SEND Provision and Funding

Debbie Abrahams Excerpts

Thursday 11th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

We can be said to be a decent and humane society only if we have done our utmost to provide help and support for the most vulnerable children in our communities. We should be able to proclaim not only that we provide for reasonable levels of material wellbeing for such children, but that we are also allowing them access to the education they need to better their lives. On both counts, this Government have failed, but one of their most glaring failures is the failure to provide the necessary funding for the educational requirements of children with special educational needs and disabilities.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

Is my hon. Friend as concerned as I am about the regional inequalities in respect of both the prevalence of EHCPs and the inadequate resourcing that reflects this particular need?

[Ian Lavery]

I thank my hon. Friend for that very clear intervention, and I will deal with that point later in my contribution.

As a nation, we generally fail to make education provision the priority that it deserves to be. We can develop a modern and diverse economy only if we have people with the necessary skills and knowledge that such an economy requires. Most importantly, our working-class children will continue to be held back if we do not prioritise the proper funding of our schools and further education colleges. Shamefully, the UK spends only 4.2% of our national income on education, compared with the average of 5% spent by OECD members.

When one considers the financial resources provided for the educational needs for pupils with SEND, one sees that the underfunding is even more pronounced. According to the f40 organisation, which represents the 40 local authorities with the lowest amount of education funding, an additional £4.6 billion for baseline funding is required to make up that shortfall. Without this additional spending, children with SEND will not find the places they deserve in either mainstream or specialist schools. Yet at a time when more SEND funding is so desperately needed, the funding is actually decreasing.

In September 2023, my local authority, Northumberland County Council, reported that the number of EHCPs in Northumberland is increasing by 10% per year. Increased need should, of course, be met by increased funding, but central Government have increased the element for SEND funding within their grant to the council by only 8.84%. Indeed, over the past four years there has been growth of 72% in the number of EHCPs, while funding from the DfE has increased by only 42%—it is unbelievable.

In 2023-24, for the first time, the Northumberland schools high needs block will overspend. Expectations for April 2025 are even worse, and there will be a minus 12% deficit at the minimum. On a positive note, there are more learners with SEND having their needs well meet in Northumberland schools than ever before. That is testament to the fantastic work of the school and local authority staff, who are finding way to continue amid the chaos, but they are being stretched to the limit. I want to pay tribute to the staff, pupils and parents at The Dales School, Cleaswell Hill School, Collingwood School and Castle School, among others in my constituency, which continue to do a fantastic job. Shockingly, however, the amount per SEND child per year allocated by the Government is £10,000—an amount that has been frozen for 11 years. Costs pressures on all schools have increased greatly, yet the amount per child with SEND has remained frozen for more than a decade—that is astonishing.

Many children with SEND can only attend schools that have the physical environment that is appropriate for them. That requires ensuring that their schools have, at all times, the adjustments in layout and means of access that these children must have. Some students with SEND also need specialist electronic education equipment and IT provision. Those needs can be met only with adequate capital spending. Last summer, the Government announced £2.6 billion of increased capital funding for the support of specialist provision, yet that has to be assessed within the context of the 80% cut in devolved school capital funding that was made in 2011-12, at the time of the Tory and Liberal Democrat coalition Government, which of course has led to the current school repair bill of £11 billion. This increase also does not reflect the recent inflation in construction costs and it is grossly inadequate.

It also has to be remembered that when local authorities are unable to provide their own places for children with SEND, they often have to pay for expensive private schools to take them, putting further strains on their budgets. Students aged 16 to 25 with SEND need access to further education in order to enrol in the courses they want and to maximise their full potential, both academically and in their future employment prospects. There are specialist further education colleges for some students with SEND, which are more costly for local authorities and do not have adequate places to meet demand. Those FE colleges may be best for some, but many would benefit from enrolling in mainstream further education.

There are wider social issues at stake. Parents who cannot find specialist places for their children with SEND are often forced to care for their children at home. As recently reported by the BBC, that can take its toll on such families, in terms of both finances and mental health. The parents can find themselves isolated, stressed and depressed. Moreover, they are unable to work and, in many cases, are forced to rely on benefits. Instead of concentrating on helping families by increasing funding so that children can attend schools that meet their needs, the Prime Minister this weekend seemed to be interested only in depriving the sick and disabled of their benefits.

In conclusion, we have to address the lack of fair funding for SEND schools. There cannot be any further cuts or delays.

Scotland’s Fiscal Framework

Debbie Abrahams Excerpts

Wednesday 24th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[David Mundell]

As my hon. Friend asks for complex calculations, I will certainly be happy to write to him in that regard. Although I respect his strongly held views in relation to the Barnett formula, I have to say that the Government’s clear position is that the Barnett formula is being retained.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

Following yesterday’s devastating votes on the Lords amendments to the Welfare Reform and Work Bill, can the Secretary of State say a little more about when welfare powers will be transferred to Scotland, so that at least in Scotland we can do something to prevent the appalling effects of poverty on children and disabled people?

[David Mundell]

Obviously, I do not agree with the hon. Lady’s perspective on specific policies, but she is right that the Scottish Parliament will now have specific and detailed responsibilities in relation to welfare. We have a joint ministerial group on welfare, which includes myself and Scottish Ministers Alex Neil and Roseanna Cunningham, and we look to work though that group on the transfer of the specific powers. We do not want a transfer of power without new arrangements being in place, because the people in receipt of the benefits must be our prime concern. We will work closely together. An enormous amount of work has been done by officials to date and I am confident that once we know what the Scottish Government’s proposals are—we do not know fully—we will be able to make an effective transition.

Scotland Bill

Debbie Abrahams Excerpts

Monday 8th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Ian Murray]

If the right hon. Gentleman wishes me to make some progress, I will come on to those very issues. Let me remind him that the devolution settlement was agreed to by all five parties on the Smith commission. The Bill that is in front of us is to ensure that the Smith agreement is put forward in full, and we want to ensure that it is put forward in full both in spirit and in substance, as I have said twice already. [Interruption.] I hear someone chuntering, “It doesn’t” from a sedentary position. Well, we are going through this parliamentary process and will seek to amend the Bill precisely because we want to ensure that it does fulfil everything in the Smith agreement, but we also want to go further.

We will seek to amend the Bill to go beyond the Smith agreement without compromising on the pooling and sharing of resources across the UK that guarantees the Barnett formula and the UK pension system for Scots. On welfare, we will ensure that the final say on benefit levels remains in Scotland by giving the Scottish Parliament a wider power to top up all reserve benefits. We will ensure that the Scottish Parliament can introduce new benefits in devolved areas funded from Scotland to meet Scottish circumstances; bring employment and welfare policy together with a positive vision for tackling the low skills, numeracy and literacy problems that hold back adults trapped in long-term unemployment; fully devolve housing benefit; and ensure double devolution by devolving job creation powers to local communities, providing real opportunities, as my private Member’s Bill demonstrated at the tail end of the previous Parliament.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a very good speech. Will the ability to top up social security payments enable the Scottish Parliament to get rid of welfare vouchers that were introduced earlier this year?

[Ian Murray]

That goes to the heart of some of the discussions that we will have in this Chamber during the five days we will spend considering this Bill, as some of the choices that the Scottish Parliament have made fly in the face of its rhetoric both of being anti-austerity and of looking after the most vulnerable. With the £444 million underspend in the Scottish Parliament budget last year, many of the questions just raised by my hon. Friend will be asked by ordinary Scots up and down the country.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson), although it would certainly have been more of a pleasure if he had taken my intervention earlier. I will ask the question that I would have asked then. He made the point that the end of the SNP Members’ amendment says that they want full fiscal autonomy “in the medium term”. Would he care to tell the House when the medium term is? They were talking about a period of 18 months when the referendum was taking place.

The hon. Gentleman did say something that was correct: the people have spoken. The people spoke in the general election, and there is absolutely no question but that there is a mandate for the Bill before us. It is absolutely right that Members from both sides of the House move forward with the vow and all it means in a way that shows trust and good faith, and we will do that.

I will make a number of observations about the fiscal framework, and I would be interested to hear Ministers come back on those points. In his initial remarks, the Secretary of State used the phrase that the solution had to be long lasting and fair, which are big words. My concern is that a solution based on a fiscal framework that is not fair will not be long lasting. I do not believe that the use of the Barnett formula, as it is currently envisaged—even with changes through the devolution of certain revenue-raising powers—is fair on my constituents, or indeed those in Wales or in other parts of England. The flawed Barnett formula settlement is unfair on middle England, and as a result, this whole settlement may unwind.

Let me say a few things about the Barnett formula on which we need to be clear. The first is that it does not represent a subsidy to Scotland, or it has not over the past 25 to 30 years. I have never said that it did. Broadly speaking, the extra money that Scotland gets—£1,600 per head—has been paid for by the proceeds of Scotland’s oil. We can look at the analysis year by year, but the Institute of Directors analysis has said that that, roughly speaking, has been the case over the past 25 to 30 years. It is not a question of subsidy, but of fairness and of need. When we are allocating public spending across our state, there should be cognisance of where that money is required to be spent to have the biggest impact. Indeed, a progressive party—we are continually told that the SNP is progressive—should surely be at the forefront of wanting a formula based on need.

[Debbie Abrahams]

Will the hon. Gentleman therefore explain why he has taken £254 per household from my constituency in Oldham and given it to an affluent area in Surrey?

[David Mowat]

I have not taken any money from anyone, or given any money to anyone. The hon. Lady’s constituents in Oldham receive roughly £1,600 a year less from public spending than they would receive if they had the same demographic profile and lived north of the border. That is an anomaly, and it is an anomaly that causes a potential risk to a settlement that is necessary and right.

Conservative Members do not question the fact that there is a Scottish Government now, and that that Government have entitlements.