SEND Provision and Reform

Claire Young Excerpts

Monday 13th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[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.

Oral Answers to Questions

Claire Young Excerpts

Monday 2nd March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Bridget Phillipson]

I agree with my hon. Friend. This is about how we can deliver more support earlier to a much larger number of children than is the case at the moment: EHCP-like support without the fight to get that EHCP. There is already brilliant practice out there, showing the best of what can be achieved when schools work together with parents. We saw that last year when I visited Golborne All Saints Catholic primary in her community—a real beacon of what can be achieved. We want to see more of that, and the extra investment will make that possible in more schools and in more parts of the country.

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

The Government have made some welcome commitments on education, but schools are then left to fulfil them. We have seen with free school meals, breakfast clubs and teacher pay awards that each time the funding falls short, and headteachers are left to make up the difference from budgets that are already on their knees. With the “experts at hand” service, can the Secretary of State guarantee that not a single school will have to raid its core budget to deliver this support?

[Bridget Phillipson]

This is significant extra investment of £4 billion, above and beyond what schools have already been told will be coming their way. In so many of the areas that the hon. Lady mentions, such as breakfast clubs and the expansion of free school meals, we are putting significant extra investment into ensuring that all children can achieve and thrive. We know that so many of the barriers that children face to thrive in education go well beyond the school gate, and our Government are tackling them.

Oral Answers to Questions

Claire Young Excerpts

Monday 20th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Josh MacAlister]

England is an international outlier by not requiring the registration of electively home-educated children, and we are remedying that with the Bill’s measures. Information on non-educational activities will not be required for inclusion in the registers. I will happily meet my hon. Friend to discuss this further.

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

Time and again in my constituency surgeries, I hear stories of children’s needs going unrecognised and unsupported for years. Given the aim of increasing mainstream inclusion, what are the Government doing to ensure that all teachers receive comprehensive SEND training?

[Georgia Gould]

Teacher training is an incredibly important part of mainstream inclusion and, from this September, we have changed the core teacher training to ensure that it includes SEND content. We are also supporting early years provision to have specialist SEND support, alongside the wider work to support mainstream inclusion.

Children with SEND: Assessments and Support

Claire Young Excerpts

Monday 15th September 2025 Westminster Hall

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

I thank the 257 constituents in Thornbury and Yate who signed the petition. I want to focus on one symptom of the broken system: emotionally based school non-attendance. Children whose needs are not met can struggle to attend school and, too often, the response is to punish the parents rather than to provide extra support. As a sign at the rally earlier today said:

“EBSNA is not a crime, provision not punishment, stop prosecuting parents”.

Talking tough is not the answer. The relentless focus on exam results and strict zero tolerance behaviour policies create an environment that can be hostile for children with additional needs. I hear from parents in my surgeries that policies have been applied without reasonable adjustments for disabilities. It is only in a compassionate and supportive environment that a child can be helped to move beyond their current comfort zone. Making schools more inclusive has to be about more than physical changes to the buildings; it requires an overhaul of culture and practices.

Beyond stopping prosecutions, I believe that we need to switch the focus from attendance at school to engagement with education. A child in isolation is attending, but often is not engaging, and for some, engagement might require a period outside a traditional school environment.

I have spoken to senior educational psychologists who are frustrated that the Department for Education, under successive Governments, has failed to engage with them on this issue. I have also spoken to charities, including Contact, Square Peg and Not Fine in School, and I urge Ministers to meet them with me to discuss attendance in more depth.

Not supporting children with SEND is not just bad for children, but bad for society as a whole. Whatever the new system looks like, it must give legal backing to ensure that all children get an appropriate education, and it must see parents as partners, not adversaries, in that.

Government Support for Ukrainians

Claire Young Excerpts

Monday 21st July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Martin Wrigley]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention and I absolutely agree.

Ukrainians are scared of what happens next, and we have no answer for them. They see reports of their countrymen being refused asylum in the UK because it is said to be safe to return to Ukraine, even while Putin’s drones explode in Ukraine’s cities in record numbers.

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. He is making an important point. I have heard from a number of Ukrainians—particularly those from the east of the country—who cannot return home, as their home towns have been destroyed. They are looking for a more permanent solution than the temporary solution that we have. They have integrated well into British society. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government should look at a permanent solution for people in that situation?

[Martin Wrigley]

Yes, I believe that we should be looking for a permanent solution and a permanent answer for the Ukrainians, and that is why I asked the Prime Minister about it last week. His answer was more positive than before, and he even appeared to say that another 18 months would be added. I ask the Minister to clarify that statement.

Department for Education

Claire Young Excerpts

Tuesday 24th June 2025 Commons Chamber

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

As we know, not all local education authorities are created equal. For those like South Gloucestershire, where schools are among the lowest funded in the country, the average rise quoted will not make up for years of underfunding. As I recently raised in this House, it is reported that two thirds of South Gloucestershire schools will be in the red next year, which is having a massive impact on children and young people in my constituency.

I shall set out some of the pressures that are making that situation worse and ask the Minister how the spending review will help to tackle them. The first is the underfunding of staff costs. The Government are not fully funding the 4% pay-rise for teachers and are expecting schools to find a quarter of the amount from efficiencies within their budgets. Coupled with the underfunded national insurance reimbursement, this is placing a massive pressure on budgets. Can the Minister explain what these efficiencies would look like. I can tell her what things already look like in our schools before these cuts. In my local schools, clubs, trips and activities have been axed. Qualified teaching assistants have been replaced by cheaper apprentices. Class sizes have been breached and staff shared across year groups, or even across several schools. Each school will be asked to cough up tens of thousands of pounds that they simply do not have, and this will disproportionately hit small rural schools where the staff budget makes up a high proportion of the total.

SEND pose challenges nationwide, but areas such as South Gloucestershire where school funding is lowest and where schools have struggled with a huge high-needs deficit, are hit particularly hard. The spending review says in relation to SEND that the Government will

“set out further details on supporting local authorities as we transition to a reformed system as part of the upcoming local government funding reform consultation.”

There is, however, no reference to the legacy safety valve agreements. The two-year extension of the statutory override is a temporary relief and does not solve the underlying problem. Schools and local authorities need to be able to plan ahead, so what assurances can the Minister give authorities such as South Gloucestershire whose safety valve agreements are coming to an end, and when will those authorities have certainty about the future funding arrangements?

[Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)]

Councils are being asked to deliver SEND services without sufficient funding, to which my hon. Friend has alluded, and that creates a postcode lottery for families, with children waiting months to receive support. Does she agree that we urgently need SEND funding reform, including removing the £6,000 school contribution to end the postcode lottery, so that we can deliver the support that children need?

[Claire Young]

I agree with what my hon. Friend says. Schools are disincentivised from taking action on special educational needs if they know that they have to fund the first £6,000.

Finally, I highlight the pressure of free school meals and breakfast clubs. Although the extension of that provision is of course welcome, the funding does not recognise that schools are already having to subsidise school meals due to rising costs, and those subsidies will now increase. Schools in my area tell me that they declined to join the breakfast club pilot due to the lack of funding. One school I spoke to was expecting 67p per child for non-pupil premium children and 88p for pupil premium children. That non-pupil premium price represents less than 15% of the break-even cost for their current breakfast club. Yet again, these schools would have to subsidise at the expense of other activities.

Behind the headline numbers are schools in crisis, especially in constituencies such as mine where they have been routinely underfunded for years. I hope the Minister can provide reassurance for my constituents that the headline figures will translate into fair funding for South Gloucestershire.

SEND Funding

Claire Young Excerpts

Thursday 12th June 2025 Commons Chamber

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

Schools in my constituency are among the lowest-funded in the country, and there is a lack of resource for early intervention work before children get to the point of needing SEND support or an EHCP, which means that more children will need a higher level of intervention later. It is a vicious circle. The lack of money to act early means that more money must be transferred from the schools block to the high-needs block, reducing still further the funding for early intervention.

South Gloucestershire is one of the local authorities that entered into a safety-valve agreement with the previous Government. It faces a cliff edge when that agreement ends next April, and as yet there is no certainty about what comes next. A great deal of work has been done by the council and schools working in SEND clusters, but the deficit has continued to increase. The agreement was signed pre-covid—we all know about the impact that the pandemic had on demand for additional support—and as a result the targets in the agreement are completely unachievable. Safety-valve agreements have not worked. Will the Government write off those historical deficits and find a new fairer funding formula?

I support the Government’s focus on inclusion, early intervention and preventive support to make that possible for more children. However, we need to recognise that there are children and young people already in the system who did not get that support, and schools need the funding to support them now. One of the reasons for the historical deficit in south Gloucestershire is the lack of specialist places locally, which has resulted in high numbers of expensive out-of-area placements. Those are bad for children, who would be better off being educated in their local community, so that they did not face excessive travel or need a residential place, and they are bad for the school budget.

[Iqbal Mohamed]

The hon. Member makes a really important point about early intervention. The current funding models respond only to high-level need and EHCPs, which leads to an over-reliance on costly EHCPs and new special school places. Does she agree that we should look to allocate a ringfenced proportion of the high-needs funding to early intervention in mainstream schools?

[Claire Young]

That is one approach, but we need to ensure that it does not take away from the high-needs approach. The point is that we have to fund both early intervention and the high-level needs that have resulted from the lack of early intervention.

The previous Government declined to fund an additional 200 special school placements when they signed the safety-valve agreement. When I met the Minister for School Standards, she did so too, saying that the focus is on providing places in the mainstream. Increased inclusion is a sound ongoing policy, but pupils cannot make the switch overnight. We need a fairer distribution of capital funding as well as revenue funding.

Another issue with SEND funding is the notional £6,000. To give one example, a headteacher locally told me that more than 60% of their allocation goes on the high number of children with EHCPs they have on roll, leaving less than 40% to support all the other children on the record of need. School funding does not recognise that there can be great disparities between communities and schools, even in the same local authority area. Some acquire a reputation for being good at supporting those with additional needs and suffer financial consequences, and some communities in an authority have greater need than others. The formula for distributing SEND funding and more general schools funding does not reflect that, and it means that schools in different parts of the country with similar cohorts are treated very differently.

[Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)]

This is clearly a national crisis. Cornwall ranks 144th out of 151 local authorities for per-pupil SEND funding, and children with SEND needs in Cornwall get almost half the funding of those in Middlesbrough. Does my hon. Friend agree that this gross funding unfairness should be urgently addressed?

[Claire Young]

Absolutely. South Gloucestershire is in an even worse position, and I am sure all the authorities in the f40 group would agree.

Yesterday, I raised with the Prime Minister one of the impacts that lack of support for SEND has on families. He did not take up my request for a meeting, but I hope he will consider meeting me to discuss this aspect of the issue, and meeting charities that represent parents who are in this situation. Of course, the lack of support for children with special educational needs has many other impacts; I simply do not have time to go into all of them today.

We need overall SEND funding to reflect the level of need. We need more funding during the transition to greater inclusion, to reflect the fact that we will be supporting people with a high level of need, as well as funding early intervention. We need a national body for SEND to end the postcode lottery, and to fund the very high-need cases that cost over £25,000 a year, and schools need funding to be distributed in a way that reflects their needs, not some overall and potentially flawed perception by their local authority.

Free School Meals

Claire Young Excerpts

Thursday 5th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

After this, we have two Select Committee statements and two Backbench Business debates. If colleagues do not keep their questions short, they are just denying others the opportunity to speak.

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

Vulnerable children spend many weeks each year—during the holidays—not at school. My own Liberal Democrat-Labour partnership local authority provides funding in the form of vouchers during the school holidays. Will the Government take this opportunity to end holiday hunger and provide funding for food during the holidays?

[Stephen Morgan]

We have invested more than £200 million in the holiday activities and food programme, which supports children, offers enrichment opportunities and provides good-quality food during the Christmas, Easter and summer provision. That is a fantastic programme that I know Members across this House welcome, and a key part of our plan to ensure that every child can succeed and thrive.

Maths: Contribution to the UK

Claire Young Excerpts

Thursday 5th June 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Vickers. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire (Ian Sollom) for securing this debate. Like him, I have a deep affection for maths. In fact, I would probably go further and say that I am a maths nerd. And, like him, I believe that it still influences my thinking now, including here in Parliament. I love maths for its own sake. I was inspired as a child by watching shows such as Johnny Ball’s “Think of a Number”, I was only too happy to get a scientific calculator for my 11th birthday—I am not sure many 11-year-olds would be—and I went on to study maths at university, so I could not pass up the opportunity to contribute to this debate.

Having said that I love maths for its own sake, though, I want to make the case that mathematics does not just contribute to our country in the headline-grabbing ways highlighted by my hon. Friend, such as AI innovation, although those are obviously very important. I believe that having a mathematically literate population can contribute to our society in myriad smaller ways, too, by ensuring that we can all think critically about what we are told, and make better decisions about our own lives.

There is a somewhat old-fashioned idea that, as long as people can work out their change when shopping, that is all the maths they need. It is true that basic numeracy is important, even in a world where we are more likely to wave our cards at a machine than to pay with cash, and where, contrary to teachers’ expectations in the 1980s, most of us do carry calculators around with us. From working out how long it is until the train or bus, or measuring whether that flat-pack furniture will fit in our living rooms before we buy it, to scaling up a cake recipe, there are plenty of ways in which basic arithmetic matters, but I think the importance of mathematics to every one of us goes way beyond that.

In a world where we are bombarded with information and misinformation daily, mathematics is vital to the critical thinking that stops us getting scammed and helps us to make truly informed decisions on matters such as healthcare and our personal finances. I will illustrate that with an example from a few years ago, when the BBC reported:

“Teenagers whose parents smoke are four times more likely to take it up themselves, experts have warned.”

There was an absolute bombardment of people saying that that was rubbish because their parents smoked and they did not, but let us look at the figures. What the article said was that

“4.9% of teenagers whose parents smoke have taken it up too. By contrast, only 1.2% of teenagers whose parents do not smoke begin to do so.”

It was absolutely right to say “four times more likely” but, even with parents who smoke, the vast majority—more than 95%—will not go on to smoke themselves. Those misunderstandings reoccur across many examples of scientific and medical stories in our mainstream press.

If we do not understand numbers, how can we make truly informed decisions about medical treatment? Do we really understand what a one-in-a-thousand risk of a side effect is? What does it mean if a contraceptive is 95% effective? What does it mean, in absolute numbers, for a treatment to carry a 10% increased risk of a type of cancer if the original risk was extremely low, and how does that compare with the risks of not having the treatment?

I think it became evident during the pandemic that people—including some at the highest levels of Government, apparently—did not understand the concept of exponential growth. We heard from Lord Vallance in the covid inquiry that the Prime Minister at the time had been “bamboozled” by graphs. He apparently wrote in his diary:

“Watching the PM get his head round stats is awful. He finds relative and absolute risk almost impossible to understand.”

Most of us will not have to lead the country through a pandemic, thank goodness, but we do need to make decisions about our own lives.

When it comes to school education, I can understand the sentiment of those who wanted to extend maths, but doing another two years of what has already not been working does not make any sense. I would rather see a focus on rebalancing the curriculum to 16, and ensuring that we have specialist maths teachers to deliver that and inspire our young people today.

I often speak on the subject of special educational needs, so before I finish, I will briefly say something about dyscalculia. Schools in England have a responsibility to identify and support students with special educational needs arising from specific learning difficulties, and that includes dyscalculia. But there is no requirement for teachers to learn about it; it is poorly understood and awareness is very low among both professionals and parents. Given that maths is so important to our lives and that dyscalculia is about having difficulty with understanding number-based information, I make a plea that it should be taken more seriously.

School Teachers’ Review Body: Recommendations

Claire Young Excerpts

Thursday 22nd May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Catherine McKinnell]

I could not have put it better myself.

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

The Minister has admitted that not all schools will be fully funded, but blames that on the choices that schools have made about their staff. Does she accept that schools cannot fully control the profile of their staff, and that in some cases—I make this point in a letter to the Minister—schools choose to pay people in higher bands because of the increasingly high needs that they are expected to support? Will she meet me to discuss how she will protect schools with particularly high staffing budgets from having to make excessive cuts?

[Catherine McKinnell]

I am not really sure about the premise of the hon. Lady’s question, or what she thinks may or may not have been said ahead of publication of the written ministerial statement, which is due at 1 pm today. I have made it clear that schools are funded not in a uniform manner, but according to a whole range of requirements that they may have within their school population and their area. It is a complex formula that is intended to ensure fairness across the school funding system. Indeed, we are looking at the system to ensure that it is as fair as it can be, but it is not without its complexities, so we are taking the time to get this right. We will continue to do so, because we recognise that schools need the autonomy to decide how they spend their budget, how they best deploy their resources, and how they maximise the outcomes for children, using the resources allocated by the Government. We also recognise that schools need support to do that, and we will continue to ensure that they have the tools to maximise the outcomes for children.