SEND Provision and Reform
Ben Coleman Excerpts(2 weeks, 5 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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.
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.
Oral Answers to Questions
Ben Coleman Excerpts(2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
Ben Coleman (Chelsea and Fulham) (Lab)
Jo Platt (Leigh and Atherton) (Lab/Co-op)
Bridget Phillipson
Yes, I am happy to give my hon. Friend that commitment. We will ensure that every secondary school, and a similar number of primary schools, have that kind of support, and we will work with local authorities to set up specialist bases. As part of our £3.7 billion high-need capital investment, we will create 60,000 new specialist places nationwide to make sure that more children get the specialist support they deserve. I encourage parents and staff in his constituency and across Cannock Chase to share their views during the consultation period.
Ben Coleman
This plan is to be welcomed. It rightly recognises that families of children with SEND are absolutely exhausted from having to fight and battle for the support they need. I therefore strongly welcome the commitment to end that and to give over 1 million children, for the first time, legally enforceable rights through the individual support plans. But concerns have been expressed to me that, without clear enforcement, ISPs risk repeating the same problem, so can the Secretary of State tell me what happens if a school does not follow a child’s plan? Will parents have a legal right to enforce what an ISP says? In short, how will the Government ensure that these are genuine entitlements and not just more promises that families have to battle to see honoured?
Children with SEND: Assessments and Support
Ben Coleman Excerpts(7 months, 2 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster 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
Ben Coleman (Chelsea and Fulham) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dr Allin-Khan. In my constituency, 158 families signed the petition. We have heard that too many disabled children, not just in my constituency of Chelsea and Fulham, but across the country, are being let down. Parents feel that they must fight every step of the way just to get the help that their children are entitled to.
One problem is that under current law, schools are only required to use their “best endeavours” to support children with special educational needs. That is quite a vague obligation. Some schools—including in my constituency—step up magnificently, but others, under financial pressure, reduce or remove support and nothing holds them to account.
The results are stark. A recent survey found that 60% of disabled children who do not have an education, health and care plan are avoiding school due to the lack of support. Because of this broken system, families are often cruelly forced into—as we have heard—lengthy and difficult procedures to get EHCPs, even though their children’s needs could have been met earlier through proper support in mainstream schools if it existed. As we have heard, that is driving up costs, with councils having to pay for expensive private placements to the extent that some are in significant distress.
I welcome the Government’s confirmation that the legal right to assessment support is going to be retained, but we need stronger, clearer protections for disabled children’s education. That is why I support a proposal from the charities Contact and IPSEA to amend section 66 of the Children and Families Act 2014. Let us replace the vague phrase “best endeavours” with clear statutory duties, so that schools are legally required to identify a child’s needs, put a plan in writing, and either deliver that support or refer the case to the local authority. If funding accompanies those new rights, we will reduce the cost of EHCPs, because people will not want to get them as much, and we will reduce the cost of tribunals and costly private provision.
Josh Babarinde
The hon. Gentleman can thank me for intervening. He talks about costs and legal requirements, but does he agree that in many areas hedge-fund-backed independent specialist schools are taking cash from our starving system? There is no cap on their profits, they do not have to report on their attainment and they do not have the same level of transparency as maintained schools. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we need to get to grips with the unscrupulous hedge-fund-backed providers, to make sure that kids and families are not taken advantage of?
Ben Coleman
I am most grateful for that question, for many reasons. There is a huge problem with private equity hedge-funds going into private education, just as they have gone into care homes. That problem needs to be addressed, first, by making provision in the state sector much better than it is now. It should be as good as it can be so that people do not find they need an EHCP, because the SEND support is there anyway, and if they do get one, their needs can be met in the state sector and we do not have to go to the expensive private sector. That is why I hope that in the Budget the Treasury will see the need for funding proper SEND provision, because that will save money in the long term. The Treasury does not like the term “invest to save”, but I think it is a good one in this context.
We have a wonderful new Minister. I commend her for the time she has already spent listening to families and teachers. I hope she will now act, in co-production with families, to put SEND support on a solid legal footing, to ditch the Conservatives’ legacy of failure and to build an education system in which every child matters.
Several hon. Members rose—
Home-to-School Transport: Children with SEND
Ben Coleman Excerpts(1 year, 4 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster 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
Ben Coleman (Chelsea and Fulham) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) for securing this debate. It is fantastic to see so many hon. Members and hon. Friends sticking up for disabled children and young people and their families. That reflects the focus that we have had on SEND in this new Parliament.
According to Contact, a charity for families with disabled children aged 25 or under, 79% of disabled young people are being denied or charged for school transport when they turn 16. One in 10 of them pays more than £1,000 a year, and nearly half of families experience increased stress and financial difficulties. Although I am pleased that in Fulham, which is part of my constituency, the Labour council has chosen not to charge for transport and to maintain free educational transport for disabled children and young people up to the age of 25, I recognise from all that I have heard today and all that I know that that is far from being the case elsewhere. We need to end that unfairness and change the statutory framework, and we need to make free educational transport available to all up to the age of 25.
Finally, I encourage those who want to know more about the significant additional costs of caring for disabled children and young people to come to an event that I will be chairing in the Thatcher Room tomorrow at 5.30 pm, at which Contact will launch new research into this issue.
Primary School Breakfast Clubs
Ben Coleman Excerpts(1 year, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Dhesi
I thank my hon. Friend and fellow member of the Defence Committee—not only has he been a passionate advocate on defence, but he has advocated for his constituents on numerous matters today. I fully concur with his views. I have attended various Magic Breakfast events and seen some of the great work done by charities; it is wonderful and heartening to see that there are people who care within our community, but it should not be just up to charities. This is an issue affecting everybody within society, and it is great to see a new Labour Government taking leadership on it.
Ben Coleman (Chelsea and Fulham) (Lab)
In the Fulham part of my constituency, children in primary schools have enjoyed free breakfasts since 2019. The council initially negotiated that from developers and now it pays for them itself. It has also started providing free school lunches at one of the schools in Fulham. Does my hon. Friend agree that the threshold for children to receive free school meals is currently far too high, and that we ought to be aiming for every child to be given a free breakfast and a free lunch, to avoid the stigma that can damage children’s confidence and impair their performance?
Mr Dhesi
It is wonderful to see some of the work happening within my hon. Friend’s constituency. That is another aspect of this debate, because normally his constituency would be associated with being more affluent, but among all of our constituencies there are pockets of serious social deprivation and children going without the meals that are required. I am sure that the Minister will have heard his views and I am hopeful that in due course that is something that the Government may well be able to implement.
Free breakfast clubs are about fighting not only poverty, but obesity. In Slough, shockingly, 26% of children aged 11 to 12 are obese. We also see a higher-than-average prevalence of cardiovascular diseases.