(1 week, 4 days ago)
Westminster HallWestminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin) for securing this crucial debate. The number of people in the Chamber and the power of the testimony that we have heard are testament to how important the issue is to our constituents across the country.
Since I was elected as MP for Surrey Heath, special educational needs has been the single biggest issue to dominate my email inbox. That is a refrain that we have heard from many other Members. It is bigger than housing and the cost of living crisis—it is even bigger than potholes. That is because, certainly in Surrey, there is a deep and ongoing SEND crisis. Right now, I have more than 140 active cases involving children with special educational needs, many because Surrey county council has issued EHCPs in the wrong names, describing the wrong conditions or offering wrong and inappropriate packages of support. Those EHCPs often come only after weeks and months of parents fighting and advocating for their children and asking SEND co-ordinators at the schools to do the same.
Over the past three years, Surrey has had the highest number of tribunal appeals anywhere in the country—a fact that, very unfortunately, it chose to hide from its own scrutiny committee for more than 14 months and that the leader of Surrey county council denied in writing to Surrey’s Lib Dem MPs. Children, broken and neglected by the system, have attempted suicide. Parents, shattered by endless roadblocks and barriers, become permanent carers for their children, who cannot be placed in schools—and at what economic cost? SENCOs and teachers, already stretched to breaking point, spend their days chasing paperwork instead of supporting pupils.
An ITV investigation recently revealed that when parents lodged official complaints, Surrey county council—with a sleight of hand and a swift move of the pen—simply reclassified those complaints as inquiries in order to massage those problematic figures downwards. Zooming out across England, councils are carrying a hidden SEND deficit of almost £5 billion, as the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) said, parked off their books by a temporary accounting override that ends in March 2026. When that expires, more than 60 local authorities face the risk of insolvency overnight.
Ministers promised a White Paper this spring to recalibrate the system; now we are told that the Department for Education cannot commit to publishing plans for at least six months. Many parents consider that uncertainty an insult. Their lives revolve around EHCP reviews, tribunal appeals and statutory deadlines. Rumours abound that the Government may attempt to scale back or even scrap the EHCP and replace it with a narrower, potentially cheaper framework. Let me be absolutely clear: they cannot, and should not, remove statutory protections before they have built the capacity to replace them. Removing EHCP rights in a vacuum would strand families in legal and emotional limbo and potentially drive councils even closer to collapse.
The Liberal Democrats believe that reform of the SEND system is long overdue—I think that is a position shared across the House—and to guide that reform we have set out a five-point plan. I want to highlight just three of those key points. First, in any changes, we must put children and families at the forefront of reform. Reform cannot be done to families; it must be done with them. They are essential partners in redesigning a system that shapes their children’s futures.
Secondly, we must recognise that inclusion and specialist support are not opposing ideas. We need both inclusion in mainstream and specialist capacity where each is appropriate. They need to be boosted in parallel. Right now, 67 specialist free schools approved by the Government are currently stuck in limbo waiting to open. That is 67 communities left in the lurch. At the same time, councils should be empowered to open specialist hubs within mainstream schools and allowed to get on with it without tripping over Government red tape. Inclusion only works when it is resourced. Without resource, it becomes exclusion by another name.
Finally, we must support local government to do its job. That means reforming a system where private SEND providers, too often backed by hedge funds, extract eye-watering profits. I have heard in my own area of fees being charged in excess of £130,000 a year for access to independent private provision—more than double the average cost of educating a child with special educational needs. That is not an attack on the independent sector, but it is an attack on profiteering on the backs of the most vulnerable.
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is very difficult to measure accountability in these schools? Where does accountability sit, and how do parents know that their children are achieving in those schools?
Accountability is very often opacity. I have certainly seen examples of schools charging those fees I have just mentioned, in excess of £130,000 a year, with extremely opaque governance structures, so I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s intervention.
We also need a fair funding guarantee and ringfenced central support for every child whose assessed needs exceed a defined cost threshold. Councils should never be forced to choose between their budgets and a child’s future. I say to the Minister, in the spirit of cross-party support and in the desire to ensure a better system for the future, “We share your concern about the broken system—but any reform must start with strengthening rights, not dismantling them.” That is why the Lib Dems are calling for a new national SEND body, an independent commission to oversee the most complex cases, guarantees of fair funding and performance tracking across England.
I hope that we can come together across this House to publish a White Paper within three months, with clear timelines, resourcing and genuine co-production with parents and families. We need to extend the high-needs deficit override until councils are properly supported. Let us open every delayed special school in this Parliament, so that no child is left without a place. We must seize this opportunity, this moment, to get SEND reform right, before any more children are failed in Surrey or across these isles.
(2 weeks, 4 days ago)
Westminster HallWestminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
I was happy not to wind up, but you have now made me stand up, Sir Jeremy. We have had a good and constructive debate. I am grateful to the Minister for his engagement, and to all colleagues for taking part.
Please accept my apologies for my late attendance in the Chamber. I was at the statement in the main Chamber on the Horizon scandal, which is perhaps another example of overreliance on technology—the human eye was identifying issues that people could see. My experience comes mostly from the higher education sector, where colleagues I have spoken to report far greater incidence of the use of AI. It is so clever that it is generating false sources to back up incorrect claims, but with incredibly plausible use of academic names in order to make profound points. I wonder whether we now face a reality in which AI might be used not only for marking, but for the marking of AI-generated material.
Indeed—computers talking to computers, with us as the facilitators. The hon. Gentleman makes a good point.
I will conclude by repeating something I said much earlier in my remarks. We should always remember that, at whatever pace we, the education system or, certainly, Government can work, young people will work at a pace six times faster. I am, again, grateful to the Minister.
Question put and agreed to.
That this House has considered the use of generative artificial intelligence in schools.
(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberI welcome the investment for our teachers, school buildings, free school meals and SEND support, but I remain concerned about SEND provision in Somerset. I know from personal experience and from listening to constituents just how much of a difference giving SEND children the support they need can make. Teachers go above and beyond to give children in their classes the education they deserve, but we have a SEND system in crisis. It feels like we have gone backwards from when I was at school, which is, I am sorry to say, thanks to the cuts made under the previous Conservative Government over many years. As in so many other areas of life, parents in Yeovil are often left with a losing draw in a postcode lottery, waiting months to get the support their children deserve.
There are two really effective ways that the Department can invest its budget to improve the outcome for SEND children at school. The backlog for education, health and care plans is too high in Somerset, and it is of course right that Somerset council receives more money to urgently support EHCP provision, but not every SEND child needs an EHCP for support. Instead, we urgently need universal screening for neurodiverse conditions at primary schools. That would be a fantastic way of empowering teachers to identify the individual needs of children in their classes and to adapt their teaching.
I speak to lots of special educational needs co-ordinators in many schools in and around my constituency, and they always tell me that the earlier the diagnosis, the better, and the more a child can be put on a path towards effective learning. Does my hon. Friend regret, as I do, the loss of Sure Start centres, which were one of the very best ways of identifying those learning conditions as early as possible?
(1 month, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberYes, we continue to keep that under review, especially ahead of the further expansion of childcare in September. The figures will be published in the usual way, and we will make sure that we have the workforce there to deliver on the commitments that have been made. I say to the hon. Lady that in addition to almost doubling the early years pupil premium, we put in place a £75 million expansion grant to make sure that ahead of the further roll-out in September, all our early years settings can deliver the places that are needed.
In my constituency there are more than 130 active cases involving children with special educational needs, many of which involve education, health and care plans that were either denied or issued in such a poor state that they contained the wrong names and described the wrong conditions, and therefore offered completely inappropriate packages of support. Given that Surrey county council has the highest number of tribunal cases against it every year—most of which are lost—may I ask whether the Secretary of State intends to reduce the rights associated with EHCPs, and whether she will do what so many parents ask me about and launch an immediate investigation into the council and its compliance with its legal obligation?
The hon. Gentleman has raised a number of important questions. I will certainly look into the issues relating to Surrey that we have discussed previously, and will then come back to him. As for support for children with special educational needs and disabilities, he has made the case for reform very precisely. The current system is simply not working, and the Government are determined to ensure that children get more timely early support and that we have a system that is based much more on need. As part of the process leading to the schools White Paper that will come later in the year, I am engaging with parents, campaigners and others, and I would be more than happy to discuss the matter further with Liberal Democrat colleagues in order to understand their concerns.
(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Westminster HallWestminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Yes to all those things. It is important to recognise that if we give people a sense of excitement of being in the outdoors, we open their imagination to making those sorts of choices in their studies and careers and later in their private life.
I am grateful to the outdoor education professionals who share their expertise with me regularly. They identify the barriers to young people accessing outdoor education, which include the steady erosion of school budgets. Outdoor education is seen as a nice add-on, but not essential, so it gets downgraded or dropped altogether to save money. Schools either do not do outdoor education visits at all or they reduce them from week-long to two-day affairs, with worse outcomes as a consequence.
There is also a culture of risk aversion that infects schools, teacher training institutions and society as a whole. Over the last couple of generations, we have sought to protect our children from danger and the unpredictable to such an extent that we have perhaps done them greater harm by denying them experiences that would have given them resilience, wisdom and better mental and physical health.
Over my years as the Member of Parliament for Westmorland and Lonsdale, I have seen trends in the issues that local people seek my help with at my surgeries, on the doorsteps and via my inbox. The issue that has grown most in volume is the utter tragedy of worsening mental health among our young people. I will continue to fight for every one of those young people and for their loving but often terrified families to get the care they need through mental health services, but why can we not choose to do something radical today that will reduce the number of people suffering mental ill health in the first place?
The outdoors is the antidote to many of our ills. Time on outdoor residentials pulls us out of our comfort zone. It makes us rely on others and experience the scary wonder of being relied upon by others. It teaches us that we can do things we thought were impossible. It nurtures an ability to solve problems and to rise above the panic that freezes us when crises hit. It builds relationships and the capacity to form friendships, skills that are transferable and, above all, the resilience to help us cope with the stuff that life will chuck at us.
My hon. Friend’s rich evocation of outdoor education reminds me to reflect on my own time doing things like the Duke of Edinburgh’s award. Although Surrey Heath might not have the soaring topographies of his constituency, what we do have is extraordinary outdoor education provision such as Briars Field forest school, which provides vital outdoor education, particularly for young children with special educational needs who otherwise could not access mainstream classrooms. Will my hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to those offerings that provide a genuine alternative to the classroom and profoundly change young people’s mental health?
Absolutely. That builds on what I am saying. When it comes to poor mental health, it feels like we are figuratively fishing struggling people out of water, when perhaps what we really need to do is build their resilience so that they do not fall in in the first place. Ironically, of course, we do that in part by pushing people into the water—after an entirely appropriate risk assessment, of course.
Education and policy of successive Governments has failed to prioritise outdoor education to the extent that it has become for many a nice luxury at best, rather than the essential that it ought to be.
(3 months, 3 weeks ago)
Westminster HallWestminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Vickers. There is a real mismatch between the Chancellor’s growth agenda and the policies impacting the higher education funding landscape that we inherited. As has been highlighted, every £1 of public investment into university research generates £14 in economic output—but scale up, add in the direct, indirect and productivity overspill, and we are talking about £15.2 billion returned to the Exchequer from a £2.49 billion investment. The N8 Research Partnership universities have an economic impact greater than the whole of the premier league. We know that this is of significant value, and we must honour that. If £1 billion is deducted from UK Research and Innovation investment, we are talking a 42% fall in that return. That is poor for the economy and the UK industry, and catastrophic for universities and students—22,000 jobs could be lost. That must not happen.
We also must be aware that the demands of UK industrial ambition far exceed the supply of graduates that we are currently producing. We are all alerted to the falling roll that will hit higher education by 2030—another 11 million graduates will need to be found to fuel our economy into the future—yet last year we saw 5,000 jobs cut in the academic year. This is a real challenge. If we are going to realise the knowledge and scientific, innovative and technical opportunity that this country presents to the world, we must have a global outlook on the investment we must make into higher education.
There have been many factors impacting universities, many of which we have heard. On international students, I urge the Minister to make representation to the Home Office to ensure that dependants can accompany academics and students as they come to this country, and that we look again at visa costs and NHS surcharges. That will enable people to come our country to put in to it and bring benefits—including the economic benefit that we know has been deeply damaged with the change in visa rules.
We also must address our relationship with the EU, which we got so much out of. We must address a deeper relationship with Horizon, look at Erasmus again, and ensure that we are getting the very best academics, researchers, staff and students from across the EU. We must also give our students the opportunity to travel overseas and make it more attractive to engage in higher education.
The pain has been felt in York. There are two universities in my constituency: York St John University has removed 70 vacant posts and deleted 30 posts, while the University of York has already seen 273 leave. I know from talking to the unions just last week that the pressure is there once again. It is having a real impact on staff and academics as well as students. We know about the mental health challenges and the stress that people are experiencing, and those workloads are going up.
As an academic in recovery, currently working as a visiting professor at Royal Holloway, University of London on Monday mornings before Parliament sits, what the hon. Lady is saying resonates with me very powerfully. Today, Royal Holloway announced a voluntary severance scheme. I remember that moment in 2016, after the Brexit referendum, when our international student numbers fell off a cliff. Britain cannot claim to be a genuine world leader in many things, but in our university sector we absolutely can. We have the second largest number of Nobel prizes of any country. Does the hon. Lady agree that, to paraphrase Joni Mitchell, we won’t know what we’ve lost until it’s gone?
I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman, and thank him for participating in this debate and bringing his experience. The referendum was nine years ago, and the country was in a very different place then. We must address that, but also look at opportunities to put funding into the sector.
It is clear that the funding model is broken. We know that students cannot continue to pay higher tuition fees, and nor should they. The funding model needs to shift. I support a progressive taxation system, because whether someone earns more money because they are a graduate or through other means, I believe the more they earn, the more they should put into the system. In York, where the cost of living is exceedingly high, students are breaking. They are working more hours than they are studying, and as a result some are not even able to complete their course. That is not the kind of education system that we want, so we must revisit the funding model. Tweaking around the edges is not enough. We are missing opportunities for the economic future of our country. In York, there are the bioeconomy, digital and advanced rail opportunities, safer automation and the digital creative sector. They need these graduates and academics, and we need our universities to remain.
(6 months ago)
Westminster HallWestminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman) for securing the debate. Parents in my constituency of Surrey Heath will know all too well the failures of Surrey county council to deliver an effective SEND system. In 2023, only 16.2% of EHCPs were issued in the statutory 22-week period. Even though Surrey county council now celebrates a frankly miraculous rise to 70% issuance of EHCPs in the statutory 22 weeks in the latter half of 2024, parents tell me that those EHCPs are coming back with the wrong name or date of birth, describing the wrong conditions and offering inappropriate packages of support. It is, of course, parents, families and children who suffer the consequences of that.
My constituents tell me that some of their children have attempted to take their own lives. Other parents have had to leave full-time employment in order to become permanent carers for their children, which is bad for them, their family, their family finances and the economy. Timeliness and quality are not mutually exclusive, and they are essential components of good EHCPs. Our children deserve better, as do the families, the educators and the professionals who are becoming permanent advocates on their behalf.
(7 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberThe Government’s ambition is that all children with special educational needs receive the right support to succeed, where possible in mainstream schools. We will strengthen accountability and improve inclusivity through Ofsted, and we will support professionals to develop their SEND expertise. High needs funding will increase by almost £1 billion in the next spending year.
Across Surrey last year, more than 1,800 children with special educational needs were absent from school for more than a third of the time. Special educational needs co-ordinators are incredibly frustrated that EHCPs are coming back from our local council with the wrong names, describing the wrong conditions and offering the wrong packages of care. Teachers are stretched, headteachers cannot stretch their budgets any further, and one or both parents are having to give up employment to look after their children, yet the leadership of Surrey county council has said that there is not a problem with special educational needs, but that there are parents who are too articulate. Would the Minister please meet me and SENCOs to discuss this very serious—
Order. Can I just say to the hon. Gentleman that it is much easier if he gets to the question, instead of having all the preamble? I cannot get other people in. I think the question was clear.