will push strongly and proactively.

My remarks to the inquiry continued:

“The investigation into the fire concluded that it was most likely caused by a lithium battery, but two things on this, Chair—no battery was found, which raises some very serious questions and Walleys’ permit doesn’t allow for lithium batteries to be disposed of.

My call is simple—we need the site closed, capped and restored. And we need that done now. I have made that point to anyone who will listen and will keep doing so.

Today, I am here as the Member of Parliament for Newcastle-under-Lyme, and I am here to give voice to all the people who have raised this issue with me directly over the last couple of years.

We now need the Environment Agency to honour its responsibility to the people who live, learn and work here.

Simply put, Chair”—

that chair is in the Public Gallery, Councillor Bettley-Smith—

“enough is enough.

I look forward to answering your questions.”

I acknowledge the work of the cross-party committee leading the inquiry, and I welcome the invitation to speak before it, because I wanted Newcastle’s MP in the room helping to shape the way forward and delivering the results that local people want and desperately need. The stress, concern and fear about hydrogen sulphide emissions coming from the site cannot be overestimated. It is having a real impact on people’s lives and has done for many years now. There have been more than 100 breaches of the permit held by Walleys. Mr Vickers, imagine a citizen breaking an agreement, breaking the law or getting caught speeding more than 100 times? Imagine if there had been more than 100 parties in Downing Street. There must be real penalties and real enforcement.

In advance of this debate, the chief executive of Newcastle-under-Lyme borough council provided me with the number of complaints received by the council from 2019 to the end of August 2024: 32,315. Some 32,315 of my constituents have shared their rage, anger and frustration. Residents are also encouraged to report complaints to the Environment Agency, so I suspect there will be many more complaints. More than 30,000 people over five years have said that enough is enough, and we—the relevant agencies, from borough and county councils to the Environment Agency and Whitehall—must listen.

I acknowledge the work of the former Tory MP in my constituency for his work on this issue, but the simple fact is that the people of Newcastle-under-Lyme have been let down and left behind, and that must change.

[Dr Allison Gardner (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Adam Jogee]

I will give way to my neighbour.

[Dr Gardner]

My constituency of Stoke-on-Trent South adjoins my hon. Friend’s, and the smell from Walleys Quarry has extended into the Northwood region of my constituency, which itself has experienced repeated fly-tipping that has caused harm to farmers. I want to reiterate the impact Walleys Quarry has had in Newcastle-under-Lyme and further afield on the quality of residents’ day-to-day lives and, crucially, their health, especially that of young children. There is also the impact on the saleability of homes, which means that residents are stuck and cannot move on. That cannot carry on.

[Adam Jogee]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) is sitting next to her speaks to the collective experience and frustration that we feel in north Staffordshire. I am grateful not only for their support in the fight to get this problem sorted, but for the support of constituents in Stoke-on-Trent South for mine. I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention.

People have been let down by the Environment Agency, the last Government and those who could help us get this sorted. However, I would like to acknowledge the tireless and passionate work of local councillors in our community.

Can the Minister let us know what assessment she has made of the work of the joint unit for waste crime? I know we are in the early days of the new Government, but we need to see and know that these agencies are being held accountable and have the powers required to get things done.

Talking of agencies, let me turn to the Environment Agency. My view is simple: it is simply not fit for purpose. Its responsibilities are far too wide and, in our case, people locally have lost faith in its ability to stand up for us against landfill operators who act like cowboys and who have no regard for the health and wellbeing of their neighbours. I base that on what has happened in my constituency with Walleys Quarry, the land at Doddlespool and Elms Farm and what might well happen at the Bradwell West Quarry.

With all the criminal activity that seemingly, and indeed knowingly in some cases, takes place—or that seems to surround certain elements of the waste industry—something is wrong. Under the Conservative Government, we had a perfect storm: major cuts to local government, savage cuts to the Environment Agency’s staff and budget, and an apparent disregard for how serious waste crime is. That must change. Although I acknowledge that we inherited a financial crisis, we can and should use the law to give my constituents the clean air and healthy lungs they need and deserve.

I do not know what discussions my predecessor had with Ministers in the Conservative Government, so I cannot speak to what happened before 5 July; that is why I secured this debate. I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State signed off on the council’s ability to take action against Walleys—I believe that the previous Conservative Minister left the issue sitting on their desk. I urge the Minister to think about introducing a fit and proper person test for those seeking a permit to operate a landfill site, which would go some way to ensuring that those who have taken the mick can no longer do so. I would be happy to meet the Minister to talk about that in detail.

In January 2024, the now Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs came to Newcastle-under-Lyme to meet local campaigners and Councillor Jacqueline Brown in Silverdale. He smelled, he listened and he understood the situation we face.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner) noted, this is a health crisis as much as an environmental crisis. There is major concern in the community about the fact that the health impacts have not been acknowledged properly. I ask the Minister to meet me and the relevant Health Minister to address the health impact of this waste crisis in Newcastle-under-Lyme.

We need a closure notice, and I urge the Environment Agency to grant one immediately. The site must be properly and safely capped, and we need a restoration plan that is fit for purpose. In recent weeks, we have heard calls from the borough council and the county council about the financial element of the restoration plan. I have a simple question: what on earth is going on? What happened to the financial modelling behind the restoration plan? Why are we now realising that it requires external support? Why was that not raised before? This did not just become an issue after 5 July.

Those who could and should have had their eyes on the ball and their fingers on the pulse have been found wanting. My constituents should not be paying for the failures of the state at all levels, so will the Minister go back to the Department with my suggestion to look at what the Environment Agency does with the money it receives from enforcement action? How much money does it collect from enforcement each year, and how can we ensure that it is used to right the wrongs? The Environment Agency is responsible for upholding the law, and those who break it should pay for their mess.

Walleys Quarry Ltd has a bond with the Environment Agency of, I think, about £1.8 million. I have been told by some of those who should know that the safe, secure restoration of the site could cost as much as £20 million. That is not a revelation; the right people have known about it, and it simply has not been addressed.

After my election, I submitted a range of written parliamentary questions asking to see communication between the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Staffordshire county council, between the Department and the Environment Agency, and between the Department and the borough council. I was told that it would cost too much to process those requests.

[Dr Gardner]

Given the difficult economic situation the country is in, does my right hon. Friend agree that although cost and finances are an important consideration, we must be careful of false economies? Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease is a major issue in areas such as Newcastle-under-Lyme and Stoke-on-Trent South, and the impact of poor air quality on the NHS can be expensive, so actions to address air quality and waste can save money in the long run in terms of health. [Interruption.]

[Adam Jogee]

I am winding up my remarks, Mr Vickers. My hon. Friend makes a really important point: a healthy workforce is an active workforce, and an active workforce will contribute to the growth that the Government seek to bring to communities such as mine and hers, and to those up and down the country, including Keighley. We need to tackle toxic air pollution—we need clean air—so I thank her for making that point. I also thank her for promoting me to right hon.—I did not get that through the Whips.

I was told that it would cost too much for me to see the correspondence between those three bodies and the Department, so I say to the Minister: I am happy to come to the Department any day, any time to look at anyone’s computer. We need to shine a light on the collective failures that have got us into this mess—not the Minister’s failures, but the failures we now have to clean up. My constituents deserve to know, and I need to know. The Minister knows I will not rest until we see a closure notice, and I hope that the Environment Agency is listening to me today. I call on it to share its correspondence with the county council and the borough council with me too.

Walleys Quarry Ltd has written to me several times asking to meet, and it is important to put that on the record. However, it is also important to put on the record that if it had turned up to the cross-party public inquiry at the council, we could have met there. Walleys Quarry could have taken part in an evidence-based democratic process with clear transparency for my constituents.

We are now looking to fill a £20 billion black hole in the national finances, so what discussions are taking place across Government to make sure that landfill operators pay their fair share? I urge her to raise the issue of landfill tax levels with the Treasury. I know that increasing the tax on landfill operators would go down very well in my constituency.

The people of Newcastle-under-Lyme have had enough. They simply want to get on with their lives and to be free from the horrendous and dangerous impact of Walleys Quarry. That cannot be too much to ask, and I will keep fighting—alongside all those who want clean air and healthy lungs, healthy hearts and healthy minds right across Newcastle-under-Lyme—until we get the closure notice that we desperately need and the proper restoration plan to go with it.

[Martin Vickers (in the Chair)]

I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to speak in the debate.

13:56

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) on securing such an important debate in Westminster Hall so early in what I know will be a long and illustrious parliamentary career.

Although the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) may have left, I want to pick up the point he made. Waste crime is often seen as an almost harmless activity and as something that does not hurt anybody, so the urge to deal with it does not necessarily manifest itself in immediate action. The hon. Member talked about the necessity of having significant fines that are robustly levied and vigorously collected, which would be a huge deterrent for rogue operators. Whatever form their action took, they would know that there was a penalty for the blight they cause to communities and the damage they do to people.

I will constrain my comments, first, to the Walleys Quarry site, which my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme mentioned. Starting 14 years ago, I had the pleasure of being a district councillor in the neighbouring authority of Newcastle-under-Lyme. The very first piece of casework I had was about Walleys Quarry—the smell emanating from it, the activities happening on site, and the questionable content of lorries driving up Cemetery Road on quiet mornings, with flocks of seagulls feasting on what was deposited. There have been several operators since then, but even at that time it was impossible to get to the bottom of what was going into the site and what was happening there. The situation was opaque, with obfuscation and sleight of hand by people who, I believe, simply tried to tell the community, “It’s all good. It’s all fine. By the way the landfill fund that your community can bid for offsets the fact that we’re here.” One day, they tried to blame the smell on the neighbouring sewage treatment plant, directing me and my ward colleagues to talk to Severn Trent Water about what they said must obviously be a faulty sewerage outlet.

Unfortunately, that attitude summed up any interaction I had with the operating company for many years. The concerns of residents were secondary, and as long as the company was bringing in the waste and able to put it in a hole, cover it with a layer of clay and say that it was capped off properly, it was not particularly worried about the impact. That has gone on for years and years, so I genuinely congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme on bringing the issue to the attention of the House.

I am no longer resident in my hon. Friend’s constituency or the councillor for Silverdale. When I moved to where I live now, my lung health improved dramatically. I am asthmatic. I lived in Silverdale for about 15 years, and every day my Ventolin inhaler was glued to my pocket because at some point I would have some sort of triggering event requiring me to take a reliever. When, about three years ago, I moved a mere three miles away to where I am now, my lung health dramatically improved. I no longer need my Ventolin inhaler as frequently as I did. My lifestyle has not changed; if anything, my burgeoning waistline has put me in a slightly less healthy position. The only common factor that has impacted my health is the air that I breathe daily.

I am glad that we are discussing this issue, and I am glad that we are doing so in a Westminster Hall debate where we can consider it at length. However, I say to the Minister—my friend whom I have known for many years now—that the local debate on it has gone on for a while. What we seek, and I have great faith that she will deliver, is the action that was missing under the previous Government. Although my constituency is three miles away, there are some mornings—particularly cold, crisp weather mornings—when, much like my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner), I can open my front door, walk to the bottom of my street and smell the landfill site three miles away. It is a smell you do not forget if you have lived there and know the area. It does not matter where you are in north Staffordshire, if you can smell it, you can smell it, and you know what it is. It is the same scent wherever it manifests.

Up until only a couple of years ago, my daughter still went to school in Silverdale. If we drove towards the school, the smell would get stronger and stronger. We would get to the crossroads at the bottom of Cemetery Road and Silverdale Road, and we would hope with all our hearts that the lights were on green. The last thing we wanted to do was sit there while the rotation went through at the traffic lights, knowing that we would be stuck in a puddle of foul-stenching air that was almost certainly coming from Walleys Quarry. What may have been only four or five minutes as the traffic lights cycled through would feel like an age as we breathed in what was undoubtedly harmful, somewhat poisonous gas from the operating site. I welcome the fact that we are debating this issue, but, as I said to the Minister, now that we have a new set of Members of Parliament for north Staffordshire and a new Government, I hope that there is an opportunity to reset national action so that we can get the outcome that local people need.

I want to expand my speech to include wider waste crime issues across north Staffordshire. Although Walleys Quarry is undoubtedly a national disgrace, other parts of north Staffordshire have equally found themselves at the mercy of reprehensible individuals who have undertaken to make a fast buck on the back of local communities through the way they have dealt with waste. One such site was the old Twyford factory in the middle of Etruria in my Stoke-on-Trent Central constituency. I first raised the issue with the then Minister back in 2018, when it was quite clear that the factory was stuffed to the rafters with illegally accepted industrial waste. The chief fire officer for Staffordshire at the time, Becci Bryant, made it quite clear that not only would a fire on the site be devastating to the immediate area, where businesses were trying to operate, but, because the site was next to the west coast main line, a fire would shut the line down for months. Significant public investment would be required to make the railway safe, and the untold health implications would not be known for many years.

What waste was in there, nobody knew. How much was in there, nobody knew. All anyone could see as they drove around the A500 in Stoke-on-Trent was this once-proud factory that had such manufacturing history, and, through its graffitied windows, polythene bales of unknown materials stacked one upon the other. I was told by the chief fire officer that a genuine concern was spontaneous combustion, because tightly packed, unknown materials in plastic can sometimes simply set themselves on fire. That was in the heart of my constituency next to a residential housing development of several hundred people.

To his credit, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), who was the Minister at the time, was happy to look at how we could use funds from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to try to clear the site. The former Secretary of State, Michael Gove, met us to discuss the matter and we had a plan. To her great credit, my successor and predecessor, Jo Gideon, fought hard to get the site cleared. She made it a priority for her constituency and her constituents. The site was cleared at a cost to the public purse of around £10 million. That is £10 million of public money to clear one site in one constituency. It took a very long time, not because of intervention from the Government or for any local reason, but because every time we got to a point at which an enforcement notice could be raised, the owner would promise to clear up the site and the enforcement notice would not be taken forward. We then went down the cost recovery route for proceeds of crime, which took an inordinately long time. A fine was levied against the owner to have it cleared, and he was given six months to raise the money to pay for that. During all that additional time, the site remained a huge fire, health and safety risk to the neighbouring businesses, one of which closed up and moved for its own safety. The site was an eyesore in the middle of Stoke-on-Trent.

I know the Minister takes a huge interest in our environment and how we can make communities such as mine better, more prosperous and more sustainable. We are talking about a prime development site where development was slowed down because we were wrangling with one individual who had made an obscene amount of money by accepting illegal waste on to the site, and who did not want to use any of that money to clear it up. The fact that we had to clear it up not only represented a waste of taxpayers’ money, but slowed down the economic regeneration and development of Etruria and Hanley in my constituency. To this day, although it has now been cleared, the site stands vacant. The opportunities that it presented would have been game-changing for my constituency. We are talking not just about the cost of cleaning sites up, but about the opportunity costs in cities where huge buildings are misused by individuals who seek to make a fast buck.

[Dave Robertson]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising the issue. Around seven years ago, piled-up waste was disposed of in a similar site in Lichfield city—the old GKN site. My understanding is that the waste was fly-tipped. It caught fire, and arson was suspected. It was the fourth such incident in Staffordshire that year, and it took eight appliances and 65 firefighters to deal with the fire. Like the site my hon. Friend is discussing, it has been cleared but still awaits development. This is endemic across Staffordshire.

[Gareth Snell]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention—and I am grateful to be able to call him my hon. Friend; last time I was in the Commons, I never thought I would have the opportunity to call a Member who represented Lichfield my hon. Friend, and doing so fills my heart with glee. He is absolutely right. This debate could easily have been about waste crime anywhere in the country, because duplicitous operators who seek to make money off the backs of our communities without any care or attention are everywhere. I am sure that the new Minister will be clamping down on them hard.

I turn to how we do that. While we can all air our grievances about the sites in our constituencies, I want to spend a few moments focusing on what comes next. I tend to agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme said about the fitness for purpose of the Environment Agency, but I will be slightly more generous to it than he was. He rightly has a grievance with it over the operation of Walleys Quarry, but I think there is a bigger problem about the way we do regulatory enforcement in this country. The Environment Agency is an example that we can use to demonstrate that.

Every so often, Unchecked UK produces a document about the enforcement gap, looking at how regulatory organisations and agencies have done less and less enforcement over time. In its 2020 enforcement gap report, Unchecked UK found that between 2010 and 2020, the number of staff working for the Environment Agency decreased by 32%, so one in three staff disappeared. It also found that over the same period of time, the Environment Agency’s budget decreased by 63%. As a result, the number of prosecutions it could undertake decreased by 88%. The number of enforcement notices it was able to levy went down by 69.5%, and it could only take 44% of them through to prosecution because it lacked the capacity to undertake the necessary regulatory enforcement work.

While we must not excuse the actions of those who perpetrate waste crime around our country, it is not impossible to see why they think it is a lucrative way to spend their time and energy. The likelihood of their getting caught, of an enforcement notice being levied upon them or of a prosecution being brought has gone down and down over the past 10 years.

It is not just the Environment Agency that has had this problem. Local authorities around the country, which have a really important environmental health role and can quite often take small-scale actions in communities to prevent much larger destructive activities, have suffered the same blight. Over the past 10 years, 32% of environmental health staff in local authorities have been lost. That means that many enforcement and regulatory agencies react to problems, but they are unable to take proactive and preventive work to avoid things becoming problems in the first place.

[Dr Gardner]

Further to what my hon. Friend has said, we have to think about the involvement of other agencies. In Staffordshire, and I am sure elsewhere, fly-tipping and the illegal dumping of waste are often linked to organised crime. Therefore, the points that he made about local government, the Environment Agency and regulators also extend to preventive policing.

[Gareth Snell]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. It is almost as if she has read the script in front of me, because she has perfectly lined me up for my next point, which is about the link between illegal dumping, fly-tipping in communities and the wider connection to organised crime and money making. Another report from Unchecked UK, published in 2022, pointed out that enforcement against fly-tipping was at a 10-year low, while the number of incidents of fly-tipping was at a 10-year high. There is a growing chasm between what is happening on the ground and the activities that perpetrators are being punished for and prevented from carrying out.

[Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)]

I am in the neighbouring county of Warwickshire —we share many borders with Staffordshire—and fly-tipping is at an all-time high in my constituency. Much of that is from organised crime from the neighbouring boroughs of Tamworth, Coventry and Birmingham. They come along the M42, the M6 or the A5 and dump waste in the entrances to farms in the middle of the night.

That was the biggest issue that was raised when I recently met the National Farmers’ Union in my area. It is also the No. 1 issue raised by our local rural crime service, but it is not taken seriously by the police and crime commissioner for Warwickshire, and neither is any funding spent on advising people not to use the white vans that parade the streets offering to remove their waste. Reports of fly-tipping are the No. 1 thing I see every day on my local Facebook page. Because no money is spent on publicity, people have no idea where they should report these crimes—whether it is the local authority, the Environment Agency or the police. There has to be more joined-up working, and I would like to see the Minister leading that.

[Martin Vickers (in the Chair)]

Order. I remind hon. Members that interventions should be a little shorter than that.

[Gareth Snell]

I agree with everything that my hon. Friend has just said. We should not think about fly-tipping simply as community blight. It is not just about the sofa abandoned down the back alley; it is about cross-country, cross-border organised crime that is making millions of pounds for people in our communities who, frankly, have no interest in our communities. She made the point rather eloquently about the requirement for our police and crime commissioners to understand that this is an important issue that they must prioritise and tackle.

On the fly-tipping point that my hon. Friends the Members for Newcastle-under-Lyme and for Stoke-on-Trent South raised, I return to its longer-term impact. Fly-tipping is a waste crime that takes place in Staffordshire, and the House of Commons Library note that accompanies the debate gives the rather sad fact from the 2022-23 figures that almost half of all fly-tipping incidents across the whole of Staffordshire took place in Stoke-on-Trent. That is not a record that I am particularly proud of or would want to be associated with my city. That is why I am glad that upon its election in 2023, under the expert leadership of Councillor Amjid Wazir, the deputy leader of the council, the city council launched a clean-up campaign against illegal dumping in our towns under the moniker of “IDIOT”. “Don’t be an IDIOT” was the line. The council said, “Don’t dump in our towns. Don’t allow our community to be used by those criminal gangs that want to ruin our cities.”

The outcome has been spectacular: we now have considerably fewer incidents of fly-tipping. That is not only because the council makes a concerted effort to clear it up, but because it has invested in an environmental crime unit that seeks to prosecute and fine those people who dump waste in our towns and cities. The council has tripled the number of fines it hands out, and it pursues people through the courts where they refuse to pay the fine. It makes it clear that if people wish to undertake illegal activity related to waste in Stoke-on-Trent at a community level, the council is coming for them and will fine them. I personally would like a name-and-shame campaign, but I have not quite won the battle with the council yet; give it time.

What I would not want to be taken away from this debate is the idea that Staffordshire is the nation’s dustbin, and that it is strewn with all these terrible activities; because while we have these incidents, most of the people in our communities who live in Stoke-on-Trent and Staffordshire want to see clean neighbourhoods. They go out every day and do a little bit of work to make their community better. They clean up fly-tipping, report an illegally dumped sofa, report the smells to the Environment Agency, and report to the police abandoned buildings that suddenly start having industrial waste put near them. They do that because they want—as does everyone else in my constituency, county and city—to live in a clean, tidy and safe place. When the Minister winds up, will she give me some sense of hope to take back to Stoke-on-Trent that this Government, with this Minister, will deliver on that aspiration for clean, safe streets in every community, and that she will let us know how we can help her achieve that?

14:18

[Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) on organising the debate. It is an important topic, and I commend the research he has put into his speech, illuminating the scale of the problem. Thirty-four million tonnes, or 18%, of waste being illegally disposed of and £1 billion in costs, with a 55% increase since 2019, shows what a significant problem this is, and it is important that we work collaboratively to tackle it.

The hon. Member also showed the passion that his community has for dealing with waste while working collaboratively. It has been good to hear praise for predecessor MPs of other parties, from him and from the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell), which again shows the value of working cross-party on this topic.

Some key themes have emerged from the debate. We have heard about the impact on the environment and nature, especially from lithium dumping in landfill sites, with the consequent risk of fire. Indeed, it is not just a risk: fires of a significant nature have been highlighted in a number of contexts.

There is also a health impact on local residents, who are affected by the facilities near residential areas. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner) rightly highlighted the benefits and importance of having a healthy workforce, so that our economy can grow and productivity can be improved. Various speakers have highlighted the economic impact of the problem and the issues in various constituencies, including a lack of land available for development because previous waste facilities have not been cleared up. The workforce productivity challenge was also mentioned.

We heard of the importance of cross-party and cross-agency working to tackle waste in Staffordshire and nationally, and many agencies have been cited. Local authorities clearly have a role, as do the police. A number of Members mentioned the importance of strengthening the Environment Agency’s resources, powers and ability to enforce. Many businesses are affected. Within my constituency in Oxfordshire, a landfill operator has been causing problems similar to those discussed, including by producing significant odours and not always being as transparent and proactive in its engagement and communication with local communities as we might wish.

A key outcome of this debate will, I hope, be recognition of the importance of tackling the root causes of the waste problem that we face. Our recycling rates in the United Kingdom remain lower than those of comparable European countries, although they have been improving. The more we can all do to help businesses and households to tackle those root causes, the more it will reduce the need for some of these waste facilities.

[Adam Jogee]

The hon. Member rightly talks about recycling rates in the United Kingdom. I noted in my remarks the example of Wales. Although we are very proud English MPs, it is important to note that Wales had the world’s third highest rates of recycling, so we can see examples of where this works. There was talk before of about 7 or 8 million bins, but that is not what we are talking about. Through education, proper engagement and support for local authorities, it is really possible to make headway, and the Welsh have shown that.

[Olly Glover]

I thank the hon. Member for that; it is very good to hear of Welsh good practice in reducing waste demand. It is clearly important that we work to create an economy in which we envisage the whole life cycle of products and produce, including how they will be disposed of effectively and in an environmentally friendly manner.

We have also heard of the impact that waste facilities have on house prices within Staffordshire and how that affects people’s ability to move. The debate has been helpful in highlighting some of these wider impacts and challenges. This is not just about fly-tipping or local nuisance; it has real consequences for people’s lives. We heard very useful comments from the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North about how some operators of these facilities are sometimes inclined to misattribute the cause of odours, trying to blame them on things such as sewage. That is why it is important to have engagement with and listen to local residents. The Environment Agency must have the resources to collate that data and intelligence, so that the problems can be properly mapped and anticipated and interventions can be made.

In conclusion, today’s debate has been useful for highlighting the problems of waste management within Staffordshire, but it has also highlighted how these themes are relevant across the country. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s thoughts and remarks on how the new Government will attempt to tackle these problems.

14:24

[Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I thank the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) for securing this important debate, and I welcome him to the House. I also send him and his father best wishes following his father’s surgery yesterday. It is good to see the Minister in her place for our second debate this week. I would like to use this opportunity to put on the record my thanks to all the officials who worked with me when I was lucky enough to be in what I think is the best Department in Government, specifically on the waste and resources strategy. I should be grateful if she would not mind passing on my thanks, particularly to Emma and Clare in the waste resources team.

I shall start my speech by echoing comments made by colleagues throughout this debate on the dangers of the costs of waste crime to local communities, which are undoubtedly huge. The Environment Agency’s national waste crime survey 2023 report stated that,

“the waste industry estimate costs to the English economy total £1 billion annually through evaded tax, environmental and social harm, and lost legitimate business.”

That impact is of course not only monetary; waste crime in its many forms poses a significant threat to our environment. Illegal dumping and the improper disposal of hazardous waste contaminate our land, water and air. Those pollutants can take years—if not decades—to break down, causing long-term damage to ecosystems and biodiversity. They poison our water supplies, degrade our soils and harm wildlife, leaving a legacy of destruction that future generations must deal with. Most pressing is the extremely negative impact on communities up and the country that are forced to deal with the damaging consequences that harmful pollutants and emissions can have. As we are all constituency MPs, we know that we have residents who are being directly impacted in our constituencies, whether that be from fly-tipping or waste crime of a more serious nature. That is something that my constituents unfortunately experience in Keighley, Ilkley, Craven and the wider Worth valley.

I shall devote the rest of my speech specifically to Walleys Quarry in Newcastle-under-Lyme, on which I completely sympathise with the residents, businesses and wider community of not just Newcastle-under-Lyme, but Silverdale and the wider Stoke-on-Trent area. They have been fighting this issue for a significant number of years—far too many years—and I commend the predecessor of the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme, Aaron Bell, on his tireless campaigning, over the four years that he was lucky enough to be in this House, in search of a solution. Aaron Bell worked with his constituents to seek a way forward by trying to hold to account not only the operator of Walleys Quarry but the regulator and enforcer, the Environment Agency. He was also instrumental in working with the Stop the Stink campaign, and I am sure that the new hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme will continue the good work of his predecessor, as he has done by securing this very debate.

I was lucky enough to be a Minister in what is probably the best Department in Government for a short time, from November 2023 to the general election. In that time, I visited Newcastle-under-Lyme and Silverdale to meet campaigners, local councillors, residents and the previous MP, to hear directly from them about the negative consequences that Walleys Quarry was having, and I deeply sympathised with the points that they made. As a result of those meetings, I made it clear that the Environment Agency over a period of time had failed in its duties and failed local residents. On the strength of what has been said today and despite the, to be frank, repeated warnings given to the Environment Agency by many, including myself when I was lucky enough to be in the Department, it seems that the agency’s attitude is that the operator will clean up its act by itself—which is simply not the case. Residents’ concerns about toxic fumes have been raised since 2012, albeit largely ignored by the Environment Agency as the regulator, meaning that the ongoing situation continues to have a substantial negative impact on the community, not just economically but on its health and wellbeing.

The reality is that the Environment Agency’s actions have gone nowhere near far enough, and in my view the landfill site needs to be closed altogether. The Minister will know that those are exactly the points that I was trying to put across to the Environment Agency during my short time in the Department. As she will also know, given that she seems to have been sufficiently briefed on the previous meetings, I was so disheartened by the Environment Agency’s actions that I requested weekly meetings with its team to understand sufficiently what actions it was taking as the regulator and the enforcer. Public hearings held in July demonstrated the serious public health issues arising from fumes from the site, with Staffordshire’s director of health and care highlighting the negative impact on public health and the risk that the noxious gases pose for health, both in the short and long term.

When I met residents, one of the other huge concerns they rightly raised, along with the direct negative impact on them, was the impact on the local economy, not just in Newcastle-under-Lyme but across the wider Stoke-on-Trent area. Businesses, cafés, shops, a sports centre, a sports club that I was lucky enough to visit and even a local school are all being negatively impacted. Again, had the Environment Agency taken robust action, it could have reduced the financial, environmental and social impacts.

[Adam Jogee]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind comments to me and my family. I was going to be a bit meaner to him than I may now be—I am my father’s son—but I do want to ask him two questions. First, in February 2024, a few weeks after the current Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham and Croydon North (Steve Reed), visited Newcastle, the hon. Gentleman also quite rightly visited, and he said that no options were off the table. What did that mean? Secondly, does he think the Environment Agency has the powers it needs to properly get this sorted?

[Robbie Moore]

I distinctly recall saying from the Dispatch Box that no options were off the table, and that specifically meant that, in my view, the site should be closed. Officials will know that those points were being made to officials in the Department and at the Environment Agency, but officials will present other challenges, to do with legal implications and the processes that need to be followed. I am sure that the current Minister will have to deal with those challenges before the Environment Agency is able to take any further action, but there was clear advocacy from the previous ministerial team that Walleys Quarry should be closed. I wish the Minister well and am prepared to work with her to ensure that that solution can be reached.

The Environment Agency also singularly failed to find a solution to sufficiently safeguard the local community against the hazard presented by hydrogen sulphide, a gas released when waste breaks down on the site. For far too long, residents have had to put up with a strong eggy smell, which I experienced for myself when I visited the site. In my view, urgent and decisive action from the Environment Agency is required right now. I certainly made those frustrations known when I was in the Department, as I have indicated.

The Environment Agency has expressed its sympathy for local residents, but now is not the time for sympathy; it is time for action, not words. The Environment Agency put in place regular inspections to monitor levels of hydrogen sulphide. However, the latest data suggests mass under-reporting of the extent of the gas, and that the levels at the site were on average 80% higher than reported by the Environment Agency over a two-year period. The Environment Agency’s response to that latest failure on its part has been to apologise again and to announce another public meeting—yet again, words not actions. We all know that data collection is incredibly important for an enforcer to be able to take action, but the Environment Agency has failed in this simple task and, in my view, has failed to put monitoring points in appropriate locations around the Walleys Quarry site.

[Gareth Snell]

Further to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee), there have been 10 years of data. I know because I used to ring the EA frequently in 2010, when I was in my constituency surgeries in the library in Silverdale and we could smell the smell. What more does the former Minister believe he would have needed in order to give a closure notice? Given that we all seem to agree that there has been a decade of failure by the Environment Agency, when he was Minister, what did he do to try to work out what the internal failings were, so that other communities that may have these problems do not have the long period of terribleness that we have had?

[Robbie Moore]

As I said, monitoring is incredibly important, because we need the data to be able to hold those who pollute to account, and the regulator needs the data to be able to take appropriate enforcement action, as the Environment Agency should do. But that data has to be collected appropriately, which the EA has not done, in my view, and the datasets have to be accurate. Looking back, there was a calibration issue with the datasets that were being collected, which meant that the Environment Agency had to issue a further apology. In my view, it is completely unacceptable.

That raises the bigger question, which the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme has already asked, whether the Environment Agency is fit for purpose in its current format. All the challenges that I am laying out today are things that I experienced in my short months at the Department. This is simply not good enough action by the Environment Agency. As I have stipulated, the site should be closed. Again, that is something that I advocated while in the Department. As the hon. Member said, this leads to the bigger question: is the Environment Agency fit for purpose?

In the debate earlier in the week I put some questions to the Minister and sought a response, and I will do so again today. If she is not able to give me an answer now—I quite appreciate that she may not be—I kindly ask that she puts her responses in writing, for the benefit of all of us in the Chamber and the residents of Newcastle-under-Lyme. I note that I have previously put similar questions to officials.

Will the Minister update the House on the current situation at Walleys Quarry, and is she content with the advice that she is being given by the Environment Agency? Does she agree that Walleys Quarry should be closed with immediate effect, as has been strongly advocated by previous Ministers in the Department?

[Gareth Snell]

The hon. Gentlemen is in a position of unparalleled knowledge compared with all of us, having been the Minister, at which time he advocated for immediate closure. I think the quarry should be closed immediately, and he has said that he does. What was he missing as the Minister? What lever that was just out of reach would have immediately brought about the closure of the site? If legislative change is needed then we can write that Bill here and now and take it to the House and try to get it passed, but the hon. Gentleman has been there and knows why it could not happen. What else would he have needed to get the job done?

[Robbie Moore]

In my view, it came down to process. There is a process that needs to be followed, with a suspension notice being served in the first instance to reasonably give the operator the chance to sort itself out. In my view, that process is not sufficient to satisfy residents, businesses and the wider community, but it was advocated to me that the process needed to be adhered to before we could get to the position of issuing a closure notice. I wish the Minister extremely well, and she will have my full support in trying to achieve a closure notice at speed. That is the only way of issuing a clear warning to the operator that if it pollutes, it cannot get away. The taxpayer should not have to pay for it.

Coming back to my questions, how many other landfill sites are being impacted by illegal waste dumping? How many other sites are there where local residents are being negatively impacted by pollutants and emissions?

[Adam Jogee]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Robbie Moore]

I will not, because I think the Minister needs 20 minutes to sum up, and it is only fair to give that to her.

Does the Minister agree that when landfill sites, or sites of a similar nature, are given initial planning permission, a bond should be put in place to deal with remediation costs and compensation payments, for example, so that if a dodgy operator like the one we have seen at Walleys Quarry does not adhere to the conditions it has signed up to or goes bust, local residents in Newcastle-upon-Lyme or elsewhere are not exposed to the costs?

[Adam Jogee]

It is “under”—Newcastle-under-Lyme.

[Robbie Moore]

I apologise—it is because I worked in Newcastle-upon-Tyne for a long time.

I believe that such a bond was not put in place when John Prescott awarded the initial planning consent for the site. Does the Minister agree that the taxpayer should not have to pay a penny towards the costs associated with the remediation or clean-up works, or indeed the enforcement programme that the Environment Agency should carry out when we know an operator is in the wrong? It must be the polluter that pays, not the constituents of the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme or the local council. Further, does the Minister agree that when we talk about “polluter pays”, any fine that the EA imposes should include an element of compensation for those who have been impacted? Finally, does she think that the Environment Agency is fit for purpose in its current format as a robust regulator and enforcer?

I genuinely wish the Minister well on this issue. She has my full support in seeking a closure notice for the site.

14:39

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mary Creagh)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) on securing this debate and on his ongoing work for his constituents. I extend my best wishes to his father and wish him a speedy recovery. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the work he did on this issue before coming to this place, alongside my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones).

Everybody’s environment starts outside their front door. We have heard today of issues outside the front doors and on the school playing fields and sports grounds of Newcastle-under-Lyme, Stoke-on-Trent and Staffordshire more widely. We have heard some powerful speeches and interventions, in particular from my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell), whom I am delighted to see back in this place.

The Government will ensure that those who illegally dump their waste are brought to justice. Waste crime and poor-performing waste sites threaten our environment and, in some cases—as my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme said—our health. The truth is that the system we inherited is broken. We have heard of the perfect storm of cuts to councils, police officers and the Environment Agency, and a system that has had no new policy for 14 years and is based on paper-based notes kept in people’s drawers. That is an anachronism in the 21st century and, as we have heard, it is being exploited by waste criminals up and down the country.

Waste crime costs this country £1 billion a year. We know that 18% of waste may be handled illegally at some point in the waste supply chain. We have to plug the gaps and fix the system—we pretty much have to rebuild it. At the end of March 2024, there were 320 known active illegal waste sites, and 141 of them are high risk.

Waste crime is hugely under-reported: only 25% is reported. The Environment Agency deals with a huge number of reports of waste—it received 9,000 in 2022—and has only 240 officials to process them. We do not need to do the maths—we have some young people in the Public Gallery, and I am sure they are better at maths than me anyway. It is impossible for the agency to follow up every single crime. We need to start tightening up the system and seeing the patterns, and we need different agencies to work together.

This situation cannot continue. In our manifesto, as part of our crackdown on antisocial behaviour, we committed to forcing fly-tippers and vandals to clean up the mess they have created. We will take our country back from the fly-tippers and waste criminals who disgrace and despoil our communities, damage our environment and undermine legitimate businesses that do the right thing, play their part and fully comply with the regulations.

My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme asked me whether the system is fit for purpose. My answer is that it is not, and we will take action at pace to tackle this. As a mission-led Government, we will achieve our aims by focusing on ambitious, measurable and long-term objectives that will provide our driving sense of purpose. We will be publishing a circular economy strategy to move us to a future in which we keep our resources in use for longer and reduce waste. That will increase investment in critical infrastructure and green jobs. Of course, waste crime, whether in Staffordshire or elsewhere, threatens that circular economy because it takes out resources and undermines businesses that are doing the right thing.

There is an important distinction to be made between waste crime, which is often associated with serious and organised crime and organised crime groups, and permitted but poorly performing waste sites, of which Walleys Quarry is the pre-eminent example in this country. The approaches to mitigating the impacts are very different. Over the past four years in Staffordshire, the Environment Agency has ensured that four illegal, high-risk fire sites have been cleared of waste—more than 40,000 tonnes of baled waste—which was sent to suitably permitted facilities, reducing the fire risk and protecting more than 12,000 properties from the impact.

I must also say something about batteries. Every supermarket has a battery collection point, but the little lithium-ion batteries are tiny, and we cannot be bothered, we do not want to collect them or we just forget to take them to the supermarket; it is very easy just to chuck them in the bin. The problem, however, is that when the waste is crushed in the machinery, the battery can spark. When thinking about such issues, it is incumbent on every single person in this room or watching at home online to ensure that we do not put our batteries into our household waste.

There is a big education piece to be done on that. I pay tribute to the councils that have taken that to heart. I was reflecting as I was listening to the speech about Stoke-on-Trent Central and what had happened there. I asked for fixed penalty notice stats from all the authorities in Staffordshire. In 2022-23, Newcastle-under-Lyme borough council issued only three fixed penalty notices for fly-tipping, with zero prosecutions, but under Stoke-on-Trent city council’s “Don’t be an IDIOT” campaign, there were 875 fixed penalty notices for fly-tipping and nine prosecutions. That probably puts that city council at the top—certainly in the top half, maybe the top 10%—among local authorities in the country. I pay tribute to the work of that Labour-led council.

[Adam Jogee]

I thank the Minister for her initial remarks in response to this debate. I echo the point she made about the leadership being shown by Stoke-on-Trent. I dearly wish that Conservative-led Newcastle borough council would follow that example of cleaning up the streets and the “IDIOT” campaign, which would give my constituents the benefits they deserve.

[Mary Creagh]

We all have a lot to learn from each other. I offer those statistics in the spirit of co-operation and encouraging good practice.

Between January 2023 and 2 August 2024, there were 21 substantiated illegal waste sites in the Staffordshire area, and all 21 of them have been stopped from operating, the vast majority within three months of being reported to the Environment Agency. Five have been fully cleaned up, while the risks posed by the remaining sites are being managed and monitored.

The Environment Agency regulates more than 10,000 waste permits, the majority of which are in the top compliance bands. However, I am aware that 3%, or about 300, of those permits attract public interest because they are not in compliance. Those disproportionately take up resource, energy and regulatory activity. I stressed to the Environment Agency officials whom I spent time with today ahead of this debate that my top priority is to take action to bring those sites back into compliance and, where necessary, to embark on criminal investigations.

Walleys Quarry, one such non-compliant site, has been a source of concern for residents over several years, as we have heard. This morning, I was informed that it is the worst-performing waste site in the country. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme asked for a meeting with me, and I am only too happy to meet him. I shall ask Environment Agency and Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs officials to be in the room for that meeting, so that we can have a full discussion and get to the bottom and the heart of what is going on.

The Environment Agency has carried out significant activity since 2021—more than for any other regulated site—and a criminal investigation is also under way, about which I cannot say more for fear of prejudicing those inquiries. However, the local residents and councillors who are in the Public Gallery today have had to put up with unacceptable levels of hydrogen sulphide. Interestingly, that substance comes from the plasterboard that we all have; it happens when it is broken down and smashed up. As we try to design in a circular economy, we must think about what materials we use in our home and what happens to them, because there is no such place as “away” at their end of life. It is not acceptable for odours to reach a level that causes serious offence to local communities. I am pressing the Environment Agency to keep all regulatory options under review and look at its enforcement and sanctions policy.

[Robbie Moore]

Could the Minister pick up my specific question about the closure of the site? In his shadow role before the election, I believe the Secretary of State wanted to advocate for closure, as I do. What is the Minister’s view on that?

[Mary Creagh]

I have not had specific advice on closure. It is clear that there is a criminal investigation under way, and we have to let that take its course.

Let us look at waste crime. In recent years there has been an increase in the involvement of serious and organised criminal gangs in the waste sector. That is of the greatest concern to me; it goes back to the perfect storm of a broken waste system. The joint unit for waste crime brings together the Environment Agency, His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs—because in our experience, criminals never break the law in just one area; they always break it in several areas—the National Crime Agency, the police, waste regulators from the UK and other partners to share intelligence, and disrupt and prevent serious organised waste crime. There has been progress to target organised crime groups, and this model is respected internationally. The issue is not unique to the United Kingdom.

The unit has supported or led more than 90 operations since April 2020 and has worked with 133 partner organisations. It has had 301 days of action, which have resulted in 174 associated arrests by other agencies. The Environment Agency recently announced the formation of its national enforcement service—a new economic crime unit that targets the money and assets of waste criminals. It will target the financial motivation behind offending and use financial mechanisms to inhibit the ability of offenders, including OCGs, to operate. It has all gone a bit “Line of Duty” there; I will crack on.

I also urge members of the public: it is incumbent on every one of us to report waste crime where we see it in our communities. It is under-reported. When someone comes and says, “I can take that waste away for you for 20 quid,” it is so important that we ask to see their waste permit. When someone asks a farmer or a landowner, “Can I store these bales on your land?” and says it is just a bit of plastic or a bit of soil, I urge them to be curious: have they actually got a permit? Is it really soil or is it shredded down plastics? The money is moving from legitimate waste operators and going to these organised crime groups.

We know the impact that this issue has on people’s lives. We are determined to reform this sector. That starts with reform of the waste carrier, broker and dealer regime, which means those transporting or making decisions about waste must demonstrate that they are competent to make those decisions, face background checks when applying for permits and display permit numbers on their advertising. We will make it easier for regulators to take actions against criminals, and easier for us as householders to identify legitimate waste businesses.

The reform will remove three exemptions, which is critical because these are the highest problem areas. Those exemptions are for dismantling end of life vehicles, treating end of life tyres—again, the risk of fire is huge—and recovery of scrap metal dealers. I remember a case in my former constituency of Wakefield where a scrap metal dealer went bust owing His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs £60 million. To my grievous disappointment, not a single person was prosecuted or went to prison for essentially theft from the taxpayer. We will introduce greater record-keeping requirements for all waste exemption holders, and impose limits and controls on how exemptions can be managed on site.

To conclude, this Government are clear: we are committed to bringing waste criminals to justice. We have long-term ambitions to rebuild the waste sector and to create a circular economy, and we are committed to tackling both waste crime and, as exemplified by Walley’s Quarry, poor performance at regulated sites.

I know that the Environment Agency is committed to continuing its work with partners nationally and locally, and I thank it for working against the odds and in a very difficult funding environment over the last 14 years. The crime that we are discussing today is predominantly an urban crime and I think that under the previous Government there was a neglect of urban areas.

My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme asked for deeds not words. We will follow the principle that the polluter pays. We will find the polluters; we are coming for them and we will track them down.

[Martin Vickers (in the Chair)]

I call Adam Jogee to sum up.

14:55

[Adam Jogee]

Thank you, Mr Vickers, for calling me to speak again.

I am grateful to the Minister for her response to this debate and to the points that a number of colleagues raised. I note that the Chamber is now much fuller than it was at the beginning of this debate, so I encourage all colleagues who are now present to join our campaign to get Walleys Quarry closed, capped, and safely and securely restored. The Minister used the word “justice” in her response, which I think is very important indeed, because my constituents in Newcastle-under-Lyme want exactly that—justice.

I would like to press the point about what we can do to make sure that the Environment Agency uses the money that it secures from fines to help to pay for the mistakes that its inaction has caused.

I will also address a few points that were made in the debate. First, I will touch on what the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore), said. Although he was very nice about me and my family, there were some things he said that I think it is important we note, given that he once had a ministerial job in this area. He said that the people of Newcastle-under-Lyme should not pay, and I agree; for far too long, they have paid and in far too many difficult ways. But I urge him to speak to his Conservative colleagues on Newcastle-under-Lyme borough council who, since the general election on 4 July, believe that the Government should pay for the mistakes and the restoration plan that is required. In my view, it should be the Environment Agency that pays or indeed the people who caused the mess. I look forward to that message being communicated to the Conservative group on Newcastle-under-Lyme borough council.

There was also mention of Lord Prescott and how he signed off planning permission. I studied history at university, but it is not difficult to find out that the legislation that he had to approve went through at the end of the previous Government. As the shadow Minister will know— as he has been a Minister; I have never been a Minister and probably never will be—when officials make suggestions, Ministers must make decisions based on what is put before them, as no doubt he did in discussions about Walleys Quarry. Let us focus on the facts and not play partisan games, because it is my constituents who are paying the price for the recent failures.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell)—he is not the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North, as the Liberal Democrat spokesperson called him—made several important points. He will know, having been a councillor in Silverdale, just how important this issue is to my constituents, and I know that it is important to him, too. I add my support to the “Don’t be an IDIOT” campaign, which I think is an example of how in north Staffordshire we say it how it is.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner), who is my other constituency neighbour, talked about the health implications of toxic gas and fumes, particularly those we are getting from Walleys Quarry, and the impact on her constituency. I thank her for doing so.

My hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire and Bedworth (Rachel Taylor) made a really important point about the role that police and crime commissioners can have in ensuring that we hold these offenders to account and help to support our constituents.

It is also worth noting, once again, the Lichfield litter pickers—[Interruption.] I mean the Lichfield Litter Legends—the alliteration is the point—for what they do. My hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Sarah Edwards) also raised the issue of supporting communities.

This has been an important debate. I will not stop going on about Walleys Quarry until we get the site closed, capped and properly restored. I am glad that the shadow Minister now agrees with me that it should not be my constituents who pay for that but the Environment Agency and the people who caused the mess in the first place.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered waste crime in Staffordshire.

SEND Provision

Thursday 5th September 2024 Westminster Hall

[Clive Betts in the Chair]

15:00

[Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)]

Order. Please can Members leave quietly?

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Ind)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered SEND provision.

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Betts. I am delighted to have secured this debate and to see such a packed Westminster Hall. I start by thanking all the parents and campaigners who have rightly put this issue high on the agenda, all the organisations that have provided briefings for MPs, and of course all the MPs here in a packed Westminster Hall.

Nearly 50 MPs have applied to speak today; I cannot recall anything like that for many other Westminster Hall debates. I hope that the Government and all those with a say over the parliamentary agenda take note and ensure time for a much longer debate on this vital issue very soon. This is an essential debate. The crisis in SEND provision is one of the biggest messes left by the previous Government—one that the new Labour Government will have to start to clear up quickly, as SEND needs are likely only to increase. That will require a radically different approach from the one currently failing so many children.

We cannot have this debate today without acknowledging how the crisis was deepened by an austerity agenda that tore up much of the social fabric that once would have offered pupils and their families much of the support needed. That dangerous idea has hollowed out councils’ budgets and severely restricted the services that they can provide. It has caused long-term harm to the NHS, including huge waiting lists for assessments and massive backlogs in mental health services. It has placed unbearable pressure on schools, which are asked to do more and more with fewer and fewer staff and resources. It has caused key public workers to leave due to stress, simply impossible workloads and low pay, further weakening services.

[Sarah Edwards (Tamworth) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing such an important debate in such a full Westminster Hall. Since 2010 schools have been grappling with chronic underinvestment by former Conservative Governments. We know that those with special educational needs and disabilities have borne the brunt of that. Schools are expected to pick up the pieces without the proper support. Does he agree that we need to build capacity and expertise in the mainstream system so that more children can access the universal and targeted support that they need?

[Richard Burgon]

My hon. Friend puts it very well; I could not agree more. There is an old saying that it takes a village to raise a child. Well, so many of the key services that we had in our communities to help support child development are on their knees due to austerity, and children are paying the price.

Every MP in this House is aware that the special education needs and disability system has gone beyond crisis and is in emergency.

[Sir David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman will remember that we had a debate like this one in the main Chamber, and there was record demand—that tells the Government something. He is right that there is not enough money for SEND generally, but it is also distributed very badly. In my constituency we get £900 per child from central Government versus, let us say, Camden’s £3,500. That means that we have delays of two, three or four years—education, health and care plans not delivered, places not delivered and therapy not delivered. If we do not solve both issues, we will not solve either of them.

[Richard Burgon]

I very much agree with the right hon. Gentleman, who makes the point—among other points—that this is a holistic issue: unless we solve all the interconnected root causes of the SEND crisis, we will never solve the crisis at all.

We have all had so many heartbreaking constituency cases. For this debate, I asked on social media for people to send in their case studies, and I was inundated with cases from right across the country. I will not be able to cite them all today, but I have read them all and they form the basis of what I will say today.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

May I congratulate the hon. Gentleman and suggest that, given the turnout, this debate could well be held in the main Chamber and should last at least three hours? I commend him on bringing this issue forward. I support him in doing so.

Obviously, the Minister does not have to respond for Northern Ireland, but in Northern Ireland, SEND pupils form some 20% of the school population and the budget that we spend is in excess of £500 million per year. It does not go anywhere near meeting the demand, so does the hon. Gentleman agree that we need more placements, more teachers, more places in school as well and, ultimately, better funding? We must not leave behind the SEND children whom we all represent in this Chamber.

[Richard Burgon]

The hon. Gentleman puts it very well indeed.

This crisis is a result of many factors, which others will no doubt give more detail on in today’s debate, but at its core is the mishandling, I would argue, of the Children and Families Act 2014. Its aims—the widening of access to SEND support and the promotion of a more integrated approach, involving health, education and social care—were laudable, but the reality has proved otherwise. Since 2014, the number of pupils with special educational needs and disabilities has increased to 1.7 million. That is one in six pupils.

[Shaun Davies (Telford) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on bringing this debate forward. As well as more money, better use of money is key. We have seen a huge reduction in the amount of money being spent in primary schools for speech and language therapy, which then costs the system far more in secondary school, as well as, of course, meaning worse outcomes for children across our country. Does he agree?

[Richard Burgon]

I certainly agree with my hon. Friend, because early intervention is so important, both in giving adequate and timely support to young people and, in the long run, in keeping the costs down; without early intervention, the problems that children face can only get worse and worse. The number needing more support through an education, health and care plan has more than doubled, but the required resources have, as others have said, simply not followed.

[Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for this debate about an issue that is so important and has filled my inbox over many months, as I am sure is the case for other hon. Members here. The hon. Gentleman mentioned that the eligibility changed in 2014 with the Children and Families Act; it added an extra 11 years when it comes to the children and young people who could be included. Does he agree that it was a complete failure of subsequent Governments not to put in the extra resources to match the additional number of years? That has led to a perverse system in which we now see local authorities battling with parents—using not just normal barristers but King’s Counsel, so sure are they of their righteousness in their battle. With the help of barristers, including KCs, they are battling parents who are often not represented legally and have to represent themselves. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that is perverse and should never have happened?

[Richard Burgon]

I thank the hon. Member: that is a very important point, and I certainly agree. I will turn later in my speech to the subject of the tribunals. When we look at the statistics on the outcome of the tribunal hearings, that underlines her point very strongly indeed.

I will make a bit of progress if that is okay. If others wish to seek to intervene, I will take some interventions again later, before the end of my speech. Greater need and inadequate funding are a recipe for disaster, and a disaster is exactly what has happened. In my 10 minutes, I cannot touch on every example of this crisis—

[Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Richard Burgon]

I will, and then I will make some progress.

[Ian Lavery]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on bringing this really important issue to the Chamber. Does he agree that, despite the huge increase in EHCPs, investment in mainstream and special educational needs schools has been drastically cut? That is having a huge impact, mainly on mainstream schools that are trying to back-fill the provision for special educational needs pupils in our areas. Society is often measured by the way—

[Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)]

Order. A lot of people are down to speak, so please keep interventions brief.

[Richard Burgon]

My hon. Friend makes his point well and passionately. He is correct; that is what parents and people who work in our schools have been saying to me.

I will highlight some of the most appalling statistics. More than half of SEND pupils have been forced to take time out of school due to a lack of proper provision, and some children are missing years of schooling. Two in three special schools are at or over capacity; there are 4,000 more pupils on roll than the reported capacity. There are eye-watering delays for children to get their education, health and care assessments and plans, and fewer than half of the plans are issued within the 20-week legal limit.

Nearly a third of parents whose children have special needs have had to resort to the legal system to get them the support they need, and many have spent thousands of pounds to do so. Seven out of eight teachers and 99% of school leaders say that SEND resources are insufficient to meet the needs of our children, according to National Education Union and National Association of Head Teachers staff surveys. Councils face huge SEND deficits, which now stand at £3.2 billion but are expected to reach £5 billion by 2026. The core £10,000 sum that special needs schools receive on a per-pupil basis has been frozen since 2013, despite spiralling inflation. That cost them hundreds of millions of pounds last year alone. I could go on and on, but that alone is a damning indictment of the system.

Child neglect is defined as:

“the persistent failure to meet a child’s basic physical and/or psychological needs, likely to result in the serious impairment of the child’s health or development.”

That is what this failure is, and we should be deeply angry that children are being neglected in such a way.

The SEND crisis is part of the wider crisis in education. There are too few teaching assistants, too few educational psychologists, too few special school places, and Sure Starts have been closed. All that and more means that schools are unable to provide the support that children need. It means that effective early interventions are not possible; that can deepen children’s needs with the result that they require more costly support. When schools face such difficulties, talk of bringing more children into mainstream schools, rather than specialist provision, is just empty rhetoric. All that is exacerbated by national curriculum changes, a much more rigid, prescriptive focus to learning and a greater emphasis on performance measures that simply do not provide the flexibility needed for genuinely inclusive education. We cannot solve this crisis by looking at the SEND system in isolation; we have to consider the wider education system as a whole.

[Jen Craft (Thurrock) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend mentions the staffing crisis in the SEND system, but I want to note that there is also a crisis in recruitment and training for teachers of the deaf. From my experience, I know that is a key role for a number of deaf children, particularly in my constituency. There is a real crisis in back-filling those positions and recruiting across councils, particularly at a unitary level. The need for teachers of the deaf is not reflected in those coming through the system, which often results in children not having the resource and help they need to succeed in school.

[Richard Burgon]

My hon. Friend is exactly correct, and I am delighted that she has put on record the contribution of teachers of the deaf and the situation in terms of their recruitment.

The current situation is working for no one; not for children, not for parents, not for teachers, not for children without SEN and not for local authorities. The last Government’s approach pitted parents against local authorities, and they failed to take responsibility. That has created a completely adversarial system, with ever more cases going to tribunal—there were 14,000 cases last year alone, up fourfold since 2014. Parents win in 98% of cases, but it is exhausting and often traumatic for them, as well as a complete waste of money.

Even then, the right support often does not follow. At times, that is due to local authorities being cut to the bone and their lack of effective mechanisms to hold schools to account, especially since academisation. Of course, that is only the tip of the iceberg, as so many parents simply do not have the time, energy or money to undertake legal action. The Government have a duty to end that blame game by addressing the root causes of the crisis: the failed policies that got us here.

As I draw to a close, I want to make a point about increasing attempts to shift the blame to parents, with stories blaming so-called pushy parents, a former Minister accusing parents of abusing the SEND tribunal scheme, and other powerful people calling for parents to make fewer demands.

[Matthew Patrick (Wirral West) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend mentioned that 98% of parents who make an appeal are successful. Does he share my concern that that suggests that parents who should be supported are instead encountering a system that layers uncertainty and stress on an already difficult and stressful situation? On the Wirral, we do not need to see inspection results to know that parents feel failed and let down. Does my hon. Friend believe that we need to do more to support and challenge councils, to ensure that there is a better system for parents and their children who, in a time of need, feel that they are too often met with rejection and failure?

[Richard Burgon]

My hon. Friend makes that point very well on behalf of his constituents in the Wirral, and I completely agree. What a trauma! It is trauma piled upon trauma, as parents are forced through this adversarial system, with all they are going through, struggling to get the best for their children—and the best is what our children need and deserve.

I suspect that the blame game of unfairly calling parents “pushy” was all part of a strategy by some in the last Government to blame the system breakdown on too much demand for special education provision and to claim that that demand must somehow be suppressed rather than met. I fear that those who promoted that view could even have been looking to water down the legal entitlements of children with education, health and care plans. Our new Government need to ensure—as I am sure they will—that that demonising of parents is challenged.

To conclude, the dire picture I have painted today is not inevitable; the system can be fixed and children can get the education they need and deserve. That requires improvements in SEND training for teachers, and special educational needs co-ordinators having time to focus on doing their job. It requires many more support staff in school, which means proper pay. It requires changes to the curriculum and to the way in which our education is so focused on tests and league tables, which means that there is pressure to off-roll SEND pupils. It requires genuine early intervention, including the restoration of Sure Start. It requires the scrapping of the safety valve scheme and the writing-off of local authority debts. And, of course, it requires cash. I note that the f40 group believes that the high needs block alone requires an additional £4.6 billion a year just to prevent the crisis from getting worse.

I know that many hon. Members want to speak today. I am delighted that the new Education Secretary has recognised that there is a crisis in SEND provision, because the first step in solving a crisis is to recognise that there is one. I hope that this exercise—going into this debate, continuing through this debate and following this debate—can be part of getting a grip and turning the page on a situation in which so many children are not getting the support and education they deserve in order to fulfil their potential for a happy life, which is something all our children deserve.

[Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)]

Obviously, a lot of Members want to get in. We have 40 minutes, so I am going to impose a time limit of three minutes. Please do not take more than one intervention, because that lengthens the time. Interventions should be to the point; they should not be speeches. If you make an intervention, you will not get called to speak as well. Off we go: I call Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst.

15:20

[Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)]

It is a privilege to speak under your chairmanship today, Mr Betts. I thank the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) for tabling this important debate.

I wish to place on record my gratitude to all the teachers in my constituency for the work they do and—in the spirit of this debate—to the teachers and staff at Hazel Oak and Reynalds Cross, the two maintained special schools in Solihull West and Shirley. I particularly want to single out the parents of children with special educational needs, who often strive so incredibly hard to achieve the best for their children. In January 2022, there were 2,023 Solihull residents with an EHCP—a 16.1% increase on the year before.

[Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)]

Despite legislation requiring a final education, health and care plan to be in place within 20 weeks of an initial assessment, Cheshire West and Chester council is putting in place just 6.5% within that time, which is fewer than one in 15 children. Too many children in my constituency are being let down by the Cheshire Labour councils, so I want to highlight the work of the CWaC SEND Accountability group in bringing families together on this issue. Does my hon. Friend agree that a more efficient EHCP system is crucial in delivering for SEND children and their parents?

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

My hon. Friend is entirely right; the delays in EHCP assessments are a hindrance to a child’s access to the national curriculum. We are failing them by not doing those assessments in a timely manner, and we need to improve on that. I agree with her comments entirely.

A constituent has told me that the nearest school with the necessary facilities for her son is 31 miles away. That means that she and her child have had to settle for a school that is not fully equipped for his needs, simply due to geography. My constituency surgery, like those of other Members, is regularly visited by parents with similar cases. Evidently, the current system is not working.

Therefore, I wish to propose three changes that I believe will lead to a significant improvement for schools and families affected by SEND provision. The first is something that everybody in this room is already leading on: raising awareness of SEND. It is heartening to see so many Members engaging with this topic, and it is only by doing that, and by educating ourselves and others, that we can hope to make a change for the better.

The second is identifying children with special educational needs at an early age, which is vital to maximising their life chances. That is why I would like to see better training and resources provided to teachers to help with earlier detection.

[Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

I will not give way, purely because of the amount I have to get through in the time.

Aside from family members, children spend most of their developing lives with their teachers. It is important that the teaching curriculum is sufficiently flexible to enable children to reach their true potential.

I would also like to make special reference to those military families whose children suffer from special educational needs. Having served in the military myself, I know of several families who have encountered adverse effects as a result. With regular school moves, often between different local authorities, there is an inevitable need to reapply for an EHCP, thereby delaying access to the provision that is so desperately needed.

My final request to the Minister comes as no surprise: to achieve all these improvements, it is important that local authorities receive the funding they need. In particular, I ask that my own council receive its fair share of funding, because Solihull council presently takes in SEND children from Birmingham but receives much less funding per pupil. That matter needs to be rectified.

Those three things—awareness, training and funding—will have a real, tangible impact on young people, their families and their life chances.

15:24

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Betts. What a mess—young people broken by a broken system. The Children and Families Act promised so much, but without people, money and the rest of the system to back it up, it could never deliver. When the wait for the diagnosis is over, the battle for the EHCP is won and masses of resources have been spent, the demand is still not being met. Staff do their very best, but still people are falling out of the system.

I have spent the past year digging deep, looking at the local, the national and the international to bring best practice to this space. I have looked at the environment, the community and the child. On the environment, I say to the Minister, “Go back to the Department and rip up the behaviourist approach to education. It creates a world where neurodiverse children—those with anxiety or mental illness—and even the timid cannot survive.”

Instead, we should adopt a therapeutic, nurturing approach so that all children can thrive. In York, where schools have done so, all gain from recognising the need for every child to be safe, valued and included. It is a happy place where a child will strive for excellence and the whole child will be able to navigate their way through this world, rather than an obstacle course of micro-traumas, stress and anxiety. Let us not build bigger and bigger schools, but create more therapeutic and intimate spaces that belong to the children and where they can thrive. We should bring children out of home schooling, out of their bedrooms, off the streets and back into the classroom. School must be safe for all those children.

We also need to recognise, as the Government do, the failed nature of the curriculum. Let us build space for our brains and our bodies. Are we really shocked that young people are failing when only half of them is engaged? We have cut out arts, music, sports, nature, dance, play, exploration, wonder and fun. Yet all children, especially those with SEND, benefit from that balance.

When I visited Sweden, I went into schools to hear about what they were doing. They brought people into the heart of the school, not prescribing from an EHCP but taking a whole-child and a whole-school approach, using the skills of psychologists, teachers, occupational therapists, physios and speech therapists for all children. Let us recognise that school community and ensure that we value its members. Our teaching assistants do so much of the work, yet their pay is so poor—that must be addressed.

[Anna Dixon]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Rachael Maskell]

I am going to continue.

As for parents, I have seen them pushed away and gaslit, when they should instead be integrated into the heart of the school, as they are in Sweden, leading on what their child needs. When it comes to the children themselves, let us review the purpose of education: preparing children for the world today, not breaking and testing them. Children with SEND struggle in that environment just to satisfy the need for data for Governments and to meet different goals. We need every child to flourish, and that is why we need to think again.

15:28

[Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your stewardship, Mr Betts, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) on securing the debate. I suppose that the best place to start, in the time permitted to me, is the beginning. For a child who needs targeted, tailored support, early identification can make a world of difference, because the impact of failing to spot a child with additional needs can be severe and far-reaching. Early intervention means life-altering adaptations in the way teachers interact and communicate with them and in the way they are supported, reducing the need for EHCPs and one-to-one support and improving academic outcomes, life chances, wellbeing and happiness, which are obviously crucial.

Spotting children with SEND—particularly autistic children and especially autistic girls—can be difficult, and there is insufficient training at the moment to enable teachers to do that. There are around 200,000 autistic children in England. The majority are in mainstream education, but the National Autistic Society reports that, staggeringly, only a quarter feel happy at school. That is why some parents take the drastic step of paying for private education that they can ill afford, because they need education that addresses their child’s needs.

The effect on a neurodivergent child of being in the wrong education setting can be devastating. In March, The Guardian reported that nearly 20,000 autistic children are persistently absent from school, with Ambitious about Autism reporting that four in five of them experience mental health issues.

I have a suggestion for the Minister. According to the National Autistic Society, three quarters of parents said that their child’s school place did not meet their needs. Teachers do a remarkable job, but they need to be equipped with the very best tools and advice to give their pupils the very best possible chance of learning in a happy, safe, well cared-for environment. Currently, only one in seven schoolteachers have received any form of autism training, and 70% of children say school would be better if teachers understood them.

There are not enough SEND school places, but as a Health and Social Care Minister I started work on introducing the Oliver McGowan mandatory training for health and care staff, which the Minister knows about. It equips health and care professionals with the skills, knowledge and understanding of autistic people and those with learning disabilities. It is delivered by autistic people and people with learning disabilities—experts by experience who get paid to do it. It is really effective, with 84% of participants saying they feel more confident in their work. Today, it was shortlisted for an NHS parliamentary award. Will the Minister meet Paula McGowan and look at whether this could assist teachers? Using that training in an educational setting would improve the way in which teaching professionals can support autistic children and those with learning disabilities.

15:31

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) for securing this vital debate. As a former teacher, I have witnessed everything heard in today’s debate, and I will not need to repeat it. I will make a few points in the time that I have. In my city, like others, we have had a 30% increase in our EHCPs. Somebody mentioned extending the 11 years of provision; at 16, those kids just drop off. What happens to them, and how do we support them?

The EHCP increase has led to a constituent’s child waiting 40 weeks for their EHCP to be turned around, which has left them with no secondary school place in the first week of term. We should be allowing these children to select their secondary school places a year earlier to give them time to transition, meet the staff, and grow their awareness of and engagement with the school community. As I was a teacher before coming into this role, I always look at solutions; that is one of them.

Another solution involves the Government using the resources raised from ending the tax break for private schools to fund evidence-based early speech and language support in our primary schools. We must ensure that Ofsted’s new report card has inclusion as part of the report, so that we can see what our schools are doing. We must ensure that teacher training entitlements and annual CPD—continuing professional development—for all staff in education include SEND. Mental health support should be increased. If we are really going to look at EHCPs, pupils’ records should be kept properly so that they follow them when they move on to their next phase of life, whether that is education or the workplace.

Finally, I want to highlight Trafalgar school in my constituency, which is a fully restorative practice school. We need to look at using innovative projects such as that around the country to let children have an inclusive education that is also inclusive for them personally.

15:33

[Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) for securing this important debate. I know time is tight, so I will keep to a couple of very specific points. One such point is on the Government’s plans to add VAT to private schools and how that will affect SEND provision. My first question to the Minister is this: what impact assessment did the Government carry out, with regard to the VAT changes to private schools, of the effect on children with special educational needs and on SEND school places? If the Government have done an impact assessment, will they publish it, and if they did not, why on earth not? I appreciate that the Minister might not be able to answer that question here and now, but I see the officials are in the room behind her, so I am happy for that to be sent to me.

As I understand it, the Government policy is not to impose VAT on private school places where the school place is allocated on the basis of an EHCP. However, there will be very many children with special educational needs who have not yet secured such a plan, and so VAT will apply.

[Gregory Stafford]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Esther McVey]

Not at the moment.

We know that families have to go through a rigorous set of tests to obtain an EHCP, often ending in an appeal or taking many weeks to be finalised. In those cases where the plan has not been finalised, parents will have to make the difficult decision whether to send their child to an independent school. In those instances there will be a significant uplift in those pupils’ fees—a massive worry for parents. Some will now no longer be able to afford the fees. We can only imagine their guilt and concern. What are they going to do? Will they have to stop their child’s progress at that school? Will the child need to leave that school?

How can it be fair that a child who is delayed in the education, health and care plan process, through no fault of their own, faces VAT costs, while another child who has secured their EHCP in time does not have that burden? Could the Minister explain that unfairness that the Government have now introduced into the system, and whether they plan to put a stop to it as soon as possible? In light of that unfairness, I urge the Government to look at what steps can be taken to reduce the time that the assessments for an EHCP take, more generally.

There are three local authorities in my constituency, all of which consistently go beyond the legal timeframe. I asked Cheshire West SEND accountability group for parents how long the EHCP process takes. Legally, it should take only 20 weeks, but some have waited more than 60 weeks. Anecdotally, they say on average it is taking 30 to 50 weeks—

[Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)]

Order. I call Sharon Hodgson.

15:36

[Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Gateshead South) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mr Betts. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) on securing this very important debate.

It has been widely noted that SEND provision came up significantly on the doorsteps during the general election. The statement from the then Conservative Education Secretary earlier this year that SEND provision had reached a crisis point only further reinforced what we already knew—but it was under their watch.

No one wants to say, “I told you so,” but as the shadow Minister during the passage of the Bill that became the Children and Families Act 2014—the Act that brought in education, health and care plans—I did, many times. This crisis is exactly what I, as shadow Minister, along with many from the education, voluntary and charity sectors who supported me with many amendments, all predicted. The crisis we are in now was entirely predictable. It is a damning indictment that, after 14 years in power, this is the state that the Conservatives left SEND provision in.

Between 2019 and 2023, the number of EHCPs issued rose by 72%, but shockingly, dedicated SEND funding only rose by 42%. That is just one stat of many that I could give. The lack of funding, the delays and the de-prioritisation of children with SEND is a stain on our society.

I know from the challenges I face in my own family that the impact on children’s self-confidence, self-esteem and education can be life-changing. I, like many here, have had first-hand experience of the impact that underfunded and disjointed SEND support can have, because my son Joseph is severely dyslexic. His experience opened my eyes and has given me a lifelong passion, throughout my 19 years as an MP, to do something about the challenges that children with SEND experience in accessing support, and the variation in the quality of support that children experience across the country. It really is a postcode lottery.

Joseph was eventually statemented aged 10. I will not go into his journey, but two decades on, children who are now entering the education system are having the same experiences as he did. Nothing has improved. I have had many conversations with the British Dyslexia Association recently—I was chair of the all-party parliamentary group for dyslexia and other specific learning difficulties. One of the reasons that teachers struggle is the lack of training. Due to time I cannot expand on that, but I am sure others will.

15:39

[Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)]

I thank the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) for securing such an important debate.

An Ofsted report for Hertfordshire deemed that there were widespread systemic failings in the county, and that the area had not acted with the necessary urgency to address long-standing, systemic and significant weaknesses in the area of special educational needs and disability provision. This is reflected again and again in the heartbreaking stories of families across Harpenden and Berkhamsted being let down by a broken system.

One of my constituents, Charlotte, is a parent to three children, all with EHCPs and complex SEND needs. Being in constant battle mode has become the norm for Charlotte and her family in securing educational support, and it has resulted in her eldest child having to travel almost 100 miles a day to get to school. The emotional wellbeing of Charlotte and her children has taken a toll, and her youngest child has barely attended school since October 2023.

Although progress is being made, there is still much more work to do. We have been let down by not only Conservative-led Hertfordshire county council but a flawed national funding formula inherited from the previous Conservative Government. The formula means that children in Hertfordshire receive far less funding per head than in neighbouring Buckinghamshire. Hertfordshire is the third-lowest-funded authority per head for higher needs funding and would receive £85 million more per annum if funded at the same rate as its neighbour.

[Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)]

With only 3.6% of EHCPs in Conservative-led West Sussex county council being delivered within the statutory 20-week framework, does my hon. Friend agree that funding, which is currently a postcode lottery, needs to be reviewed across the country?

[Victoria Collins]

My hon. Friend took the words right out of my mouth. At the current rate in Hertfordshire it would take 15 years to achieve parity between the two counties. This is a lost generation. A three-year-old in Hertfordshire today with SEND needs would have to finish all their formal education before they would get equal funding to a similar child in Buckinghamshire. The formula has created a postcode lottery for pupils with special educational needs, and it is unacceptable.

Most importantly, we should listen to the experience of local families to truly understand the human cost of the outdated formula. Unfortunately, stories such as Charlotte’s are not isolated cases, as goes for much of what will be shared today. The formula has pushed many families away from their local communities and support networks and into the minefield that is SEND provision. The funding formula must move with the times. It must be updated to reflect the present, increasing demand. So I ask the Minister: when will the Government change the funding formula to reflect the current need?

15:42

[Fred Thomas (Plymouth Moor View) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) for securing this important debate. We have heard from many Members how dire the situation is in their constituencies, but can we for a second celebrate the incredible staff who already put so much effort and passion into the provision they arrange for children? My first visit as an MP was to Mill Ford school in Ernesettle in Plymouth, which supports children and young adults with complex needs. I have to pay tribute to the incredible staff there and congratulate Mill Ford school on recently being rated as “outstanding” by Ofsted.

I am pleased that we are moving away from one-word Ofsted ratings, because it is impossible to capture what Mill Ford does for people in just one word. While visiting Mill Ford, we stopped by their daily singalong in the hall. Pupils from all age groups were having an incredible time, singing in various tunes and volumes and quite literally jumping for joy. It was a fantastic scene. Despite this, huge challenges remain. For example, at that school the corridors are so narrow that two wheelchairs cannot be wheeled past each other.

The situation in Plymouth is similar to that in many hon. Members’ constituencies, but some statistics we have already heard do not match quite how dire it is. In Plymouth, 18.5% of pupils have a SEND need—well above the national figure of 13%. The number of children and young people with an EHCP in Plymouth has increased since 2010 by 125%—more than doubled. We know that there is no quick fix for the crisis in SEND. Special educational needs are complex and wide-ranging, so they require complex and wide-ranging solutions. We need to listen carefully to education professionals, support staff and especially those with lived experience of SEND as we move forward. I am proud that I ran for Parliament on a manifesto that pledged to take a community-wide approach to special educational needs, improving inclusivity in mainstream schools as well as ensuring that special schools are fit for purpose.

[Anna Dixon]

As in my hon. Friend’s constituency, in Shipley the number of pupils with SEND has increased again this year. It is putting huge pressure on our teachers and teaching assistants in mainstream schools. Does he agree that the cuts to school funding under the previous Government have contributed to the problem, and that further steps need to be taken to ensure appropriate training for all our school staff, particularly those in mainstream schools?

[Fred Thomas]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend’s point about the funding cuts. I was going to respond to a point made by the right hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey), but I removed it from my contribution due to the time constraints. She asked earlier whether the Government had conducted feasibility studies on the removal of VAT exemptions from private schools. I would respond by asking whether the previous Government, which we had since 2010, conducted feasibility studies on SEND when they made deep cuts to education.

I started by speaking about the fantastic Mill Ford special school in Plymouth Moor View. Expanding capacity at Mill Ford is central to Plymouth city council’s plan to address the SEND crisis, but it is much harder to access funding to replace or rebuild a school than it is to build new schools. Will the Minister commit to working with me to help expand capacity at Plymouth Moor View’s special schools?

15:46

[Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)]

I thank the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) for securing this debate. Before I start, I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, as I am still a South Gloucestershire councillor.

Right across the country, children with special educational needs and disabilities are being let down, and parents are at their wits’ end trying to navigate the system. The SEND funding model is utterly broken, leaving local councils and schools unable to provide the learning environments our children need.

I want to highlight three particular problems. The first relates to the safety valve agreements put in place to support local authorities that are struggling the most to deliver these important services. I know as the former leader of South Gloucestershire council that the targets that were set pre-pandemic fail to reflect the massively rising demand we have faced since, meaning they are no longer fit for purpose and need to be reviewed. I look forward to hearing the Minister outline what steps the Government will take immediately to do that.

Secondly, I want to highlight the punitive approach taken to school absence in this country. If a child’s needs are not being met at school, it can lead to their being unable to attend. Parents who have been fighting hard to get their child the support they need can then face the added burden of threats of fines or even imprisonment—talk about adding insult to injury. Imagine the impact that has on parents who are already under huge stress, who may be under financial pressure due to their employment being affected by their additional caring responsibilities, and who may feel compelled, against all their parental instincts, to physically force their child into a situation that is harming them. Above all, think of the impact on the child, pressured to go into an inappropriate environment and worried that bad things may happen to their parents.

Finally, I want to highlight the increasing use of alternatives to exclusion, such as isolation and temporary moves to other schools—measures that are not recorded and published in the same way exclusions are, and not subject to the same safeguards. A child who is struggling to learn in a classroom with a subject-specialist teacher is highly unlikely to be able to do so when sat in a room with a supervisor and some worksheets. A neurodivergent child who thrives on routine will be distressed by such a change, especially if it involves a move to an unfamiliar school. In some schools the list of behaviour that is sanctioned in this way could easily have been drawn from a diagnostic list for ADHD or autism, so it seems inevitable that children who do not have appropriate support in place will be subject to such sanctions. There needs to be an urgent review of the use of such measures, which can easily go under the radar.

In conclusion, we need action now from the Government to fix these problems before the house of cards comes tumbling down, starting with fixing the funding formula and reviewing all existing safety valve agreements.

15:49

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

On Saturday, I joined a group of SEND families in Bracknell to hear their experiences of operating within a broken system. The stories I heard from them, and those I have heard on the doorstep and from Members here today, are heartbreaking. Children are stuck on assessment waiting lists for months longer than they should be. Parents have to juggle work around caring for kids who are off school or find themselves repeatedly excluded because their needs are not being met, and are then left struggling to pay the bills.

There is inadequate provision in mainstream education, and there are far too few state-maintained special schools to meet the demand. As the previous Conservative Education Secretary admitted, the system is “lose, lose, lose”; it is desperately in need of reform.

[Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the very serious consequences of the issues he is outlining is the problem of non-elective home education, where parents feel forced to take their children out of school entirely and feel they have no option other than to educate them at home? Does he, like me, welcome the measures in the proposed children’s wellbeing Bill that will require local authorities to set up and maintain registers of children not in school so that we get a better sense of the problem?

[Peter Swallow]

Absolutely. I was proud to highlight in my maiden speech the issue of ghost children, who are missing out on education and too often fall off the radar. That is a really important part of the puzzle.

The Government have rightly placed education at the heart of their programme for change and have a national mission to break down the barriers to opportunity for all children. Nobody needs that more than our SEND kids, who face significant barriers to inclusion. This is a question of social mobility. How can we ensure that, no matter a child’s needs or background, they thrive in school and into their adult life?

I could focus on many areas where improvement is desperately needed, but one issue that is raised time and again by the families I have spoken to in Bracknell—it has been raised by Members here today, including the hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage) and my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson), and I experienced it in my previous career in education—is the lack of adequate training about SEND in schools, both in initial teacher training and as part of a teacher’s continuing professional development. That is why I was proud to stand on a Labour manifesto that committed to introducing a new teacher training entitlement to give teachers the time they need to learn skills that will help them better support SEND kids. When I was a teacher, time was always the most precious resource. I would like to see the pledge include more targeted support for SENCOs and input from SEND families at all stages.

Let me be clear: there are many more areas where this broken system is in great need of reform, and we have heard many fantastic contributions to that effect today, but if we ensured that more SEND kids were supported within the mainstream system—if they were able to attend school and were not shut out of education—we would reduce the pressure on heavily oversubscribed special schools and would be one step closer to fixing the SEND system and breaking down the barriers for all children.

15:53

[Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)]

In Farnham and Bordon, which I proudly represent, we are fortunate to have many excellent special educational schools, such as the Ridgeway school, the Abbey school, More House, Undershaw school and Stepping Stones in Surrey, and Hollywater in Hampshire. However, Surrey is a special case that requires urgent and increased Government action.

Nationally, SEND education affects about 18% of pupils, but in Surrey the figure rises to a staggering 39%—double the national average. Hampshire largely aligns with the national figures, yet both counties face rising demands. Surrey’s situation highlights the need for immediate, targeted intervention from the Government. Although I remain equally committed to supporting SEND pupils and parents in Hampshire, Surrey’s unique pressures cannot be ignored. Those families need more support, not only from their local councils but, crucially, from central Government.

The Conservative Government made significant strides in addressing the challenges. For more than a decade, Conservative Chancellors increased the annual funding to meet the rising demand. Since 2015, we have seen a 283% increase in EHCP agreements, which demonstrates the Government’s responsiveness to the growing number of diagnoses. Despite that progress, there is much more to be done, and the strain on services continues to grow. I have seen the profound impact that early detection and diagnosis can have, particularly in SEND, where identifying needs early is crucial to a child’s long-term success. While local authorities such as Surrey and Hampshire are doing their best, they need more resources to manage the increased demand without delays.

I am deeply concerned by the Government’s decision to raise VAT on independent SEND schools. That policy risks pushing many children who are not funded by local authorities, such as 40% of the children at More House, back into the state sector, which is already struggling with larger class sizes and fewer resources. A 20% increase in fees will be devastating for those families, particularly given the long waiting times for EHCPs. The Government must rethink their VAT strategy for these schools.

Parents in my constituency have shared with me the immense stress and frustration that they face, not just from navigating the system but from the delays that impact their children’s education and wellbeing. These families are already stretched, and the uncertainty takes an untold toll on both the children and their families. There is an urgent need for more trained educational psychologists and special educational needs co-ordinators, and the Government must step up to provide them.

It is also critical that MPs across all parties stop using SEND as a political football, as we have seen recently in Surrey. The blame game helps no one. It only serves to confuse and frustrate parents further. We must work together to provide clear, accurate information and focus on delivering the support that families in Surrey and Hampshire so desperately need. We need action now.

15:56

[Kim Leadbeater (Spen Valley) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) on securing this important debate.

Support for children with special educational needs and disabilities is an issue that has been raised with me consistently since my election three years ago. In Batley and Spen and now in my new Spen Valley constituency, I have had countless conversations and emails, held roundtables and had meetings with families, headteachers, teachers and teaching assistants, councillors and charities about the anger, frustration and, in many cases, deep trauma they have experienced trying to navigate the broken system that is SEND.

All any of them want to do is get our children and young people the help and support they need and deserve, because, as our new Secretary of State for Education has said, every child should have the support they need and deserve. Instead, we have amazing children and young people being prevented from being the very best that they can be, not enjoying their education, struggling in school and falling behind, which often has a deeply detrimental impact on their mental health and wellbeing.

It is not just the children themselves. I have had parents in tears in my office feeling like they have failed, as they have not been able to get an EHCP for their child. They have given up work so that they can support their child, meaning their own sense of identity and self-worth has suffered, and they feel guilty that they are not contributing to society and the economy. I have had headteachers and staff in schools feeling that it is their fault that they cannot ensure that every child in their care gets the education they deserve. The reality is that they are so desperately under-resourced and the system is so broken that they simply cannot do their jobs in the way that they want.

It is not just schools; as a former college lecturer, I know that there are challenges there too. Colleges are often a lifeline for students with SEND, but, as the association of college lecturers says, there are real challenges in the way that the SEND system fits together through funding and student transitions.

This is just not right. Like with so many other issues, this new Government are having to pick up the pieces of a broken system that is the result of years of schools and local councils being chronically underfunded and under-resourced. The previous Government did not give our education system the care and attention it needed. Ministers were just not listening to the sector and not providing the resources and funding that it so desperately needed.

I have been supporting parents and schools over the last three years. Laura Riach, a mum of two, recently got in touch. Her children are both academically bright, but cannot cope with sensory overload and cannot be in a mainstream school setting that is noisy and bright. The parents are getting very little support to home-educate the children and the situation got so severe that one of the children tried to commit suicide. After battling with the SEND system, they are getting only six hours’ support per child per week, when they should be getting 25 hours.

Many parents have contacted me about this issue. Children are losing vital education and the stories show just how broken the system is. I am very pleased that the new Government have already started to give SEND the care, compassion and understanding that is needed to address the crisis.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)]

I will have to move on to the Front-Bench speeches now. I am sorry to disappoint so many people, although it was pretty inevitable. For the information of new Members, I did not call anyone who had not applied to speak in advance, and I tried to take account of the time that they applied when deciding the order in which I called people. That is the only way we can do it, really.

We move on now to the Front-Bench spokespeople, who will have 10 minutes each. If you could leave a little time at the end for the mover of the motion to respond, that would be helpful. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, Munira Wilson.

15:59

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I congratulate the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) and pay tribute to him for securing this incredibly important debate. The fact that it is such a packed Chamber—standing room only—is testament to both the passion with which he set out his case and the stories that we have heard. We have so many new Members, but those of us who have served one, two, three or more terms know that inboxes and postbags are bulging with stories and heartbreaking cases across the country. In the time available, and given the number who wish to speak, I will not do the customary paying of tribute to the various speeches, but I may refer to various contributions as I go. I would particularly like to recognise those new Members who were formerly teachers. It is so good to have more teachers in the House and it is important that we hear their voice. I thank the hon. Member for Plymouth Moor View (Fred Thomas) for paying particular tribute to the hard work of staff up and down the country who have to battle in this system alongside parents and pupils.

As we have heard, too many vulnerable children who should be receiving crucial support to learn, play and thrive are being let down by a system that is broken. According to the latest Government data, more than 1.6 million children in England have a special educational need—that is almost one in five of our pupils. We have heard of the huge growth in the level of demand in the past few years, with the number of pupils with an education, health and care plan growing by almost 12% in the past year alone. More than half a million children are now on EHCPs. Despite the best efforts and dedication of everyone involved in the sector, including teachers, parents and charities, it is clear that services are struggling to keep up with demand. As a result, too many children with SEND are being left behind.

The new Government have an immense challenge on their hands and, for all their rhetoric, education was not a priority for the previous Conservative Government once they were left to their own devices from 2015 onwards. I have no doubt that the shadow Minister today will point to a plethora of announcements on SEND and promises to build special schools in response to the overwhelming and growing need. Actions sadly never met the rhetoric. The evidence is crystal clear, as has been backed up by the stories we have heard from across the House today: we know that parents and children are stuck in an adversarial system, fighting, and waiting many months—sometimes even years— to get the support to which their children are entitled. The previous Government’s own SEND review in 2022 stated that the system was

“failing to deliver for children, young people and their families.”

As we have heard, the former Education Secretary, Gillian Keegan, even described it as “lose, lose, lose”.

We also know that headteachers are at their wits’ end, with teachers and teaching assistants being driven out of the classroom because of the strain on them. Last year, on a visit to Harrogate, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon) and I met the SENCO for Coppice Valley primary school, who was leaving because he felt he could not meet the needs of his pupils and provide the support that they deserved. In my own constituency, I have heard about serious safeguarding incidents in schools involving children with SEND who are not getting the support that they desperately need and deserve. It is unfair not only on those particular children, but on the whole class, and it is unfair on the teaching staff who are doing their very best to provide a good education for all.

With school budgets so stretched, I know that many schools are struggling to offer the inclusive education they want to. Many are laying off teaching assistants to deliver the cost savings they need, and it is often those teaching assistants who are providing the support for a child with special educational needs to remain in a mainstream classroom. At the same time, local authorities cannot possibly plug the funding gaps from their own budgets, given the parlous state of council finances.

[Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)]

I commend the hon. Lady on the speech she is giving, and she rightly points out the challenges around the laying-off of teaching assistants. Does she agree that in all the reforms that the Government need to look at, we really must not go back to a special schools approach but should always focus on having an inclusive education system with the right support for those children to learn alongside their peers?

[Munira Wilson]

I thank the hon. Member for her intervention and I agree that, where possible, we need to be as inclusive as possible. Equally, there are children whose needs cannot be met in a mainstream setting and we need to have special provision for them—I will touch on that in a moment.

The funding for special needs has fallen so far short of what is needed that local authorities across the country now have a cumulative high needs deficit of approximately £3.15 billion. Many local authorities’ financial viability is being put at risk by these growing deficits. Although the safety valve programme that my hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury and Yate (Claire Young) mentioned, of which my own borough of Richmond upon Thames was an early member, has provided some relief, it is a sticking-plaster solution, kicking the can down the road. Once the agreements run out, those local authorities are projected to start racking up big deficits again.

As well as the cost of providing the support to which children are legally and morally entitled, councils are also seeing their SEND transport bills skyrocket. As my hon. Friend the Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted (Victoria Collins) pointed out in the case from her constituency, we know that the number of children having to make long journeys has increased by almost a quarter over the past five years. Vulnerable children are having to travel ever further distances because specialist provision is not available locally for many.

Two thirds of all special schools are full or over capacity. The last Government was incredibly slow in building the special schools that they promised, and they turned down many applications from councils to build and open their own SEND schools to make that provision available. Councils face a double whammy: not only are they paying transportation costs, but they are having to buy in private provision.

Many independent SEND schools are brilliant not-for-profit charities, but there is also obscene profiteering from some special schools run by private equity firms, which are bleeding councils up and down the country dry. I hope the Labour Government will look at that because my calls to the Conservative Government fell on deaf ears.

I want to pick up a point made by the right hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey) about the many families whose children are not eligible for EHCPs or who cannot face the gauntlet of trying to secure one. They turn to mainstream, small independent schools to better support their child because larger mainstream schools cannot support that need, but those families will be penalised by the new Government’s plan to slap VAT on independent school fees from January. Those who will not be able to afford the additional cost will turn to the state sector, putting more pressure on, as we have heard, a system in crisis.

Furthermore, the proposal to have a VAT exemption for those with EHCPs will incentivise even more parents to apply through the system. I have heard from a constituent just this week who will probably have to do that, which will put yet more pressure on a system that cannot cope with more. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about the 100,000 children who have SEND and are in the independent sector.

All of us recognise that SEND provision is an enormous challenge that will not be resolved overnight despite what the Secretary of State hopes to be able to do. I stand ready to support her in any way I can to make sure that we tackle the issue. The recent Liberal Democrat manifesto set out several ideas that I hope the Minister will look at.

First we propose that a new national body be established for SEND that would be responsible for funding the support of children with very high needs. The national body for SEND would pay for any costs above £25,000 for children with high needs. It would reduce risk for local authorities and help to tackle the postcode lottery that we have heard about.

[Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)]

Will my hon. Friend give way on that point?

[Munira Wilson]

I am not sure I have the time; I am so sorry. The national body for SEND would also act as a champion for every child with special needs or disabilities and promote widespread inclusive practice. Additionally, Liberal Democrats would like to see councils funded to reduce the amount that schools pay towards the cost of a child’s education, health and care plan. The current £6,000 threshold acts as a disincentive in the system, which can hinder schools from identifying and establishing a need before it impacts the child’s schooling. We cannot wait for things to go wrong before we fix them.

As the hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage) said, early intervention is key. That is why, as we have heard from many Labour Members, boosting training for teachers and for early years practitioners, so that we can identify needs early and support early, is so crucial.

Behind every statistic and case study we have heard about today, there is a child who is struggling, with parents and carers who are under stress. We have a duty to act. Liberal Democrats believe that every child, no matter their needs and background, deserves the opportunity to thrive. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments and to working with the Education Secretary to fix our broken SEND system. The children deserve it.

16:05

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I congratulate the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) on securing this popular debate. I am pleased to have the opportunity to respond on behalf of the Opposition. The fact that this is the third debate on the same subject in this Chamber this week—the Minister must have a season ticket—underlines the amount of casework that we all have to deal with, as I did in the last Parliament, to help parents and children get the support that they need. That is exactly what this debate is about.

We all want an education system that helps children and young people with SEND to fulfil their potential and live fulfilling lives. I pay tribute to all those working in schools, including my sister who is a SENCO in a Norfolk school, to support those children. Everyone has spoken about demand and the challenges that that is causing, and the pressure on funding. The number of EHCPs and statements of SEN have more than doubled since 2015. In my county of Norfolk there has been a 33% increase in the last five years alone, and my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) referred to the real pressures in Surrey.

In recognition of the growing demand, the last Conservative Government increased the high needs budget to £10.5 billion this year, which is 60% higher than in 2020. To help increase much-needed capacity, £2.6 billion was invested to fund new places and to improve existing provision. Nonetheless, as everyone has heard today, the level of demand continues to grow. It was the need for more consistent support and outcomes that led to the SEND and alternative provision improvement plan published last year. The review came after a long period of discussion with the sector—with parents and schools—to understand what was needed, and it aimed to ensure that every child gets the right support in the right place at the right time. At its core was an attempt to deal with the feeling that parents have to battle a system, which too many of them have, as every MP present knows. The hon. Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) talked about the challenge of getting EHCPs done in time and had a suggestion about how to address that.

[Mike Amesbury (Runcorn and Helsby) (Lab)]

Under the previous Government, in 2023, 98% of appeals to tribunal were upheld. Does that not demonstrate the utter failure that, under the watch of the previous Government, has created this broken SEND system?

[James Wild]

The hon. Gentleman makes his point. It underlines the need for reform of the system, which is precisely why mediation was part of the proposals that we brought forward.

The reforms were based around national standards so that there was a consistent approach. The first area we were going to bring forward was developing standards for speech and language, which is so important, and improving the timeliness of the EHCP process by introducing a standardised approach. As part of our focus on SEND, the last Government opened 15 new free schools, approved a further 40 and invested in training—which again is so important—for over 5,000 early years SEND practitioners. I know that the Minister is committed to delivering better outcomes, so can she confirm whether the Government have committed to implementing the national standards and the approach that we put forward in those reforms?

Funding in the SEND sector remains a significant challenge, increasing pressure on councils; the recent County Councils Network and Local Government Association report set that out clearly. As other hon. Members have referred to, in government we set out the safety value and delivering better value programmes, which 90 local authorities are involved in. Additionally, the statutory override was introduced to prevent SEND-related deficits from overwhelming council budgets. However, that override is set to expire in March 2026, and without clear direction, local authorities face the prospect of making significant cuts. Can the Minister clarify the Government’s intentions, and whether the statutory override will be extended to give councils the flexibility to work with schools and families to make the necessary changes? Local authorities are also seeing huge pressures from home-to-school transport costs. In Norfolk alone that is £60 million, with more than 80% allocated to SEND pupils. That is money spent on journeys rather than delivering better education, so improving mainstream education and specialist provision closer to where children live is vital.

One of the first of over 40 visits that I undertook in my first term as an MP in my constituency was to Greenpark academy, where the head raised the issue of speech and language therapy and access to therapists, which has been referred to. The Conservative Government made progress in improving access, recognising the long-term benefits of early intervention, but there is still much more to do, which I concede readily. I welcome the Government announcement in July that they will continue the Nuffield early language intervention programme this school year, and I hope that it will continue beyond that. However, there is still considerable disparity of access, so what steps will the Government take to address that, so that every child with speech and language needs gets the support that they deserve?

[Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is a travesty that a child with SEND in the London borough of Camden receives more than three times the funding of a child with SEND in my constituency? Every child should have access to the same support, funding and opportunity.

[James Wild]

Absolutely. My hon. Friend makes the point that our right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington (Sir David Davis) made earlier, as well as in a debate in the previous Parliament. I am sure the Minister will touch on that in her response.

[Shaun Davies]

The LGA and the CCN have assessed that the safety valve is worth about £3 billion. Had the Conservative party stayed in power, what would their solution have been to fill that black hole?

[James Wild]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware from his presence in the Chamber that we did not win the election, so it is for the Government to come forward with what they will do. They are now in power and must take decisions and take responsibility—that is the difference between Opposition and Government.

Finally, I must highlight the impact of the Labour Government’s plans to impose VAT on independent schools from January and what that will mean for SEND provision. More than 100,000 children and young people without an EHCP are educated and receive specialist support in independent schools. My right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Esther McVey) made the point well. She highlighted the fact that putting VAT on their fees will disrupt education for thousands of those pupils and place further strain on SEND provision in the state sector. By bringing the changes in partway through the academic year, Labour’s plans seem designed to cause maximum disruption to those children’s learning and to the state school system. Are the Minister and the Government listening to schools and parents, and will they act to ensure that those vulnerable children do not bear the brunt of that policy?

[David Baines (St Helens North) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman is talking about disruption to children and their development. Under the previous Government, in the past 10 years, investment in early intervention such as children’s centres fell by about 44%. What effect did he think that had on young children?

[James Wild]

We need to look at such things in the round. We put record amounts into childcare and we have just seen the latest roll-out of our childcare plans, which I think the Government now support, albeit a little sotto voce.

To conclude and to leave the Minister time to respond, there is unity across this Chamber—I hope—about the desire to ensure that the SEND system provides the support and outcomes that children and young people deserve. To help to achieve that, the last Government set out a path of comprehensive reform. It now falls to the new Government to continue to drive improvements, to tackle the challenges set out in this debate by Members from all parties and to deliver the very best for children and their families.

16:18

[The Minister for School Standards (Catherine McKinnell)]

It is an honour to serve under you as Chair, Mr Betts.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) on securing a debate on this incredibly important subject. The fact that it is so well attended shows how important it is. I pay tribute to all hon. Members who have managed to make their contributions today, ensuring that their constituents’ voices are heard. I would like to be able to respond to all the individual points, but the sheer volume of speakers will make that challenging. I also pay tribute to those present who have prepared speeches but have not been able to deliver them. I know their constituents want their voices to be heard in this debate as well, and I pay tribute to the effort that Members put in to attend and to show such a level of support.

[Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Catherine McKinnell]

I will give way in a moment.

The strength of feeling on this issue is clear. Most of all, I reassure the Chamber that this Government are absolutely committed to tackling it. It is key to breaking down the barriers to opportunity to give every child the best start in life, and that includes all those with special educational needs and disabilities, to give them the right start in life to have a successful education and to lead happy, healthy and productive lives.

I warn the Chamber that I will not be able to take many interventions, but I will take one from my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson), who got in so fast.

[Catherine Atkinson]

My constituent, Hayley, wrote on my social media,

“After years of being unheard or ignored, I feel a small sense of relief that this is now being taken to parliament and discussed, even though I understand there is a long way to go”.

I thank the Minister for her speech. Can I share with her, another time, the testimonies of the many constituents who have contacted me ahead of this debate?

[Catherine McKinnell]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I think she speaks for many here today, and many of those watching this debate as well. We are listening; we are committed; we want to work across the sector and with everyone here in order to turn this around. More than 1.6 million children and young people in England have special educational needs, and we know that, for far too long, too many families have been let down by a system that is not working. As mentioned already, the former Secretary of State for Education described the system as “lose, lose, lose”, and I know there is agreement in this room that that is very much the case.

[Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way; she is being very generous with her time. Would she agree that a part of the serious problems in many of our local areas was the delay in building new SEND provision under the previous Government? That certainly had a serious effect in Berkshire, and there are huge pressures on families and vulnerable children in my area. I just wanted to relay that point to her again.

[Catherine McKinnell]

I appreciate my hon. Friend’s concern, and this Government are absolutely committed to strengthening children’s entitlement to excellent provision that meets their needs and that is readily available, locally wherever possible. That is a key focus of any changes that we wish to see made in this area.

[Ashley Dalton (West Lancashire) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Catherine McKinnell]

I will—last one!

[Ashley Dalton]

I thank the Minister for giving way. This is an issue that has not been raised enough today: the previous Government’s SEND and alternative provision improvement plan, published just last year, contained no specific proposals for rural communities such as mine. Can the Minister confirm that the Labour Government will consider the specific needs, particularly around access, for SEND pupils in rural areas?

[Catherine McKinnell]

I appreciate the issue my hon. Friend is raising, and I will come on to that, because I appreciate that there have been a lot of comments from Members today on the national funding formula and how it works. I would like to make some progress, so if hon. Members will allow me, there are a number of issues that I would like to respond to, particularly in relation to the hon. Member for Leeds East, who tabled this debate.

Despite the fact that high needs funding for children and young people with complex special educational needs and disabilities is rising to higher and higher levels, confidence in the system is low, tribunal rates are increasing and there are increasingly long waits for support. Far too many children with special educational needs fall behind their peers. They do not reach the expected level in fundamental reading, writing and maths skills, with just one in four pupils achieving expected standards at the end of primary school. That is a system that is “lose, lose, lose”, as the former Education Secretary described. Families are struggling to get their child the support they need and, more importantly, deserve. So many hon. Members have spoken on behalf of families that they represent and demonstrated that struggle today.

After years in which parents have been frustrated by reform programmes being delayed and by promises not being delivered, this Labour Government want to be honest with families. We are absolutely committed to improving inclusivity and expertise in mainstream schools, as well as to ensuring that special schools can cater to those with the most complex needs. We want to restore parents’ trust that their child will get the support that they need to flourish.

We know that early identification and intervention is key to ensuring that the impacts of any special educational need or disability is minimised, or reduced, for the long term. That is why we very quickly announced the continuation of funding for the Nuffield Early Language Intervention—NELI—programme, to make sure that it can continue for 2024-25. We know that early speech and language intervention will help these children and young people to find their voices.

We also know that there are no quick fixes for these deep-rooted issues. After 14 years, I can scarcely see a system that is so broken or in such desperate need of reform. That is why we are absolutely determined to fix it, and we have started work already. It is a priority for this Department to fix our SEND system, but we know that we cannot do it alone. We have to work with the sector and valued partners, and we have to make sure that our approach is fully planned and delivered together with parents, schools, councils and expert staff—we know they are already going above and beyond for our children, but we can do so much better.

As I have already mentioned, many Members have raised concerns about the national funding formula, so the Government acted as quickly as we could to respond to some of the immediate cost pressures in the SEND system. We know that they are causing incredible financial difficulties in some local authorities, so before the parliamentary recess we announced a new core schools budget grant to provide special and alternative provision schools with over £140 million of extra funding in this financial year, to help with the extra costs of the teacher pay award and the outcome of the negotiations about increased pay for support staff as well. That money is in addition to the high needs funding allocation for children and young people with complex special needs and disabilities.

However, despite those record levels of investment, I know that families are still fighting the system, because it is not delivering. The Department for Education’s budget for 2025-26 has not yet been decided, and how much high needs funding is distributed to local authorities, schools and colleges next year will depend on the next stage of the Government’s spending review, due to be announced in October.

That means that the high needs allocations have not been published within the normal timescale, but we are working at pace to announce next year’s funding allocations. We are acutely aware of the pressures that local authorities face, not only because they are supporting the increasing needs of young people and children, but because of the financial pressures that the Government as a whole face because of the economic climate we have inherited.

It will not be easy or quick to solve those problems, but we really want to work on long-term solutions and we want to work together with others on these important issues. That includes looking at the national funding formula. We will take time to consider whether to make changes to it. We will of course consider the impact on any local authorities and, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton) mentioned, on particular areas that have made representations in relation to the formula.

[Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Catherine McKinnell]

I really am short of time.

On inspection, we welcome the publication of the Big Listen response this week. We want to work with Ofsted to consider how outcomes for children with SEND can better demonstrate inclusion, and we want every school to be driving to be as inclusive as it can be, so that mainstream provision is provided for as many children as possible.

In the interests of fairness, I will give way just one more time.

[Ben Maguire]

I thank the Minister for giving way and for her comments about reviewing the funding formula. May I take this opportunity to urge her to finally address the per-pupil funding deficit for pupils in Cornwall, who receive thousands and thousands of pounds less per pupil than pupils in the rest of the country? I hope she agrees that pupils in Cornwall, including in my North Cornwall constituency, particularly those with special educational needs, are no less valuable than children in other parts of the country.

[Catherine McKinnell]

I will say again and again that we are absolutely committed to ensuring that every child’s entitlement to have the best education possible, in their local area and where they need it, can be delivered under our system.

Nothing says more about the state of our nation than the wellbeing of our children. However, one of the great casualties of the last 14 years has been our children’s wellbeing, their development and their opportunities. Under the last Government, we saw relative child poverty soar, the rates of children presenting with mental health conditions skyrocketing, and more and more children languishing on waiting lists.

It now falls to the Labour Government to rebuild opportunities for our children. That is why we have bold ambitions and why we are determined to deliver on them. I thank hon. Members for bringing this matter forward today and all Members who have contributed to this debate.

However, most of all I want to acknowledge the hard work being done by so many people working in education, health and care who support our children and young people with special educational needs. We know that work is challenging, but we thank them for their commitment and their service.

[Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)]

I call Richard Burgon to respond—very briefly—to the debate.

16:29

[Richard Burgon]

Thank you, Mr Betts, for calling me to speak, and I thank all hon. Members who have taken part in the debate today. Given that demand to speak has exceeded supply today, I particularly hope that new Members who had written their speeches in advance, but were unable to make them in the debate, will consider publishing them online.

I thank the Minister for her response—her statement of intent. This debate today can only be the beginning. We need to recognise that there is a crisis in SEND provision. We need to ensure that SEND provision is properly financed and funded. We need to ensure that SEND provision is not seen in a silo and that instead there is a holistic approach to it. We also need to move forward, so I hope that we can find more time in the main Chamber to take this debate forward and tackle this challenge.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered SEND provision.

16:30

Sitting adjourned.