(1 day, 12 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House believes that SEND is an issue that affects every constituency; acknowledges that all hon. Members represent families who face daily challenges in navigating a system that can feel complex, inconsistent and under-resourced; further believes that ensuring that every child, regardless of their needs, has access to the education, care and opportunities they deserve is not only a matter of policy but of fairness and equality; notes that despite commitments, progress on reform remains slow; further notes the time taken to publish the White Paper entitled Every Child Achieving and Thriving which was bitterly disappointing for families struggling to secure the support their children need; and agrees that it is vital that SEND remains high on the Government’s agenda and that Parliament continues to hold a spotlight on the challenges faced by children, parents, schools and local authorities.
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing this debate. Every debate on special educational needs and disabilities is dominated by statistics: funding, school places and workforce numbers. Those are important, but at the heart of this issue are children, families and carers who rely on the system. I thank the hundreds of families, from my constituency and across the country, who have contacted me since the debate was scheduled. I applied for the debate before the White Paper came out, so I hope that colleagues will forgive me if I focus pretty much all my comments on the White Paper. I am sure that other Members will speak about the issue more widely.
In my opinion, any credible reform of SEND, including the Government’s White Paper, must meet three tests. It must strengthen legal protections, improve delivery on the ground and address the underlying pressures in the system. If it does all three, it can and will save money in the long run, but I am afraid that the Government’s proposals fall short on all three. Before turning to the substance of the proposals, I will address the process by which they have been brought forward.
The consultation itself has raised serious concerns. Parents and representative organisations have expressed overwhelming opposition to key elements of the reforms, particularly the potential weakening of legal protections. National charities have warned that the proposals risk eroding rights, while others have asked whether the most consequential changes have been fully and transparently put to consultation at all. At the same time, many parents and forums report feeling that engagement has been superficial—that workshops and consultation exercises have not meaningfully reflected their views. That matters because reform of this scale depends on trust.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The hon. Gentleman is right to underline these issues—that is why the Chamber is quite full. I am 71 years old. I remember that, when I was a child, there were not many children with autism or learning difficulties, but today the numbers are exceptional. Does he agree that it is time to find out why so many more children have special needs requirements now than when I was a boy in the ’60s and ’70s?
Gregory Stafford
The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point. If we are to solve—if that is the right word—the issue of special educational needs, and, more importantly, put in place the systems to support children with such needs, we need to understand the reasons for those needs.
Instead, there is a feeling that families who are already exhausted by the system are becoming disengaged from the very process that the Government’s proposals are supposed to improve. Across Farnham, Bordon, Haslemere, Liphook and the surrounding villages, SEND is the most prominent issue in my casework. Parents, schools and carers feel consistently let down by a system that is too slow, too complex and too often unresponsive. As vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for special educational needs and disabilities, and through my work on the Health and Social Care Committee, I see those challenges not just locally but reflected across the country.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
The hon. Member is making persuasive arguments. As in many constituencies, support for SEND is an ever increasing problem in my own. This is about not just support but the quality of support. Parents have to lose their jobs because the transport to take SEND children to and from school is being cut. Does he agree that the consultation should focus on need rather than on the financial aspect?
Gregory Stafford
I do not attribute any unfair or untoward motive to the Government; I think they are trying to improve the system. However, as I said in my opening remarks, my view is that if we improve it properly and get it right, that will save money. The danger with the way the Government have approached this is that they are looking to save money and then thinking about how they can solve the system. That is the danger.
Let me move on to the three tests that I mentioned at the start. The first test is whether the Government’s proposals strengthen legal protections. I accept that education, health and care plans, introduced in 2014, are not perfect, but they provide something essential: clarity, structure and, crucially, legal enforceability. The central question is whether individual support plans will carry those same enforceable rights. At present, the Government have not provided that assurance, and I look to the Minister to do so. In fact, external assessments suggest that these changes will significantly weaken legal protections. That creates a clear risk: replacing a system that is legally enforceable, albeit slow, with one that may be simpler in theory but weaker in law. And we know that enforceability matters.
Gregory Stafford
In a minute.
Across the country, over nine in 10 tribunal appeals are upheld against the local authority. And while, to be frank, that covers no local authority in any glory, it is evidence that the legal framework works when families are able to challenge decisions. If we remove that safeguard, families will lose their ultimate protection.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way and for bringing this really important debate to the Chamber. I recognise his passion for supporting young people with SEND, but I disagree with his views on the Government’s White Paper. I say that not because I am sitting on this side of the Chamber, but as a former teacher who worked with a system that did work and that was very similar to the system that is being put forward. I would question the hon. Gentleman’s point about legal enforcement and EHCPs, because even when children did get EHCPs, the schools just were not able to provide what the EHCP demanded. Whether it was a legal requirement or not, those schools were just not able to provide it. I ask the hon. Gentleman to reflect on that.
Gregory Stafford
Given the time available, I will probably not take too many more interventions. On the hon. Gentleman’s point, it is a strange argument that, because a child has been legally given an EHCP that requires a certain level of support but, for whatever reason—whether through the school, perhaps, or the local authority—that cannot be provided, we should therefore water down their legal rights.
When the current system works—and it does work in places—it is transformational. One parent in my constituency wrote:
“We are incredibly relieved. I have received the final copy of the EHCP, and the school is now implementing it. It has been a long road.”
Gregory Stafford
No, I will not.
That parent’s relief exists because there is a system that ultimately guarantees support. Replacing that certainty with ambiguity is not reform; it is regression.
The second test is whether the proposals improve delivery on the ground. The model set out in the White Paper relies heavily on early intervention through the NHS and local schools, but that depends on capacity that currently simply does not exist. For example, in the Hampshire and Isle of Wight integrated care board, CAMHS—child and adolescent mental health services—waiting times stand at about 28.5 weeks for an assessment, rising to 52 weeks for treatment, far beyond the NHS standard of 18 weeks. Without clinical capacity, the central delivery mechanism of these reforms cannot function as intended.
Schools are already being asked to fill that gap. In discussions with headteachers and special educational needs and disabilities co-ordinators across my constituency, including at South Farnham school, Highfield South Farnham, St Polycarp’s, St Mary’s, and Badshot Lea infants, a consistent picture emerges: rising demand, limited special support and growing pressure on staff to manage needs that should sit elsewhere in the system. One school put it plainly:
“CAMHS sometimes ask us to manage pupils ourselves because they do not have the capacity.”
That is not joined-up delivery; it is displacement of responsibility.
The consequences of this gap between the policy and the reality are severe. In my constituency, a 12-year-old whose needs were identified in year 2 is still awaiting an assessment. Without diagnosis, her school has been unable to put the right support in place. Her mother wrote:
“We are at our wits’ end. The delays are not just administrative—they are shaping the course of our daughter’s life.”
That is not an isolated example. I have also worked with a family who, despite clear professional evidence, were initially refusing an EHCP and forced into a lengthy tribunal process, only for the decision to be overturned.
There are further consequences of these proposals that need to be addressed. By moving away from a clearly defined, legally enforceable EHCP framework towards individual support plans, much of the responsibility for decision making—and, inevitably, dispute resolution—risks being pushed on to schools. That would place teachers and school leaders in an increasingly difficult position: they would be expected to determine provision, manage expectations and resolve disagreements with families without the protection of a clear statutory framework or the capacity to meet those needs. At a time when schools are under significant pressure, this risks shifting both the legal and emotional burden on to institutions that are simply not equipped to carry it.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, a fellow member of the Health and Social Care Committee, for giving way. Is he not making two contradictory points, however? He says on the one hand that it should be legally enforceable—a point with which I entirely agree, particularly as nearly 99% of tribunal appeals are partially or wholly upheld. But he also recognises that EHCPs are not coming through at the level they should within the 20 weeks—certainly, it is about the 10% level—so having the legal backing and framework is not delivering the outcome.
Gregory Stafford
I do not think those two points are contradictory. One is an issue of the legislation, which is what I am talking about and what the Government are potentially looking to change, and another is how the system itself is being implemented by local authorities and others. I have been very clear in my speech that although I absolutely believe—as I think the hon. Gentleman does—that the legal requirements should remain, I am in no way sugar-coating the difficulties that local authorities are having in meeting those legal requirements.
The third test is whether the reforms address the underlying pressures in the system. Demand is rising rapidly: over 1.7 million children in England are now identified as having special educational needs, with numbers increasing year on year. Yet the Government’s proposals place additional expectations on schools and local authorities without resolving the fundamental constraints: namely, workforce funding, certainty and system capacity.
The White Paper promises more educational psychologists, therapists and specialists, but training an educational psychologist can take up to eight years. So the question is simple: how are those gaps going to be filled in the meantime? At the same time, the Department’s own figures show that there are now 400 fewer teachers than when we left office. So schools are being asked to do more with less.
Local authorities are at the sharp end of the system and are being placed in an increasingly impossible position. Colleagues will know that in Surrey around £100 million has been invested locally to expand SEND provision alongside further investment in staffing, yet demand continues to outstrip capacity. In Hampshire, SEND overspend now stands at around £140 million, placing extraordinary pressure on finances. This is not unique to my areas in Surrey or Hampshire; across the country, councils are being asked to meet rising demand, fulfil statutory obligations and absorb increasing costs without that long-term funding certainty. The result is a system where families face delays, councils face financial instability and schools face mounting pressure.
Taken together, this is not simply a failure of local authorities; it is a failure of the system to meet demand. And into that system the Government propose a decade-long transition. Councils are already preparing for a surge in EHCP applications as families seek to secure existing protections before reforms take effect, and that is certainly not going to ease pressure—it is, in fact, going to intensify it.
Through my work on the Health and Social Care Committee, I consistently see that SEND cannot be addressed in isolation. The number of children with SEND is rising by about 5% each year, and meeting that need requires genuine co-ordination between education and health. Yet SEND was almost entirely absent from the NHS 10-year plan, and when I submitted written questions on conditions such as autism, ADHD and dyslexia, the responses revealed that data is not collected individually but is grouped into very broad categories, which is not joined-up government but fragmentation. That needs to change.
I want to touch briefly on the independent sector capacity, because independent schools also play an important role in relieving pressure on the system, particularly for children with complex needs. They act as a pressure valve. I am aware that some characterise all independent provision as little more than private equity extracting profit, but the independent sector in my constituency provides excellent and comprehensive coverage and capacity. I am fortunate to have excellent specialist provision in my constituency, including at schools such as Hollywater, Undershaw, More House, Pathways, the Abbey school and the Ridgeway school, which support children with complex needs every day and should be supported.
In conclusion, families do not need another wholesale structural overhaul or a decade of transition. Instead, they need a system that delivers on time, with clarity and with enforceable rights. I have a few questions for the Minister. First, will she set out the full cost of replacing EHCPs with individual support plans, including the transition and implementation? Secondly, will she guarantee that ISPs will carry the same legally enforceable rights, including access to a tribunal? Thirdly, when will additional SEND staff be trained and in post? Fourthly, what action will be taken against local authorities that consistently fail to meet statutory timelines? Finally, will the Government publish detailed data on specific conditions and system performance so that outcomes can be properly measured?
I say to right hon. and hon. Members across the House that this is not about defending a White Paper; it is about defending the families we represent. Families are not asking for perfection; they are simply asking for a system that works. The question for the Government is simple: will they strengthen what exists or will they replace it with something weaker, slower and less certain? On the current trajectory, that is the risk, and it is one that I believe this House should not accept.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. I will impose an immediate five-minute time limit. I call the Chair of the Education Committee.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) on securing this important debate, and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allocating the time for it.
The support for children with special educational needs and disabilities is an area in which my Committee has taken an intense interest. It is the single biggest challenge in our education system, with far-reaching consequences. The current system is failing children, families and the professionals who work with them, right across our country. It is causing deep distress, sometimes even trauma, for children and their families. The implications of the failing system for local authority finances are profound, and many professionals are put in the invidious position of being unable to deliver the education and support that children and young people require because of impossible constraints on resources and ever-increasing need.
The outcomes for children with SEND are unacceptably poor. I am afraid that I simply do not recognise the description given by the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon that this is a system that is broadly working. A system that relies on parents having to battle every step of the way and having to go to tribunals to seek redress is an exclusionary and inequitable system. We need to be absolutely clear that it is failing and that the reform that is necessary to get it to work is comprehensive and far-reaching.
It is vital that the failures in the current system are addressed. It is vital on its own terms, because no child should feel that there is no place for them in our education system, that their needs are not understood or, even worse, as we have heard from some of our witnesses, that they are the problem. No parent should have to battle at every single stage of their child’s education to get the support they need. It is also vital if we want to improve outcomes in our education system, and if we want to unleash the talent and creativity of every single young person, for the benefit of our society and our economy.
Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)
I hear from parents who have real concerns about exclusions, which have been mentioned already. Parents want to understand how accountability will work in a future system, particularly in relation to concerns that their children might experience trauma as a result of exclusion. I would be grateful to hear my hon. Friend’s thoughts on that?
Helen Hayes
Accountability is one of the areas that our Committee highlighted in our report last year, which I will speak about in a moment.
Last year we published our inquiry report “Solving the SEND crisis”. The report was based on 900 pieces of written evidence, seven oral evidence sessions, and visits to Ontario in Canada and to schools and colleges implementing innovative good practice in England. In 95 detailed recommendations, our report called for comprehensive change to the SEND system, with a focus on early identification of need, making mainstream schools inclusive for the children with SEND who are already in them, increasing the accountability of the SEND system, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake) rightly suggests, for schools, local authorities and, importantly, for the NHS, and involving parents and carers in every decision about the support that their children receive.
To date, we have received from the Government only an interim response to our recommendations, so we look forward to receiving their full response in due course. However, we are encouraged that the Government’s SEND reform proposals reflect several of my Committee’s recommendations. It is very welcome that the Government have committed additional resources to SEND support and will effectively be running two parallel systems for a number of years to avoid sharp cliff edges between the old system and the new one. That is the right way to deliver significant reform. I know that the decision to write off 90% of local authority SEND debts also comes as a huge relief.
It is the right approach to prioritise early identification of need, to be seeking to make mainstream schools fully inclusive for the children who are already in them, and to be expanding the availability of provision in the state sector for children who need a place at a specialist school.
Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)
One of my constituents, Olivia, is battling for her son to stay in mainstream education, alongside her son’s twin, who is an anchor for him. Does my hon. Friend agree with me that we must ensure that ISPs are there quickly to avoid some of the distress of the process as parents battle to keep their children in mainstream settings?
Helen Hayes
My hon. Friend speaks very well on behalf of his constituent, whose situation is replicated across the country, which gives urgency to the need to reform our SEND system.
It is the right approach to be increasing the expertise of teaching staff and to be making specialist expertise available to schools whenever they need it. The long waiting times for diagnosis and specialist support, such as speech and language therapy, are one of the most appalling aspects of the current system. Childhood is so short and children should not be seeing years of their education pass them by without the support they need to get the most out of it.
My Committee is undertaking our own scrutiny of the Government’s proposals tomorrow, when we will hear directly in an oral evidence session from witnesses with a wide range of perspectives and expertise. We will write formally to the Government in due course with our reflections following the evidence session.
As I have spoken with parents and the organisations that represent them, I have heard about anxieties with some of the Government’s proposals that I hope the Minister will address today. The proposals involve, over time, a scaling back of EHC assessments and EHCPs, replacing some EHCPs with individual support plans. Parents and carers who I have spoken to are understandably concerned about replacing a statutory plan with an ISP that will not be on a statutory footing. The concern is about how accountability will be guaranteed if there are problems with the ISP, if their child’s needs are not correctly identified, if the ISP that is drafted is not fit for purpose or if it is not being implemented properly.
Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
On that point, will my hon. Friend give way?
Helen Hayes
I am afraid I will not because of the lack of time.
Parents and carers of children with SEND have often been let down so much and by so many different parts of the system that they simply do not trust that anything will work as it should. Their children have rights on paper that are often not upheld in practice. In such a context, accountability matters.
Rebuilding the broken trust and confidence of parents and carers in the SEND system will be critical to the success of the Government’s reforms. It is why my Committee recommended no changes to current rights and entitlements, so that a new system can be built while parents still have the same access to redress to fall back on. I hope that the Minister will speak to the ways in which her reforms are designed to ensure that trust and confidence are rebuilt, and especially that parents and carers know exactly what will happen if things go wrong.
There are also concerns about the proposed reassessment of EHCPs in year 6. The transition from primary to secondary is one of the most high-risk times in a child’s education. We hear time and again from parents who say that starting at secondary school was when their child’s education started to unravel, or that if only they had been able to transport what they had in primary school into secondary school, things might have gone better.
I am grateful to the Minister for the considered and thoughtful approach that she has taken to SEND reform, and for the extensive listening she has undertaken with parents, carers and professionals. The current consultation on draft proposals is an important part of the process and I hope that if it is necessary to make adjustments to the proposals in the light of feedback from the consultation, the Government will be willing to do so. It is so important that these reforms are absolutely right.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
I have been contacted by a huge number of constituents raising concerns about delays to EHCPs, a lack of specialist placements and the struggle to secure the support that their children need. Like so many other Members of the House, SEND issues dominate my surgeries and casework, and it is heartbreaking to see the delays and the pain and anguish brought to those children and families as they wait for what they deserve: an education that works for them and their specific needs. What troubles me even more is not those cases that have been brought to me, but how many more there must be who have not come forward.
One of the most troubling aspects of this SEND crisis is that too many children simply do not have a suitable place at all. Children are left in settings that cannot meet their needs or, in some cases, are left out of education altogether. But this issue does not begin with placements; it begins much earlier in the system. Buckinghamshire council has advised that there is a shortage of occupational therapists to carry out assessments and there are delays of up to 56 weeks just to issue an EHCP. That is over a year in which a child may be stuck in the wrong setting, a year of lost progress and a year of growing pressure on families.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, as well as the harm caused to the children who do not receive timely support for their special needs, if children are in the wrong setting, harm is caused to the teachers, who are not qualified to support those children in their normal, mainstream setting? If we can do the assessments and get the right support quicker, it will help not only the children, but the educationalists providing their education.
Greg Smith
I agree with the hon. Gentleman. It is the whole system that suffers in the circumstance that he describes, such as the teaching staff who do their absolute best and every other child in those classes. He makes a very fair point. Before we even get to the question of school places, the system is already falling behind.
In Buckinghamshire, nearby SEND schools are already oversubscribed, and despite the best efforts of heroic teaching staff, mainstream schools cannot always meet complex needs. This is where we in Buckinghamshire have been most let down by this Government. Back in May 2024, the Department for Education wrote to Buckinghamshire council and committed to a brand-new, 152-place SEND school for Buckinghamshire. That was not a political pledge or a general election campaign promise; it was officially announced by the Department for Education. This Labour Government have formally scrapped it.
What was a £20 million spend has been downgraded to £8 million over three years for Buckinghamshire. That is not good enough. That school would not have solved all our problems, but it would have gone a very long way. I urge the Government, even at this late hour, to think again and deliver this school for my constituents. Children and families in Buckinghamshire would benefit so much from it.
Let me turn to the Government’s proposed SEND reforms. Many parents have contacted me on this issue, and I am concerned, as my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) has outlined, that the Government are not even close to getting this right. One constituent wrote to me:
“I am concerned that the direction of SEND reform risks children and young people having to fit into whatever provision is available, or else missing out on education entirely. I’m really worried that these new proposals will leave parents having to battle directly with schools to get help for their child.”
That is an important point. We need a system that works for the needs of each and every child, not a system that works for a faceless bureaucracy.
My constituent continued:
“My two children both have an autism diagnosis, but are significantly different in their support needs. A one-size fits all type provision will not be suitable for even these two siblings. I would love them to be able to manage at a mainstream school, but the solution is not for schools to become more SEN friendly, the solution is a complete overhaul and reform of the schooling system. It is antiquated and not fit for purpose.”
I was lucky enough to go to an event in Portcullis House with parents and teachers of SEND families this afternoon, chaired by Rory Bremner. The evidence given by those parents and teachers was quite frightening; many fear that under this White Paper, if it is brought in, their children will be excluded altogether. I urge the Minister to get a read-out from that meeting.
That leads on to wider concerns about the loss of individualised and legally enforceable support, as my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon put it in his own excellent speech. That is about not just the risk of children being forced into inappropriate provision, but the potential loss of legal protections and tribunal rights and the potential loss of “education other than at school” packages for children who cannot attend any school setting. That cannot be right.
Edward Argar (Melton and Syston) (Con)
When I spoke in the Select Committee debate on this matter in the Chamber, I highlighted that too many parents feel that the system is done to them, rather than working with them. Does my hon. Friend share my concern and the concern of parents in my constituency that in order for trust to be rebuilt, there has to be some sort of individually, legally enforceable backstop for those families?
Greg Smith
My right hon. Friend hits the nail precisely on the head. It is the interests of those families that motivated me to speak in this debate, and I entirely endorse the point that he makes.
In the last few moments that I have, I will briefly raise another specific case that I would be grateful to hear the Minister’s reflections on in her summing-up speech. The case was brought to me by a constituent who adopted two children in 2020. Both children experienced significant early trauma and later received diagnoses indicating multiple and complex needs, not least foetal alcohol spectrum disorder, which can involve more than 400 co-occurring difficulties affecting physical health, cognition, executive functioning and behaviour. Delays in intervention have had real and significant consequences.
As adoptive parents, my constituents are aware of research estimating that adoption generates significant long-term social and economic value—I doubt that anyone would disagree with that. Yet, paradoxically, by adopting their children, they appear to have lost priority access to some state-funded support that would have been available had those children remained in foster care. That unintended consequence is deeply concerning. More broadly, adopted children with SEND often fall between services. Responsibility is frequently passed from one agency to another without the care and attention that the children need, and I would welcome the Minister’s reflections on that.
Too many families are being let down. “One size fits all” does not work and never will. Let us focus on the child and the needs of each child, and build a system that genuinely works.
Ashley Dalton (West Lancashire) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) on securing this really important debate.
Children in West Lancashire have previously felt let down by the SEND system. People lost faith in the very system that is meant to support the children in our communities who need it the most. That is the inheritance that this Government took from the last Government. I know how important getting this right is to the Secretary of State, and the work that this Government have done in the past few years has not gone unnoticed by my constituents, but it is so important that we get these changes right. The people who write to my inbox or visit my surgeries are simply desperate for a system that treats SEND pupils with dignity and truly recognises them as individuals filled with all sorts of potential.
There is much good in the Government’s plans. The vast increase in specialist places and the training and upskilling that will give our teachers more tools to help SEND students will make a real difference to the lives of children and their families.
SEND parents are no different from any other parents. Every day, they fight to give their children the best possible start in life, and it is so important that this Government support them to do so, without them having to fight endless layers of bureaucracy and constantly push back against a “computer says no” culture that requires individuals to fit cookie-cutter templates to get bespoke assistance. We must ensure that, through these changes, we are giving parents respite, not just inadvertently moving the fight from one place to another.
Andrew George
I am very grateful to the hon. Member for giving way, and congratulate her on having been a great Health Minister—I was sorry that she stood aside. She will be aware that there is a party whose Members are not present this evening. A lot of people in the media are suggesting that they will form the next Government, but their policy in this area is that this is a crisis of overdiagnosis. Does she share my concern that this debate is not being properly engaged in by the people who want to damage the system most?
Ashley Dalton
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention and his kind words, and I agree that we cannot simply say that there is overdiagnosis. It has been said previously that there were not as many people with SEND before; the reality is that we do not know that, because for many years, SEND simply went unnoticed. People were not diagnosed, and were simply written off as naughty or backward. We must recognise how important these children are and how much support they need.
Dozens of parents in West Lancashire have contacted me to request that I come to the Chamber today to protect the rights they have under current legislation to enforceable provision based on a child’s particular needs. We all know the deficiencies that exist in the current EHCP system, but we must make sure that we listen to SEND parents. I know that this Government are committed to ensuring that these changes make life easier for SEND children and their families, not harder.
Twice, I have met a constituent who has a son with severe and complex special needs—he is nonverbal and has sensory challenges. Even when her son was offered a place at a special school, the local authority did not accept that place, despite it being cheaper than the local authority provision. It ignored recommendations and assessments, and my constituent’s son was out of education for seven months. My constituent had to use the rights that exist in current legislation to fight for the most basic right—for her son to have an education—and the issue was only resolved because of his legal right to legal enforceability and the tribunal power to name a school. Had that not been the case, her son might still not be in education. My constituent agrees with the Government that the system we inherited is not working, and she is not asking us to scrap these reforms, but we must ensure that the changes we are making to an unfair system support SEND children and their families as much as we possibly can.
Last year, Reform took control of Lancashire county council, the authority that makes decisions about SEND provision for my constituency. It is obvious that, despite claiming that it would tackle the issue, Reform has demonstrated no interest in it. Its national party does not care—as has already been pointed out, not a single one of its Members is present for this evening’s debate. Reform-led Lancashire county council has failed to provide tailored support for children in my constituency, and has failed to support families in my constituency who are fighting tooth and nail for their children to have the same opportunities that the rest of us rightly expect as standard. It would be an abdication of my duty to represent my constituents if I did not seek to give parents every tool in the box to defend the right of their children to a decent education, in the face of a local authority whose leadership turns its gaze away and plugs its ears.
I am proud that this Government are tackling this issue in a constructive way—parents have waited for these changes for far too long. As part of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State’s commitment to give every child the best possible start in life, I would be grateful if the Minister gave a clear reassurance today that the legal right to an EHCP or similar for those who need it will remain, and that the ability of families to enforce provision will not be weakened by reforms.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
The speaking limit is now three minutes, and it is highly unlikely that most people will get in. I call Andrew George.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker—in fact, I made a number of interventions in place of my speech. I wanted to respond to the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton), because she was making a very strong case about the need to ensure that these reforms are forced through. The three tests that the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) introduced to this debate set the template, on which I hope the Minister will respond in due course.
In my constituency and across Cornwall—it is good to see Members from Cornwall in the Chamber this evening—the issues that are causing the greatest concern relate to the large number of tribunals that take place in order for parents to ensure that their children get the decent education they desperately deserve.
Ms Creasy
Let me tell the hon. Member that in London people have the same concern that my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton) set out. We have to change the system, but too often, parents have had to go to tribunal to be heard. Any reform must support parents to continue to be heard as part of the educational system supporting these children. Does the hon. Member agree?
Andrew George
I absolutely agree. What worries us most is the fact that parents have to be sharp-elbowed enough to take on the tribunal system, which is no mean feat. What worries me is how many other parents do not have the confidence to challenge decisions, to use the tribunal system, to make a complaint to the ombudsman or to use local authority facilities to pursue those issues. There are major issues that need to be reflected upon. It certainly should not just be those parents with the self-confidence to navigate their way through the system whose children benefit, while so many others fall by the wayside. That causes me a great deal of concern.
Another issue that the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon identified in his opening remarks is the very low number of authorities meeting the 20-week EHCP target. That results in many pupils simply not getting on and getting the services in the education system that they desperately need.
Given that I have already made a couple of interventions, I will conclude my remarks and let others come in.
Juliet Campbell (Broxtowe) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) on bringing forward this debate. This Government have set forward an ambitious plan to reform the SEND system in the SEND White Paper. I am proud of the commitment that the Government have made to ensuring that children with SEND are supported to thrive and achieve by bringing about the changes that parents and educators deserve and need.
Ask any parent about their experience of navigating the current SEND system and they will tell stories of being pushed from pillar to post and not being listened to. The trust and confidence of parents and carers in the SEND system that we inherited from the previous Government has been completely undermined. Last Friday, in my constituency of Broxtowe, I met parents and educators who spoke of their own heartbreaking experiences. They told me of their families being traumatised and their children often being excluded from education altogether. They welcome the White Paper and express their support for all that it seeks to do, but they have concerns about accountability and the legal status of parents who seek to get support for their families. They support the Government in wanting early interventions and support provided closer to home. They are particularly happy that there will be additional occupational therapists, speech and language therapists and educational psychologists, and upskilling for staff in every school.
Parents and educators seek further detail about how we can reform the current teacher training curriculum so that newly qualified teachers and educators are trained with the skills and expertise they need in every classroom, including for dyslexic pupils and the neurodiverse. As we know, dyslexia is one of the most common forms of learning difficulty and learning difference, yet under the current system, support is inconsistent or non-existent, or simply depends on an overstretched classroom teacher who may not have received specialist training. It is my hope that the White Paper will be a vehicle for developing a national dyslexia strategy, and I am confident that the Government will take that into consideration alongside all their other excellent work to improve the education outcomes and life chances of those with SEND.
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)
The Minister is probably sick of hearing me bang on about the local picture up in the East Riding of Yorkshire and the fact that ours is the lowest-funded local authority for SEND. We have roughly £1,000 per pupil per year, while Camden is at the other end of the league table: the funding in the Prime Minister’s constituency amounts to £3,800 per pupil. That discrepancy, that inequality, is simply insane. It is an historic problem caused by a funding formula that does not work for larger rural authorities, and it is an issue on which Members on both sides of the House have campaigned for many years.
This is one of those “almost too difficult to do” problems that Ministers, both on our side and on the Labour side, have perhaps shied away from. I ask the Minister tonight to grasp this unique opportunity, given that the Government are now consulting. I am pleased that I shall be meeting her next week, along with my right hon. Friends the Members for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) and for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis), and I hope that we can find a way forward.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) for giving us a chance to debate these issues again today. In the limited time available to me, I will draw attention to a few of the specific problems that the system is throwing up. One problem involves EHCP drafting—if, of course, it is possible to obtain an EHCP in a timely manner in the first place. We often see only a vague recognition of need, which means that delivery on that need and the action plan is unenforceable from a legal perspective. The routine breaches of timelines are outrageous: people are waiting four years for an autism diagnosis. As a parent of a child with SEND, I was extremely lucky, in that my son’s nursery recognised his developmental issues when he was two and was very supportive during the process on which we then embarked, but I then became aware of how adversarial that process can become when one begins to engage in the issue of local authority provision.
I found out at 3.30 pm on a Friday, via an email, that my son would not be able to take up the school placement that was, perhaps, most suitable for him at that point. The email did say that I could appeal against the decision, but it gave no reasons for why it had been made, and of course at 3.30 pm on a Friday everyone had finished work for the weekend, so replying was not an option. We can address, and should be addressing, such simple problems in the system to ensure that the journey for parents is easier and less challenging, because the more we can get the children into the right settings, the better it will be for them. Fewer will lose time in education and it will be possible to avoid the long-term problems that lead to further issues in adulthood, so that we do not find a child heading into a journey of never-ending care.
Gregory Stafford
I entirely support what my hon. Friend is saying, and I think the idea that anyone on this side is wholly endorsing the current system is a false one. My fear, however—which I think my hon. Friend is expressing—is that, under the current proposals in the White Paper, if he unfortunately has to proceed through the tribunal system, the tribunal will be no longer be able to allocate a specific provision for parents and child, which essentially renders the whole thing null and void. Does he agree that we should be asking the Government not to rip up their proposals, but to listen to the concerns that parents are expressing about their changes and tweak them, so that they can be responsive to the problems that he is raising?
Charlie Dewhirst
One of the problems for the children involved is that their journey is uncertain, and the system becomes inflexible. The reviews are not carried out in a timely fashion, which means that a child gets stuck in a placement that may not be right, which exacerbates the problem for the future. We end up with much bigger, more costly issues—not just costly in terms of local authority or central Government spending, but costly for parents and children. As a parent, I think that one of the biggest challenges is not knowing where that journey is going to end—not knowing what my son’s outlook is likely to be in two years, five years or 10 years. If we felt confident that the system would be there to provide support and the necessary safeguard in respect of that schooling provision—perhaps provision into adulthood, if required—perhaps we could start to break down some of the barriers.
I appreciate that much of this comes with costs, and that local authorities need more provision in certain areas. I plead with the Government once again to ensure that the inequality in the funding gap is addressed, but I hope we now have an opportunity to find a better way forward for SEND provision.
Ben Coleman (Chelsea and Fulham) (Lab)
I speak as one who, like many of my colleagues, has received many emails and other messages, and engaged in many conversations with parents of disabled children. I know that throughout the country parents are fighting battles to secure for their children the basic support that the law says they should already have. This is a profoundly damaged system that the Government are determined to change, and I welcome that hugely.
In my view, the schools White Paper represents the most important attempt to improve life for disabled children and young people, and for their families, since the introduction of EHCPs in 2014 and, before that, the last Labour Government’s Aiming High for Disabled Children programme in 2007. I should perhaps declare an interest here: I campaigned with Contact a Family, Mencap and the Council for Disabled Children to build the political case for disabled children in the mid-2000s that led to Aiming High and secured nearly a billion pounds in new funding, plus new rights for disabled children and young people, and for their families.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
Will my hon. Friend join me in welcoming the £4.8 million of extra investment that this Government have put in to support SEND adaptations in Bolton, but also acknowledge the recognition that came from parents at my SEND roundtable last week that this cannot just be about extra investment in the system? Reform is now long overdue.
Ben Coleman
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and I am glad his local area has received that investment. Indeed, the two boroughs in my constituency of Chelsea and Fulham will get a 10% increase in SEND funding for next year to support new, dedicated SEND spaces in every secondary school. That sort of thing is happening across the country, and it is absolutely right that it should.
These are real commitments, seriously made: nearly £4 billion for school improvements, new therapists and specialists, and better teacher training; the new individual support plans for every child with SEND; and the EHCP and tribunal rights being retained for those with the most complex needs. All are seriously made commitments, and I welcome them, but I have to say that questions none the less remain—some of them have been raised today. I have just three questions for the Minister, and the first relates to enforceability. If a school fails to deliver what is written in a child’s individual support plan, I do think parents need a clear legal route to resolution.
Peter Swallow
I recently hosted an open meeting with parents on these reforms. Although there was widespread welcoming of much of what is in the White Paper, they urged that real, sustained change should happen. One concern was about the enforceability and accountability for ISPs, what would happen if a school was not delivering what was needed to support a child, and where that accountability would fall.
Ben Coleman
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. There has been talk about a beefed-up school complaints process. I do not think that will be sufficient, and I ask the Minister to consider extending the remit of the local government and social care ombudsman to provide a binding route—a statutory backstop—to resolution when schools and other settings fall short.
My second question is about health and social care co-ordination. This is where the White Paper is perhaps most silent, and where the current system is most visibly broken. As has been mentioned, the Health and Social Care Committee, of which I am a member, recently examined how the health aspects of EHCPs are being delivered, and the result was depressing. One of the biggest problems is that integrated care boards and local authorities simply do not jointly commission children’s therapy services. Back in 2014, a truly joined-up education, health and care plan was exactly the ambition that was being strived towards, but Health never fully showed up and the then Government allowed it to get away with that for years. We now have to tackle that, and witnesses to our Committee urged that the Government mandate local authorities to have representation on ICB decision-making boards. Is the Minister prepared to give that serious consideration?
Finally, children with SEND spend most of their lives outside the classroom, cared for by parents, who receive remarkably little support. Will the Minister commit to a clear, published expectation that health and social care will provide families with the information, guidance and practical support that they need?
The White Paper shows that the Government understand that the system is broken and are prepared to invest. Success is going to depend on many things, including whether Health finally shows up, whether ISPs are properly enforced and whether families get the support that they need. I have every confidence that this Government are going to carry on doing the right thing, and I look forward to improving the lives of disabled children and young people, and their families.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
I thank the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) for calling this important debate. Like him, my inbox has overflowed since I was elected last year, with concerned parents writing to me about the state of special educational needs provision. They recognise that the system is broken, but also that the system that they experience in Surrey is perhaps more broken that almost anywhere else.
I will start with one bit of good news and an acknowledgment: I thank the Department for confirming funding for the new Frimley Oak academy, which will open in my constituency in the near future and will cater to 170 people. It represents an important step forward in addressing a vital local need for children with special educational needs.
The sad reality is that for too long, so many parents and children in my constituency have been failed, I am sorry to say, by Surrey county council. Surrey has had the highest recorded number of SEND tribunal appeals anywhere in the country for three consecutive years. That statistic is a symptom of systemic dysfunction and failure.
Behind every one of those appeals are human stories. A constituent of mine recently wrote to me. Her opening words were simply:
“Our life is crumbling right now.”
Others described their children being stripped of their childhood, families being physically and mentally broken, and their finances being pushed to the brink. At a constituency surgery that I held recently, a parent described the process of navigating the SEND system as being like walking the yellow brick road, with every trial and tribulation thrown in their way, and then finally getting to the emerald city that might represent something a little better, only to pull back the curtain and find that there is nothing there—an EHCP with the wrong name, describing the wrong child, offering an inappropriate package of support.
Sitting at the top of all this in Surrey are the senior leaders, who say that there is no problem with special educational needs in Surrey at all, just parents who are too articulate. They claim, outrageously, that there is not a problem; there are just parents who have too inflated an idea of their children’s wants. It is absolutely atrocious.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
My hon. Friend and I, along with colleagues in Surrey, have campaigned hard to change Surrey county council’s appalling approach to children with special educational needs. Does he agree that local government reorganisation is a huge opportunity for us to change the culture? Will he urge the Minister to ensure that all newly established local authorities put children first?
Dr Pinkerton
I agree that with local government reorganisation there is an opportunity to get the processes right, but I recognise that there are enormous risks, particularly in Surrey, where the new unitary authority is likely to start its life with £4 billion of debt and an annual shortfall of £150 million in its operational budget. It could be a council in section 114 special economic measures from the moment of its creation. Given the level of need that I see described in my inbox, I am incredibly concerned that more parents and more generations of children will be let down. I think right hon. and hon. Members across Surrey will feel the same.
I congratulate the Minister and the Government on their plans, which I think have the correct intention, but I am incredibly concerned that the necessary financial foundations may not be in place to ensure that children are looked after properly. Ultimately, this debate comes down to one simple question: will the Government’s proposed SEND reforms deliver meaningful change, or will they simply repackage a system that continues to fail families? Judging from the state of my inbox, we cannot allow any more families to be failed.
Sarah Smith (Hyndburn) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) for securing this debate. As the motion states, it is vital that Parliament keeps a spotlight on the SEND system as the Government work to bring about the necessary reforms. “Necessary” is the right word, because the system that this Labour Government inherited is not working for families, for children, for local authorities, for our health service or for our teaching professionals. The last Government left the system close to breaking point, and it is this Labour Government who are building a system that works.
In Lancashire, the Government have increased the high needs block allocation to £223 million in 2026-27, a 56% increase on the 2018-19 allocation. They also committed an extra £19 million towards capital investment last year, with £23 million coming in this year—an uplift of £4 million to support the capital costs. Like councils across the country, Lancashire is benefiting from 90% of its SEND deficit being written off. However, my constituents in Hyndburn still face a lengthy wait for an EHCP to be finalised. Lancashire county council has issued only 17.3% of its plans within the 20-week requirement, so I am interested in the Minister’s plans to improve the accountability of local authorities. I am losing count of the number of families that have been in tears in my surgeries due to the failures of our county council, currently led by Reform, in making sure that we meet the needs of our children when they need that support and in providing certainty for parents in getting the education those children all deserve.
Parents and carers are desperate for a system that works with them, not against them, as we have heard in a number of contributions this evening. How we do the reform is as important as the reform itself. That is why I called for the Government to ensure they put the voices and views of parents, carers and young people at the heart of their reforms. It is undoubtedly evident that they strengthened the plans and, through the time the Government took to try to get this right, helped to positively shape the Government’s approach. Many of my constituents found that engagement refreshing and helpful. I was also delighted to welcome the Schools Minister to Haslingden high school, where we had a great morning with young people and the headteacher.
I am delighted that the Government’s ambitious road map for change recognises that the reforms cannot be piecemeal. It addresses the system as a whole. I do not have time to outline the many facets and focuses outlined in the White Paper, but I believe it starts to provide a road map for how we can deliver the change for every child, wherever they live, in order to end the postcode lottery in which they currently exist. A more consistent, earlier, clearer and fairer system is within reach. We need to be ambitious for our children, delivering expert SEND provision in every mainstream school, where no child is left behind.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
When addressing this subject, I think of the 16 years of surgeries I have had where parents have come in to explain their profound dissatisfaction with the way in which the evaluation of their child’s needs has been conducted. One of the most powerful examples was a constituent who came to me and said that their son has complex SEND needs, including: autism; ADHD; sensory processing disorder; demand avoidance; social, emotional and mental health; and severe anxiety and school trauma. They went on to tell me that for the last eight years, there had been a series of failings in dealing with their situation—an inadequate and inaccurate EHCP, and school placements and support failures—and then went on to tell me the enormous impact on their family.
I honestly believe that everyone in this place wants to get the right improvements to this broken system.
Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)
Two of my constituents, Tom and Emily—they are brother and sister—got EHCPs after tribunal fairly early, because their parents were so robust. They then only got suitable schools after tribunal, against the will of the local authority, because their parents were so robust. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with me that any reforms to the process must be enforceable?
John Glen
I do, but I want to address the key point that I think we all have to acknowledge. Between 2014 and 2023, there was a 140% expansion in the number of EHCPs to well over half a million. In generating that volume of demand, Members in all parts of the House—no matter who is in government—have to be honest about whether, given the budgets we have, we can actually provide solutions that meet the needs of every individual child. We are all trying to make the case to achieve that, whether through EHCPs giving us the legal backstop, or moving to an individual support plan in a school-based solution.
I want us to recognise that, in defining needs so much more broadly, we have created such a demand and expectation of the state. We have to be real about what we can and cannot provide. This is very delicate territory, because we are always concerned that we will be accused of denying that the needs exist, but what concerns me is that we will set expectations that the school will set up an individual definition of provision and it will not be met in exactly the same way that we have seen with the challenges over the past decade. There is a central tension in the White Paper that, as we move from a rights-based system of statutory entitlements to a resource-led system, the situation will automatically improve.
It seems to me that the representatives of those with unmet SEND provision and the charities are concerned that having set expectations in our country that EHCPs are legally enforceable, there will be an enforceability gap. With the proposed ISPs, although parents might have the right to a plan, they will not have the legal right to the provision it contains. If we standardise things over individual needs and move to a situation where we have nationally determined fixed packages of support, we will risk getting into exactly the situation that we have reached in recent years.
Cameron Thomas
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way once more. He is treading this compassionate tightrope very delicately. I have an organisation in my constituency called Children Lead The Way, which takes children who are struggling in the traditional setting outdoors, and some of those children are later able to go back into the school system. Rather than underdiagnosing, which, if we are not careful, might be the end result here, would the right hon. Gentleman be willing to accept that if we reconsider the settings, it is possible that children who are taken out of settings may later be reintroduced?
John Glen
Of course I do. This is where the problem is. If we move towards a standardised provision that is driven by central Government or a latest orthodoxy, we risk missing the flexibility that should and needs to exist on an individual basis.
There is a core point about which I am still uncomfortable. In a situation where, as in 2024-25, parents won 95% to 99% of tribunal cases, it appears that the system has defined needs that exist for which we cannot provide. We need to level with the country and with parents and say what we can provide and what we are actually unable to provide.
Jen Craft (Thurrock) (Lab)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way on that point?
John Glen
I will not have any more time, so I will not.
Let us not peddle a dishonesty by saying that we are going to deliver a perfect system. Frankly, we have got to the point where we need to look at the definitional parameters and get to a more honest conversation about how we are going to actually deal with this problem.
Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)
I declare my normal interests: my wife is a special needs co-ordinator in our local authority, the London borough of Bexley, and one of our children is in receipt of an EHCP. I know this journey; like other Members in the Chamber, I know the battles of being a parent in that position. I am the parent of twins and, as I have said before, I have had to battle for every single aspect of one child’s education and for no aspects of my other child’s education.
We have heard lots of criticism of what might be coming, and lots of criticism of the current system. Let us be frank: the current system is totally and utterly broken. I support the proposals because there are issues that we can put right, such as with Experts at Hand. I hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Ben Coleman) says about the health aspects—there are things we still need to get right there. Three years ago, my local authority ended up with an Ofsted judgment of systemic failings in our SEND system, and there was no way of holding our local NHS provision to account on those matters. We have to get that right. With Experts at Hand and that early intervention, there are things that we can do.
We have heard about the individual support plans. I have to ask why on earth we are making young people wait a year or two until their EHCP is updated, particularly for some young people whose plans do not have the complexity that my daughter’s has. We could get that early intervention much more quickly and provide that support at a much earlier stage.
We have heard about the issue of standardised provision. I turn to my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft), whose daughter’s needs are very different from my daughter’s needs. Within that issue, we need to look at the fact that some people need to be in mainstream education and some people need to be in a special school. We wonder why one in eight young people are not in education, employment or training, and why we have had the debate over welfare, but we isolate so many young people and then question why they are not available and ready to work.
The Minister knows that there are three issues that I think we can get right but about which I still have concerns: transition, getting those health aspects right, and support for professionals in the sector.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
Last week I held a roundtable on the White Paper with Dartford residents. Although they welcome the greater focus on schools providing quicker and more flexible support, they are nervous about the level of resourcing that will be available to schools. They are also worried about the accountability of schools to parents through the new complaints procedure and about the perceived loss of rights for families compared with the current system. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need reassurance from the Government on those issues?
Daniel Francis
I agree with my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour about those issues. We can get this right—I do genuinely believe that. I thank the Minister for the engagement she has had with the sector and Back Benchers like myself through this process so that we can get right both the consultation and legislative changes. We need to accept that we are dealing with a system that is totally broken. Like my hon. Friend, I held my own consultation. I will not go into detail on it, but I heard long and hard from those parents.
My borough has gone through many things—the Ofsted judgment, the safety valve, which was a ticking time bomb for so many of our families and their provision. I was a councillor for 20 years in the London borough of Bexley, and I saw the system change fundamentally. I was leader of the opposition on the council and my wife was actually employed by the authority as a special needs co-ordinator, and if a family like mine could not get through the system, how on earth can any parent expect to get through the system?
That is why I do support these changes. We need to get the early intervention right. We wonder why we have inherited the system we have today for children with disabilities and special educational needs, but we saw the loss of Sure Start, and many other changes happened in those long 14 years. I thank the Minister, and I will continue to challenge her, but I do support these changes.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Interventions do not allow other colleagues to speak. I call Chris Coghlan.
Chris Coghlan (Dorking and Horley) (LD)
I first want to address the comments from the right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen). I have enormous respect for him, but his underlying argument is flawed, because there is the same number of SEND children now as there was in 2010 and in 1978. The question is why the number fell so much up to 2016 and then rose, and I would suggest that the answer probably has something to do with the scrapping of Sure Start by my party and his, but that is for another day.
One month ago a SEN dad messaged me on Facebook about his autistic son, who has been out of school for seven years, with his tribunal delayed three times. He said that his son will now be out of education and employment for the rest of his life. He said that his son had been “left to rot” by his local authority and the NHS. I wrote to him to say how sorry I was. I suggested how he could get help and put him in touch with his MP, but then two weeks ago he wrote to me again. He said:
“My son is very unwell, and I can no longer carry on. I am mentally and physically exhausted, and I am electing to end my life. I intend to find peace. I simply cannot continue, and I refuse to see my son deteriorate further. There will be no one to care for him, so now the NHS will have to care for my son.”
We called 999 immediately, and the emergency services sent an ambulance.
We have seen too many families like this. I presented to the Government and published in The Times evidence that hundreds of SEND children are avoidably killing themselves due to public authority negligence. ITV has published evidence of misconduct and law breaking on SEND by 117 local authorities. I believe that the Government are serious about SEND reform, and I am grateful to the Minister for coming to Dorking tomorrow to meet Surrey SEND families, but family after family has testified to me that the legal rights that the Government are seeking to reduce can be the difference between life and death.
When a council officer determines that a child does not need an EHCP when they know that that child does in fact need an EHCP, that is serious misconduct. We know that this is happening on a massive scale because families win the resulting tribunals 98% of the time. Councils are betting that they can save money because the families are too exhausted to take them to tribunal. Children are killing themselves as a result.
Under-resourcing is no excuse.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
My hon. Friend mentions under-resourcing. At West Sussex county council, the department just put an answerphone message on its system saying, “We are overwhelmed. We cannot take any calls today.” Does he agree that the parents who are navigating the system and often describe it as a “fight” do not have the opportunity just to put their answerphone on or not show up for their kids that day because they are overwhelmed, and that we need to do far more for them?
Chris Coghlan
I entirely agree. An under-resourced officer can still determine need, still issue an EHCP and still be transparent about what cannot yet be delivered. That, at least, is honest.
I know that many council officers do the right thing, but when a council officer commits misconduct that results in an avoidable death, why are they not criminally prosecuted? Here we are, with pervasive local authority law breaking, hundreds of children avoidably killing themselves, and a Government who plan to cut the rights that can save their lives.
John Glen
The hon. Gentleman is making a very moving and powerful speech, but is not the reality that if every single EHCP was properly diagnosed and the need expressed, it would impose an honest but unachievable burden on the state? Will he acknowledge that and address how we come to terms with it?
Chris Coghlan
I thank the right hon. Member for his intervention and I completely disagree. Think about the autistic boy I was talking about at the start of my speech. He has been out of school for seven years and his father has quit his job to look after him. We have lost a lifetime’s earnings from that person and we have the costs of social services. I am convinced that by the time we take all that into account, an effective system based on effective early intervention, rigorous accountability for local authorities and legally enforceable rights would, in the long run, be far cheaper than what we have today.
The public will ask Members of this House what they knew about this scandal of hundreds of children avoidably killing themselves while there are myths about over-diagnosis and everything else, when they knew it, and what they did about it.
Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)
SEND provision is a fraught and highly emotional issue, because of the stakes at play: education, inclusion and, above all, dignity. I am pleased to see so many colleagues here from across the House, with the exception of only a couple of parties. Like others, I want to share the experiences of my constituents.
A few months ago, I met the senior leadership team at Cornwall Education Learning Trust, the organisation that runs the majority of the primary and secondary schools in my constituency. To their credit, they acknowledged that they have not always got things right, particularly in the wake of the pandemic. They were candid about the reason why, which is that, without an EHCP, they simply do not have the funding to support many of the children who need it most.
Demand for EHCPs is incredibly high. Cornwall council receives over 100 requests every single month, yet in 2024 it was ranked as the second-worst local authority in the entire country for issuing EHCPs within the required timeframe of 20 weeks. The causes are clear: a shortage of educational psychologists, the complexity of multi-agency co-ordination, and a system overwhelmed by demand. The consequences for children in my constituency are devastating, and I want to mention some of them.
One of my constituents has an adopted daughter with foetal alcohol spectrum disorder. Her school submitted a referral for an EHCP in March 2024. The council rejected it, her father fought back through appeals and a tribunal, and the council eventually conceded—an all-too-common farce, as we have heard. At the end of all that, the council still failed to produce a completed plan until 2026. That is two years of his daughter’s education lost. Another constituent has been waiting since August 2025 for the outcome of his daughter’s educational psychologist assessment. They are still waiting and his daughter remains without suitable provision. A third constituent’s son has not had appropriate education for a significant period. His school cannot meet his needs, he is not attending, and his family are waiting for an EHCP. Three families, three children, all failed by a system that was supposed to protect them.
The Government’s White Paper promises a £1.8 billion investment in specialist support, including educational psychologists, and commits to training over 200 more psychologists per year from 2026, putting mental health support in every school, and reducing the postcode lottery and the attainment gap. I welcome that ambition, but I say to Ministers that the consultation closes on 18 May and families cannot wait until 2029 for legislative change.
Charlotte Cane (Ely and East Cambridgeshire) (LD)
One of the things that shocked me most when I was elected was how much we are failing children with special educational needs. We all get those emails in our inbox, and they are heartrending. When we meet those parents, we can see the stress and the strain etched in their faces, and we can only imagine what it is like for the child to be in a school where they feel that they are not understood and they are not supported. How we are treating these people at the moment is shocking.
I really welcome the fact that the Government are trying to do something to change that situation and to make it better. I worry, though, that we need to make sure that there are the resources to deliver what those families deserve. Obviously that means money, but it also means the educational psychologists and the other expertise that we need, and proper training for all school staff so they know how to deal with the various needs of the children in their school. I also worry that parents cannot and must not lose the ability to take action to fight for their children’s rights.
Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)
Does my hon. Friend agree that strengthening inclusion in mainstream schools and maintaining legally enforceable protections for children and young people should not be competing games?
Charlotte Cane
I agree; we must not set things up in competition.
I would like to ask the Minister three questions. First, what is she going to do to make sure that every school in every area has the specialist resources it needs to deliver for its children? How is she going to make sure that rural areas such as mine in Ely and East Cambridgeshire have access to those resources for all schools and all children? It takes longer and therefore it costs more to get those across the area. What is she going to put in place to make sure that parents retain the right to fight for and enforce their children’s rights?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I did not want to intervene, because I could see that the Member was going to speak very briefly, but interventions are not helping other Members in the Chamber.
Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)
For too long, parents and carers in Gloucester have had to fight a broken system that was not delivering the best chance in life for their children. This Government inherited a SEND system that did not include parents and carers in the conversation, did not value their children and had led to a complete breakdown of trust between families and the system that was meant to support them. I am pleased that this Government have made fixing that system a top priority. As Gloucester’s MP, I have always believed that every child in my city deserves the best start in life, and I hope that these reforms will restore trust in the system and ensure that every child with SEND gets the support they deserve.
When I talk to constituents about SEND, I often hear the same reflection: the previous Government never listened to them, did not include them in those discussions and did not take them seriously. I know that Ministers have been clear that these reforms had to be done with parents and carers and families, and I am really pleased to see that they have made good on that promise and continue to do so; I hope that they will continue that approach through the latest consultation.
In my city of Gloucester, I have been listening to parents and carers too. I have met dozens of parents in my surgeries, I ran a community consultation so that families could say what they wanted to see in the White Paper, and I hosted a brilliant parents and carers roundtable in the city centre. From that, I was pleased to produce my “SEND in Gloucester” report, which I presented to the Minister earlier this year.
Residents made several recommendations in that report, and an important one was for there to be more support early on. Parents and carers felt that they often spotted the signs of additional need early, but it took years for any formal support to be introduced. Often the support would only come at a crisis point, when early intervention could have prevented the crisis in the first place. I also visited Dingley’s Promise early years centre in Coney Hill, which shows the benefits of early intervention and the importance of targeted support at the early years level. I am pleased that the Government have listened to the recommendations of Gloucester residents on early intervention by putting more money into early years as part of these reforms.
Another key takeaway from the report was a lack of funding and capacity for school special educational needs co-ordinators. Parents and carers repeatedly highlighted that many SENCOs are working tirelessly but are fighting the broken system. They felt that making SENCOs full time, providing high levels of specialist training and giving them a more senior role in schools could have a big impact. If I could make one ask of the Minister today, it would be to consider extending the Government’s commitment to providing the best possible school experience for children with SEND by providing for a full-time, fully qualified SENCO in every Gloucester school.
Finally, I have spoken to many residents since these reforms were announced. While the reaction has been mostly positive, I know that concerns remain in communities across my city, particularly among those families whose children are receiving an EOTAS package. I understand that, and I will continue to raise their voices with Ministers. I hope that the Minister will be able to give me some reassurance today. I want to again underline the importance of this moment. We must give our schools and teachers the resources they need to deliver for our children, we must rebuild trust with families who have been so badly let down in the past, and we must get these reforms right so that every child with SEND can have the best chance in life.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) on securing this debate. We have heard varying views on the question of demand, with some people saying that it has not gone up at all and that others saying it has. I have relied on the House of Commons Library to tell me that since 2015 demand for EHCPs has ballooned by 140% and that in 2025 there were 13 times more people waiting for an autism assessment than there were in 2019.
Hon. Members across the House have described very effectively the extraordinary diagnosis of a system that has been unable to meet demand, so I will not replay the tape. The 98% tribunal success rate is symptomatic of that, and it is pretty shocking. It shows that the system is having to be fought against systemically, which is deeply worrying. Members across the House have replayed case studies from their own inboxes, but I do not have time to go into the cases of child Y, child L, child F, child D and the many others, all of whom have finally come to their Member of Parliament because they could see no way through and because the computer had said no. It has come to that, for them, but that should not be the case.
In the time remaining, I want to take a strategic approach and look upstream. In March last year, the Secretary of State for Health said that he was sold on the idea that overdiagnosis was at the root cause of mental health illness. On 1 June, I asked the Secretary of State for Education whether any work was being done between her Department and the Health Department on what was causing the increased demand on the special educational needs system. She said that she was very concerned indeed about that. I then waited until 1 December before asking what she and the Health Secretary had done in the intervening seven months. I think it was the Minister for School Standards who kindly said that she was very concerned about it. Five days later, the Health Secretary announced that there was going to be a six-month study into the causes of the increase in demand on the special educational needs system, and that it would report in the summer. I do not think anyone is covering themselves in glory here. As a nation, we need to increase our understanding of this phenomenon that we are experiencing—
Jen Craft (Thurrock) (Lab)
I should like to declare an interest as a member of the all-party parliamentary group for special educational needs and disabilities and as the parent of a child with an EHCP. I congratulate the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) on securing the debate. This is a deeply important subject and, like many Members across the House, I have an inbox full of cases of SEND parents who are struggling under the current system. Let us be clear: it is absolutely broken.
There has been a lot of discussion about whether the current system, or indeed our society as a whole, has the ability to meet all presenting needs. I would like to clarify something: unmet need does not magically disappear. It does not just go away. It festers and grows, which is what we see under the current system. We see children’s needs not being met at the earliest opportunity and being met only when they reach an absolute crisis point. By and large, that is what happens, and we end up with a system that ultimately lets down children.
The need for SEND reform and the work that the Minister has undertaken on the White Paper goes to the heart of who we are as a party. Equitable and equal education for everyone goes to the heart of socialist, progressive politics, and that is who we are. It is crucial that a child is not excluded from receiving education on the same basis as their able-bodied peers just because they are disabled or have an additional need. It is completely unacceptable if that continues to happen to them. The system that we have is antagonistic and adversarial. It puts fight and struggle at the heart of what should be the norm for every parent: obtaining a decent education for their children.
I would like to speak to some of the concerns—I notice that I have a short amount of time left—around the White Paper, because some do remain. There needs to be accountability in the system. If it is going to work, parents, schools and councils have to trust that the system will work. Accountability is about understanding, if my child’s school—hypothetically and realistically—does not do what it is supposed to do, how I make the school do it and what recourse I have to ensure that it does so.
Jen Craft
We provide for it by meeting need at the earliest opportunity. It is about addressing it before it reaches crisis point, unlike the situation we are in now. We would not do this for any other condition. We would not say, “There are too many people out there with cancer—we should stop diagnosing cancer.” It would not work like that. We do not turn around and say, “Too many people are presenting a need”—we meet it. Imagine if we addressed the education system as a whole like we address SEND education—as a problem to be solved and not an opportunity that exists to create young people who are willing, equipped and able to go out into the world and shape our future society and our world. Why do we not see that opportunity for SEND children, as we do for the wider school population?
Jess Brown-Fuller
Does the hon. Lady agree that there is so much untapped potential in the parents who are currently trapped at home trying to support their children who are not being supported into schools? When I hosted a recent roundtable with parents in my constituency, I met ex-teachers, teaching assistants and educational psychologists, and none of them are at work because they are not being supported.
Jen Craft
I agree 100%. We could work out the lifetime cost of a parent being out of work to care for their child who should be in education or in a suitable school, or even the cost of a parent having to draw back from working a certain amount of hours or from reaching where they could go in their career because of the stress that the system puts on them. That leads to some of the concerns I have with the White Paper.
This White Paper has to work—I want to start from that basis—for families like mine, for people who are struggling and for people who see the current system as failing them. It has to work, and it is in danger of not working on a few points. No. 1 is trust, which I mentioned. The second one is the workforce. That cannot be solved by the Department for Education on its own. A crucial part of that workforce comes from the Department of Health and Social Care. The Secretary of State for Health must publish a statement on how he will deliver the SEND workforce, particularly the paediatric allied healthcare workforce. Otherwise, I am sorry to say that this plan will struggle to get off the ground.
Finally, if there is one thing that can be brought to this plan that will change how the system works and the stress and strain it puts on parents, it is support for parents. Quite often, parents feel like they are under attack. If your child receives a diagnosis of SEND, you feel like your parenting method, who you are and the benefits you bring to your family are constantly questioned, and you do not know where to go for support. If we can support parents to implement the same intervention measures at home, as well as giving them the respite they need and the support to know they are not alone and to be able to properly support their child through education, this White Paper can truly deliver on the promise it holds.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this profoundly important debate. I thank the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) for securing it. SEND is one of the most common and most urgent issues raised by struggling families and overstretched schools in my constituency of Dewsbury and Batley, as it is for all Members from across the House.
The situation cannot be allowed to continue. We all agree that the system is broken and needs to be improved. I welcome the fact that the Government have recognised the scale of the crisis and are attempting to bring forward wide-ranging reform, but good intentions must be matched by good policy. Consequently, I believe that a number of concerns must be addressed urgently if the reforms are to succeed.
First, on consultation, the Government have told us that their new framework is being shaped in partnership with families, schools and other stakeholders, but serious questions remain about the adequacy and scope of that consultation. Recent reports show that Members have been effectively guided by the Department of Education on how they should respond to the consultation. That risks fatally undermining confidence in the process; consultation must be genuine and transparent.
Secondly, on implementation, it is concerning that local authorities are already being instructed to begin reforming their systems by developing local plans and reshaping provision before the consultation has even concluded. That risks creating confusion, inconsistency and instability in a system that is already under immense strain, and it risks the perception that public consultation and consent for vital policy proposals are being treated as an afterthought, rather than as central to policy making process.
Thirdly, on capacity, ambitious reforms require the workforce to deliver them. We need clarity on how many trained professionals will be required, how initiatives such as the proposed experts-at-hand service will be staffed, and how training for teachers will be delivered. Without that detail, we run the risk of expectations outstripping reality.
Finally, on accountability, any changes to tribunal arrangements must not weaken families’ ability to challenge decisions, not least because they have been so successful in appealing them—we have heard the 99% figure. For many parents, the tribunal system is not an optional preference but a safeguard of last resort that must be preserved.
Will the Government ensure that the ongoing consultation genuinely reflects the voices of families, schools and experts? Will it provide clarity on workforce training and funding? Will it protect the rights of families to challenge decisions? Will it ensure that reforms are implemented in a way that is transparent, evidence-led and properly resourced and has built-in accountability? If we get this right, we can transform lives for the better, but if we get it wrong, children will bear the cost for years to come.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
We know the stories, the concerns, the trauma, and the battles and fights. Of course, we know the embedded inequality in the system, in which parents with little agency have little voice. But what is so important is that we recognise that the Children and Families Act 2014 ultimately never came with the funding, staffing, resourcing or culture change that were needed. I will focus on three things today: culture, resourcing and funding, and governance.
On culture, although we have heard about rising attainment for so many children, we know that other children just never get that opportunity. Their right to an education is denied. We must change the pedagogy in the education system to make it an inclusive environment, and to ensure that the high-stakes behaviours approach is ended, because it denies neuroatypical children an education. We must address that clash, which is still being driven by a results-based system, and consider children and their long-term future more holistically.
I certainly encourage the Minister to look at the work of Sir Ken Robinson, who understood that the system needs to be built around the child, as opposed to the child fitting into the system, and the importance of developing a nurturing environment. In York, we talk about belonging going beyond nurturing. We need to consider how we address the security that a child needs to thrive in any environment, putting that framing around the child and integrating it with a trauma-informed approach. We have heard about adoption today and the trauma that those children experience, but we know that so many children have adverse childhood experiences such as violence and neglect in the home and have challenging pasts that have intersected with their SEND needs, so we must ensure that that approach is put in place.
On funding, if we can move resources in this place to fund our national security, we can move funding to secure children’s security as well. We need to resource the system, and not only financially—although without that, it will never succeed—but also, as many have said, with a workforce plan that is integrated with the NHS workforce plan, so that we know when resources will come on stream.
That brings me to governance. Risk and responsibility sit in the wrong place in the system, which is why we must look at the impact of the academisation programme on where the lines of accountability are. It is almost impossible to hold those schools to account in the system we have now. I will certainly want to extend these discussions with the Minister when I get the opportunity.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. We have run out of time for Back-Bench contributions. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
9.35 pm
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
I thank the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) for introducing this debate. It is clear from the passionate contributions we have heard that the problems are widespread and the SEND system is completely broken. We have all heard the anguish of parents, and we have read the dreadful stories of desperate children who have lost their lives because of failures in this system.
In that context, I welcome the Government’s recent White Paper as an important step in the right direction. We have to address the growing need and, as the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) said so passionately, we cannot limit provision because there is too much need. The earlier we identify need and start addressing it, the better the outcomes will be for children, parents, families and society as a whole.
We have had to wait for this White Paper, but putting the delays to one side, we are here now and the Liberal Democrats welcome the central focus on inclusion through improving support in mainstream settings. If children with SEND can attend a local school, they can stay connected with their friends and be part of their local community, and their family can engage better with their school. Inclusion bases are welcome, and they include the one being opened at King Edward VI community college in my constituency, with a focus on bringing children back into school after dropping out, following a difficult transition into year 7, and helping them to become part of the school community again. This model has good potential to succeed if properly resourced. However, many questions remain about funding, children’s rights and staffing.
On funding, the £4 billion pledge to accompany the upcoming reforms, plus capital spending and the council debt write-off, are welcome, but we are worried that the Government are holding councils to ransom by tying this debt relief to restrictions on special school expansion. The Government must also provide clarity on where the new funding, including the council deficit write-off, is coming from. The Liberal Democrats are very concerned that other areas of the wider schools budget may be cut, even though there is nothing left to give. The Government have introduced some good policies but have failed to fully fund them, including breakfast clubs, the expansion of free school meals, even teacher pay rises, and, today, the healthy school standards. That will be more expensive, so will it be fully funded for schools?
Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)
Will my hon. Friend give way on that point?
Caroline Voaden
I am sorry, but I do not have enough time.
Schools and local authorities are already at breaking point and are now being asked to deliver even more, including running two SEND systems in parallel during the transition period.
On parental rights, parents have expressed deep concern about changes to the tribunal system. Removing power from SEND tribunals to direct a local authority to name a specific setting will give parents even less opportunity to choose a setting that suits their child. Given that currently 99% of tribunal cases are won by families against the local authority, how can we trust that local authorities will suddenly start getting it right under the new system?
The Liberal Democrats are clear that stripping back parents’ ability to challenge the system is unacceptable. The anxiety of parents is understandable. Many are worried that their child will lose existing support or not receive the support they need under the new system. Will the Minister guarantee that legal rights will not be stripped away, that settled placements will not be disrupted, and that accountability, including meaningful routes of appeal, will remain strong and effective? It is absolutely vital that children and families remain at the heart of these reforms and retain the key rights that they have.
On staffing, we welcome the Experts at Hand service to embed specialists such as speech and language therapists and educational psychologists into mainstream schools, but we need a credible workforce plan to see how the Government are going to recruit and train all the staff needed and encourage trained specialists back into the profession. I am concerned about the need for more learning support staff—the people who are absolutely crucial to delivering these reforms and ensuring that mainstream inclusion works effectively. Schools are being forced to cut learning support staff due to the financial pressures they are facing, but a SEND system focused on inclusion simply cannot be implemented without them, so I would like to hear further detail from the Minister about how the Government believe schools can deliver an inclusive approach for all children without funding more support staff.
Away from budgets and staffing, there are other changes that we can make in the way that we run our schools that would make them accessible for all children. Curriculum reform is vital to inclusion. Learning how to express and process emotion through music, drama, creative arts, sport and outdoor play is vital not just for children’s mental health, but for their emotional development, and it simply must be given more space. We believe that the current direction of travel is the right one, but all these reforms must be fully funded, fully staffed and fully consulted upon with those who will be impacted most by the changes—the parents and the children with SEND who are so often not heard.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)
I thank Members from across the House for contributing to a wide-ranging and passionate debate about an issue that affects each and every one of us, and many of our constituents. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) for securing this important debate. He has been a passionate and determined champion for parents of children with special educational needs, and I thank him for all his hard work in this area. He was pragmatic and constructive, and he reflected what I have also heard from many parents, teachers and council leaders. I thank all the people who have contributed to the debate, specifically the parents who have reached out to have their voices heard today.
This issue affects each and every one of us. While I will focus on the much-delayed White Paper, let me be clear to the Minister that His Majesty’s Opposition will work constructively with the Government where we see that meaningful progress can be made. I acknowledge that the system is creaking under its own weight. Since I was elected in 2019, almost weekly I have met parents who are tired of fighting a system that was designed to help them and that enshrines their rights in law, but has become a barrier to supporting their children. I have campaigned for those parents, so I want these reforms to work, but I say to the Minister that Opposition Members will not shy away from asking questions that are difficult for the Government to answer. We will not allow the Government to spin their way out of this, because too much is at stake. I hope that she can work constructively with me in that spirit.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
I am inundated with correspondence from constituents from across Keighley and the wider Bradford district challenging the quality of EHCPs and the diagnosis procedure. One of my big concerns is that the White Paper reforms will lead to a standardised approach associated with the ISPs that will be rolled out. Does the shadow Minister agree with me about the direction that these reforms are going in under this Labour Government?
Saqib Bhatti
My hon. Friend makes the same point that has been made to me by many parents about the one-size-fits-all approach of these reforms. I want to give the Minister the opportunity to try to reassure some of those parents, because parents want answers and the children and families who are affected deserve them.
I have spoken to many parents and representative groups. There is a huge amount of anxiety about these reforms—a view that is shared by many parent-carer forums—which has not been helped by the delay to the White Paper or the drip-drip briefings suggesting that EHCPs would simply be scrapped. The Conservative position is clear: any reforms that come forward must enshrine parental rights in law and the Government must not water down those rights.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Mr Vince, you have just stumbled into the Chamber—I don’t think so.
Saqib Bhatti
I will take your lead, Madam Deputy Speaker.
There is very little detail in the White Paper around deliverability. That concern has been raised to me by a number of council leaders, headteachers and parents. Even the Office for Budget Responsibility, the Government’s own independent watchdog, explicitly says that the impact of reform on underlying costs remains “uncertain”. It is for the Minister to provide that certainty, but the OBR is not convinced that the reforms will close the funding gap. When the Labour party was in opposition, it had 14 years to think about what it wanted to do, so I hope that the Minister can provide some of those answers today.
The issue of timelines was raised during the debate. We all agree that the reforms are urgently needed, but full implementation is not expected until 2028-29 at the earliest. Changes to EHCPs will not begin until around September 2030, so a child who is now six will be 10 or 11 before they and their family feel any difference from any reforms. For a family with a teenager, reform will never arrive in time. That point was made by the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Noah Law). Will the Minister tell the House, according to her analysis, how many children will have left school entirely before a single EHCP reform takes effect?
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
Parents in my constituency who have been in the SEND system are really fearful that we will have the White Paper and more change will be proposed, when the key element of delivery is local councils. The problem is that the situation is so patchy. Some councils are absolutely appalling—one in my area had an excoriating report—but others manage; nobody is brilliant, but some try to get by and do the EHCPs. How are we going to tackle patchy delivery?
Saqib Bhatti
I will come to councils and their funding shortly, but my right hon. Friend makes a really valid point. I hope the Minister heard him and will be able to provide an answer.
A number of parents have written to me, asking if I can put their questions directly to the Minister. Natasha and Lindy want to know why a dilution of parental rights has been proposed. Why are the Government removing the legal right to appeal, especially when 98% of cases are currently won by parents and carers? My right hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) made this point very eloquently. If the logic is to reduce the cost of provision by removing some of those rights, the Minister should say so plainly. Parents need that clarity and that level of honesty.
We do welcome some points, including the principle of support in schools, evidence-led packages, and the idea of more speech and language therapists. There is broad consensus that earlier intervention is essential, and a statement of intent on that is most welcome. I want to focus briefly on speech and language therapists, because I campaigned on this issue as a Back-Bench MP with my constituent Mikey Akers and the famous footballer Chris Kamara. We met the relevant Health Minister more than a year ago; as Mikey said, in March 2024, he met the Minister for Care, the hon. Member for Aberafan Maesteg (Stephen Kinnock), who promised an action plan for speech and language therapy, but more than one year on we still have not seen anything.
A point has been raised about liaising with the Department of Health and Social Care. Has the Minister spoken to the Health Minister? Has there been any progress? The Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists has been very clear that delivering the Experts at Hand service will require an SLT workforce to be incorporated into the 10-year workforce plan, with ringfenced funding. In a written question in March, I asked the Minister how many speech and language therapists will be required to deliver the Experts at Hand service. She gave a great answer, but she avoided giving me the answer that I needed on numbers, so I hope she can answer how many specialists will be needed and where they will come from.
The British Dyslexia Association has also posed a question to me. One in three children in our classrooms need support for dyslexia. Will the Minister confirm whether the Experts at Hand service will include support for children with dyslexia, and whether specialist dyslexia teachers will form part of that workforce?
Let me turn to inclusion in the mainstream. At a recent meeting with Solihull school leaders last month, I heard serious concerns about the capacity pressures that the Government’s approach could place on mainstream schools. There was consensus around the principles, but there was also consensus that far more detail is needed on what inclusion actually means in policy terms and how gaps in staff training and funding will be filled.
Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)
I am grateful to my constituency neighbour for giving way. I was in the same meeting, and one of the big concerns was the loss of the special school planned for Tamworth Lane. Does my hon. Friend agree that that not only detracts from parents and pupils who would benefit, but puts additional pressures on mainstream schools?
Saqib Bhatti
I could not have said it better myself. That issue was in my borough, but the truth is that there are special schools across the country where the funding has been taken away. This is going to be essential, because we cannot have a one-size-fits-all approach. Will the Minister explain to those teachers how mainstream schools will be supported in terms of capacity, funding and training as these reforms are rolled out? The founder of the North Solihull Additional Needs Support Group has asked if there will be a legal backing for ISPs, and a number of Members have also made points on enforceability.
I want to get straight to the funding point, which is where I will end my remarks. At the Budget, the OBR identified a £6 billion SEND funding black hole. When the Minister was asked about that previously, she used the word “scaremongering”, but these are not our figures; they are figures from the OBR, based on information provided by the Government. Will the Minister confirm how large the shortfall is? Having looked at the numbers, I think it has shortened, but maybe she will be able to give a bit more clarity. If the gap was funded entirely from in the DFE’s £69 billion budget, it would imply a 4.9% real fall in mainstream schools’ spending per pupil—this is according to the OBR, by the way. There is no spending review until 2028-29, so maybe the Minister can give me some clarity on which Departments might be giving up their money for the sake of these SEND reforms. I hope she can provide some answers; I will write to her with the questions that I have not been able to ask.
The Minister for School Standards (Georgia Gould)
I am grateful for the huge interest across the Chamber in this critically important issue. Tonight, we heard from so many different Members of Parliament the voices of children and families; I thank MPs for the efforts they have made to listen to those children and families, and to bring their voices to me personally and into the Chamber. I appreciate the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) for bringing this important debate to the House and for his long-standing support for children with special educational needs and disabilities. I think we have all heard the depth and strength of concern, and the agreement that at the moment, the system is broken and not working for so many families.
Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)
Will the Minister give way?
Georgia Gould
I do not have much time, so I am not going to take interventions. I want to be able to answer the points that have been put to me.
Too many children have been left without provision, and parents try to explain to their children why they are not at school alongside their friends. Too many parents are having to battle—we have heard the word “fight” time and time again in this conversation. I say to the hon. Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti) and to everyone else in the Chamber that I am committed to working constructively and on a cross-party basis on this issue. It is too important to not take all views into account and work together, so I really welcome opportunities to talk to individuals about the issues that have been raised in the debate. However, I will not apologise for taking longer to develop these reforms, because that time has been spent talking to thousands of parents, young people and teachers around the country to make sure their voices were embedded in what we put out for consultation. I also make no apology for taking time to transition into these reforms. As we have heard from so many Members across the Chamber, trust is low, and it is really important that we build the new system with children and families.
That does not mean, though, that we are not acting now. The investment we have been talking about is going into our communities straightaway, whether that is the £3.7 billion that we are already starting to invest in specialist places around the country or the £4 billion that we are investing in the services we have talked about today: Experts at Hand, the educational psychologists and speech and language therapists who will now be available to local schools; and the inclusive mainstream fund, which will be going directly into schools. Those are huge investments that this Government are making. The OBR made its projections before it had seen our reform plans and the huge investments we are making, including new investment going in during 2028-29, which I know the hon. Member for Meriden and Solihull East will have seen.
I agree wholeheartedly with everyone who has raised the importance of early intervention and of putting in as much support as possible as quickly as possible. So many families have told me that if support had been available much quicker, their needs would not have escalated—they would not be out of education and would not have needed to leave their local schools. We have also heard about the importance of inclusion. My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) spoke powerfully about why it is so critical that children with special educational needs and disabilities are at the heart of the education system. They have so much to offer, and every school should be an inclusive school, but that does not mean that we do not also need special schools, and the £3.7 billion of investment I have talked about will create new specialist places.
Let me turn to the points made by the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon. First and most importantly, our intention in these reforms is to improve outcomes for children. That is our guiding principle—our No. 1 outcome. The hon. Member mentioned the long waiting lists to which so many families are exposed. Addressing those waits is the point of the reforms. We are putting in place educational psychologists, speech and language therapists, and so many others, so that schools can draw on them and children can access that support without a lengthy wait or a battle for an EHCP and a diagnosis. Under our reform plans, that provision will be available as part of the mainstream system.
Critically, education, health and care plans will remain, and they will be available for children who need them. We know that too many children are forced to apply to get an EHCP because their needs are not being met in mainstream schools. The majority of children with special educational needs and disabilities in our school system do not have an EHCP, but are on the SEND register. They are the children who are often being badly let down. Our reforms will extend rights for those children, including new statutory duties on schools to develop inclusion plans and individual support plans. There will be new layers of support with targeted and targeted plus, new national standards, and new duties on teacher training. My hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Juliet Campbell) spoke powerfully about the importance of teacher training, with every single teacher trained to support children with special educational needs and disabilities, so that every class is accessible.
As ever, my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) talked expertly about the issue. We are grateful for the work of her Committee and the huge amount of time it put in to its report. I will address her points about transition and accountability within the transition. There are safeguards that I think will reassure parents: every child who is in a special school will remain in a special school, we will build the new system before anyone transitions into that new system, and somebody with an existing EHCP will move on to either an EHCP or an individual support plan, and that will be backed by the tribunal.
There were lots of questions about individual support plans and accountability. Ofsted will be looking at individual support plans and developing a new complaints process with an independent role. Importantly, if a family does not feel that their needs are being met by the mainstream system, they will still be able to request a needs assessment and that will be backed by the tribunal. There will still be access to the tribunal, and the tribunal will remain an important part of the system.
We do not want families to have to go to a tribunal, though. We want to deliver a system that works, where families’ voices are put at the heart of decision making and where accountability sits not on the shoulders of families, but that it is for us—the Department for Education, the Department of Health and Social Care, and the Government—to hold local authorities to account. I was asked why we are we going ahead with local SEND reform plans and asking councils to develop them. We are clear that councils need to deliver today for children with special educational needs and disabilities; as we have heard in the debate, there is too much failure and we are determined to hold councils to account.
We are committed to a full consultation. We welcome comments on every aspect of these proposals, and I ask everyone in this Chamber to make sure that you are holding events, talking to your constituents and pointing them towards the consultation, because this is a generational opportunity to change the system. Families have been failed for too long, and it is only by listening to them that we will get this right.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
There were far too many uses of “you” and “your” throughout speeches today. Members need to check the language they use. I call Gregory Stafford to wind up.
Gregory Stafford
Madam Deputy Speaker, I am sure that you would agree that the speeches we have heard today have been wide-ranging and passionate. I thank all those who have spoken, all those who unfortunately did not manage to speak and the many Members who supported this debate. I am leading it, but plenty of Members across the House supported it, and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting it.
The one thing that united every speaker in this debate was a clear desire to improve a system that is not working for young people in our constituencies. We may disagree about the exact process to get there, but I say to the Minister that nobody in this House is expressing anything other than what they have heard from their own constituents. In some cases, that may be support for the Government’s proposals, but we have to be honest that many of our constituents are expressing concerns. The Minister should not squander this Government’s opportunity. I know there are antibodies from Government Members whenever I open my mouth about anything, but I am passionate about this issue, and I think that we—together, on both sides of the House—can improve what the Government are doing and ensure that the legal protections remain, while improving the system.
I hope that the Minister will be able to answer in writing a number of the questions asked by Members across the House that she was unable to answer at the Dispatch Box. I also hope that she will assess the responses to the White Paper with an open mind, with the aim of ensuring that every child has a legal right to the education that he or she deserves.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House believes that SEND is an issue that affects every constituency; acknowledges that all hon. Members represent families who face daily challenges in navigating a system that can feel complex, inconsistent and under-resourced; further believes that ensuring that every child, regardless of their needs, has access to the education, care and opportunities they deserve is not only a matter of policy but of fairness and equality; notes that despite commitments, progress on reform remains slow; further notes the time taken to publish the White Paper entitled Every Child Achieving and Thriving which was bitterly disappointing for families struggling to secure the support their children need; and agrees that it is vital that SEND remains high on the Government’s agenda and that Parliament continues to hold a spotlight on the challenges faced by children, parents, schools and local authorities.