SEND Provision and Reform

Gregory Stafford Excerpts

Monday 13th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[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.

[Ben Coleman (Chelsea and Fulham) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[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.”

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[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—]

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.